Worst decision a woman could make

[Notbeingrobbed]

As a working mother with two children to support, my divorce has made me see that getting married was the worst financial decision I ever made.

I have been the higher earner so will lose a big chunk of the money that I have made throughout my life. I also have the kids to support (happy to).

My ex will get a big payout having benefitted from my income as well as his own for years.

Why would any modern woman marry? Oh, because we are all influenced by society (and hormones) to think it’s a good thing.

People say I am arguing like a man. But the law was surely designed to protect a stay-at-home mother with children from a husband who leaves. Not to protect a layabout-at-home father?

Notbeinggrobbed I agree! But marriage is usually a commitment in front of God. Why did you marry?

I married because it’s a normal human need to want to cement a relationship and have a family in a secure environment. That’s what I thought it would be. The reality is I worked extremely hard both inside and outside the home to support my children and build a life while I carried a passenger, a parasite actually. He did earn and contribute but, as we say with the EU, he was not a net contributor.

I stuck with it because I wanted what everyone else seemed to have - a happy family. I wanted a family like the one I grew up in.

Eventually he crossed a line and I had to tell him to go. I should have done it before but I was still wanting that “dream” family.

Now he is fleecing me. He has already done very well from me. I’d never marry again.

Well I'm glad you posted. Too often we only hear the other side of the argument.

@Neweternal try summonsing God to the family court to explain the injustice of this institution he supposedly created. It’s just a man-made construct isn’t it, so men can keep control over their womenfolk. As we see the world over.

I agree, before I was married I owned my house, had a good job, money in the bank. I had to sell my house when we got divorced as my ex husband managed to get half of it in the divorce & had refused to move out when we split up. I would never marry again, I had far more security before I got married & what I have managed to recoup in the eight years since my divorce I wouldn't risk losing again. Any woman who has assets before getting married should think long & hard before making the decision to get married as if it goes wrong she could lose a large amount of what she has worked for.

It’s not just assets before marriage - it’s what you earn in the marriage too. I need my earnings to support my kids but my ex things it should be used to support him, an adult with an above-average salary.

If my boys ever do want to get married (against my advice) their wedding present will be a few sessions with a lawyer so they can fully understand what they are getting into and to protect themselves as much as the law allows. As stated previously I'll never marry again unless prenups are made legal and water tight.

Correct! I’ve told my kids not to marry too.

I want to make those higher earners aware that they will not always, by every judge and court, be disadvantaged.
In my case, as I posted earlier, we started off as similar earners, my assets double his. I became a SAHP as a joint decision. I worked part time when youngest started school but there was no way I could return to the salary I had earnt when we married.
Fast forward to divorce, I had lost earning potential, lost pension and still had to house our children. For this I received an extra 5% of equity. No pension sharing although the judge did try to persuade ex to give me more equity in exchange for not equalising pensions.
So it doesn’t always work out that the lower earner, SAHP gains!
I certainly wouldn’t give up my financial independence again but looking back our children benefited from me being there for them so I shouldn’t have any regrets.

I'm not really sure I understand this.

When I got divorced, the court looked at the joint pot of money and worked out what was in the children's best interests. Whilst I appreciate that the assets may have to be shared, so that you each have a property where the children can stay, it is the resident parent that is prioritised - not the lower earning parent. Sometimes the resident parent is the lower earning parent, but that is just a coincidence.

Then the non resident parent pays maintenance to the parent who has the children living with them, which is as it should be - surely? The maintenance is for the upkeep of the children. The maintenance is a percentage of income, so you can't get fleeced.

HappyFeet1212
This is how most divorcing men feel as generally they tend to be the higher earner.

Generally higher earner but lower contributor to bringing up the children and running the house. In the meantime, lower earner, almost always the woman once children are in the frame, end up compromising their careers and driving down their earnings potential.
Hence the situation where divorcing fathers feel "hard done by" .... with absolutely no justification at all and not at all what has happened to op.

I’ve been accused of being selfish, out of touch, ignorant and immature on here for saying I’d never marry and want to keep my finances completely separate for any partner I have forever. Funny how many people have now changed their tune! And as much as it pains me to say it because it sounds like MRA bullshit, this is what a large proportion of divorcing men experience. There should be one default divorce settlement: assets accrued before the marriage are retained by their owners, and assets accrued during the marriage are split based on who paid for them. If one partner - male or female - gives up work, they need to take the responsibility for that, including making contingency plans to support themselves alone should they ever need to. Of course adults should support their children but no adult should be legally obligated to bankroll another adult capable of working. And childcare should be state funded and free to facilitate this, but I suppose that won’t go down well with anyone who doesn’t want higher taxes

What do you mean by 'assets accrued in the marriage are split based on who paid for them'? Can you give an example scenario so I can understand your view.

I'm trying to understand how a stay at home or part time working parent could both prepare for financial independence should they divorce and pay for things during the marriage? Wouldn't they come away with little assets despite contributing lots non-financially? Or should they be squirreling away cash in a relative's name?

Hair I mean exactly that. Let’s take a house for example - if both partners paid half each, they sell and split the equity in half. If one person paid 100% for it, they keep the house. If one paid 25% and the other 75% they sell and split it that way. This I believe should be the default legal precedent but of course people are free to make alternative arrangements privately or have different terms legally drawn up (so in that respect I think pre-nups should be legally enforceable as well if a couple wants to deviate from this approach.

I just think all SAHPs should do it with the expectation that they’ll have to get a job if the marriage breaks down. If they’re able to save up to cover their time out of the workforce, even better. I personally don’t think being out of work for a very long time is something to be encouraged, it should be the norm to return to work once children are in school. Increased flexible working practices and free childcare would mean fewer people had to give up work

Thanks, I see. I'm going to have to sleep before I can digest that. I'll get back to you

Thanks for posting this. I always post on the “pro-marriage” threads that it’s not always in women’s interests to be married but get shouted down that women need to marry for “protection”. It’s no protection to marry a lower earner or someone with less assets (even if they are not a lazy arse).

I didn’t marry my ex and thanks to that I kept all my assets. I could have at a few points though and he cost me a fortune during the relationship (now I have the dcs, he pays nothing). I would like to see a better system of child support so children are properly supported whether parents are married or not but with an ability to have a pre-nup on marriage so you take out what you put in.

to the ladies on here who are struggling

And nonsense to the pps who say that you just married the wrong man. Anyone can turn out like that. You can’t bank on marrying a rich man or that he will stay rich!

Basically, nobody should marry for protection. EVERYONE should strive for financial independence on their own terms and the law should be geared towards this

I can understand why things get tricky when it’s a long marriage and there are children but I am not divorcing my husband ( a children’s social worker by the way ) who came to the marriage with nothing . And he wants half the equity in a house that I paid a huge deposit on . He says he is morally entitled to this . We contributed 50/50 to the mortgage in the 5 years we were together and I paid 50 % of his ( not mine ) children’s living costs . He has had an affair and now expects to profit from my investment- no one seems to be able to advise what his chances are of getting as much as he wants in court . He’s basically hoping for an over 300% increase in his contributions over 5 years . When I met him he owned a bike !

WHat a very sad thread - you will never be able to resolve this issue - it is not marriage that is the problem but the inconsistencies in divorce and the make it up as you go along of divorce lawyers who are really only interested in the buck they will make off the back of two warring people.

You enter into marriage as a commitment of love not as a financial transaction but as a unit to commit to children. It is not a financial agreement that is needed prior to this decision but frank and honest talk from people who have survived the ‘downs’ of life, that have worked through issues together even though it would have been easier to chuck the towel in or run off with a newer model who is going to suddenly make your whole world perfect. Those that have battled their own egos, their own insecurities, their own feelings of life not giving them the dream and not chosen to make someone else the scapegoat for what they are lacking within themselves!

I appreciate my views are no longer regarded as the norm but I believe this is a result of society kidding you not marriage.

Men and women will never be equal physically it’s impossible and the more we fight to become equal the further away from this we are actually getting. How long will it be before free childcare is available from what a year, six months, 6 weeks? Birth? Who benefits from this certainly not the child - the mother? Or the state ?

Children are supposed to be a gift a blessing but we see them as a commodity - fitted into a life we have created based around material possessions - ask any person who has needed fertility treatment for their views on this?

As for marriage protecting the SAHP, aka the cocklodger, the freeloader , the workshy no wonder no one wants this role when the only way your life is given any value is based on how much you earn and how long you’ve held down a career and this is other women other mothers saying this of other women/ mothers - shameful!

We are all free to make our own choices - well we should be but when society or state is herding you in a certain direction are you really making a choice that is right for you, for your marriage for your children? YOu believe you are at the time? But in hindsight? What is really important to you.

Notbeingrobbed I understand fully the sentiment behind your posts the anger, the betrayal, the feeling of being stitched up financially but not as a higher earner but as a SAHM!

A SAHM of 20 years by choice and by agreement with my kids DF throughout the marriage. But come divorce after he chose to have an affair and opt out a whole different ballgame - suddenly I can go back to fulltime employment at the age of 55 as a financial adviser after all I am qualified - except he forgot to mention that this qualification was 20 years ago!

As for being protected by divorce law - not a fucking chance - the judge - female, late 40s has given me two years to get back on my feet, two years to get back into being able to support myself on £20k! What she did not take into account is my 20 year confirmed history of depression part of the reason for not returning to paid work! But I also did everything and I mean everything to do with the kids, family and home which enabled my X to become a leading player in the financial services industry even winning personality of the year award last year!

She also told me my depression would ease once the divorce was over which makes her a fucking medical wonder - this is even allowing for the fact that the family home was sold under my feet , that I’m having to move 200 miles away from my kids as cannot afford to buy locally, that my X is taking me to court to dispute CMS payments and quibbling over £2k despite earning £100k plus and that my kids who are meant to be protected in all this and are a priority have been through a living hell with my Ds being suicidal.

As others have said it’s not marriage that is the problem its the person you get married to but even taking this into account no one can predict what another person may do or not do when the shit hits the fan and their mother dies. More than this it’s the vultures who are circling that you need to watch out for!

Marriage won’t protect you although I did get a good chunk of the pension, divorce won’t be fair or be in accordance with the law - it’s a bloody farce! Blaming the other person for their shortcomings will help for a while but theonly thing that will save you is your integrity! If you believe you made the right choices for you at the time that’s all you can come away with regardless of what else happens!

Do I still believe in marriage? Yes! Do I still believe that being at home for the kids is the most important choice a mother/father can make - yes! Am I going to let society dictate how my life should be lived from now on ie back to fulltime work at 55 with a mortgage because some woman who has made different choices to me thinks I should live my life like hers no fucking way and this is without taking depression into account.

I wonder if she wakes up at this time most mornings worrying about how she is going to make ends meet, worrying about how she is going to keep going for her kids, wondering why her cunt of an x is out to destroy her emotionally and financially, why her cunt of an x can afford to buy the kids the latest iPhone 8 is it but won’t pay for text books, why her cunt of an x won’t respond to emails telling him she is facing an urgent back op that will leave her unable to do anything for 6 weeks and can he have the kids? Oh and he has the kids when it suits him when he needs to show OW that he is a doting dad and all that bullshit!

So no it is not marriage, it is not divorce, it is not family law, it is not the choices we make but it is the fucked up individual we make these choices with that is the issue!

Good luck op find some peace with what you are dealing with x

I’m very sympathetic to anyone suffering from depression and I don’t in any way want to make that worse - but surely that is a different issue from the value of being an SAHP? How many children did you have to need to take 20 years off?

Going back to the start, there was no SAHP in my situation....except, of course, for the periods when I was myself off on maternity leave paid for by my own employment or savings. Also I worked part time for, say, six years of my kids’ childhood but was still the major earner - not because I was on a vast salary but because it was an overall better salary than my ex’s. I managed to juggle hours, burn the candle at both ends and do the best I could at both work and home.

Personally I never stopped working because I never trusted my ex to not mess things up in his own work and leave us destitute. So maybe I was never entirely happy about “surrendering myself” to the suppose “sharing” of marriage. But I see that as just being responsible and stepping up and making sure we could always pay our bills.

If by agreement one parent stays home and does not earn - whether for three months or 20 years then perhaps there should be a contract at the time between the couple agreeing this, the time period and the value of this contribution in childcare terms while acknowledging the overall financial loss to the couple from lack of income. There is the question of whether it is a joint decision to not work or a unilateral one. We should all acknowledge our duty as adults to support ourselves and not rely on being bankrolled by anyone else - whether the state, a partner or even our own parents.

If you make the decision to be out of the workforce for a very long period, without keeping a hand in, taking training or simply growing in skills then there is nobody to blame but yourself for being unemployable. By secondary school age kids are leaving home early, making their own way there and capable of looking after themselves for an hour or two after school. So a job with office hours is not impossible, surely?

And as for not “working at it, sticking with it through the bad times or not giving it all up for a better model” - there are many reasons why people separate. I did try my utmost to stick with it.

I am now being punished more financially because it is a “long marriage” as I tried to do the right thing and work at it. But in the end there are reasons why working at it is no longer possible and no reasonable person could be expected to continue.

There is no “better model” coming along for me. Instead I am left with my children to support and the prospect of losing a large amount of hard-earned money. My ex apparently thinks he deserves to be bankrolled by me in return. Whether he gets that remains to be seen. It’s 5am and I am awake worrying about money too.

The reality seems to be that, if you want to get married, marry someone of a similar income/asset bracket to you.

Then, when kids come along, you need to have a conscious discussion about who wants to do what and what you are both prepared to sacrifice.

Marriage does protect children from wastrel men (generally) who would just walk away leaving their family with nothing. However, especially for a lower earner marrying a higher earner, it is a meal ticket for life, which is blatantly unfair.

Fair would be to make a reasonable assessment of the needs of the children and what the lower earner actually sacrificed to stay at home. The concept of getting used to a ‘certain lifestyle’ is really outmoded. If someone treated me to a weekend at the Ritz, should I claim that I need this every day?!

I don’t see how in your 20s you can be sure what the other person’s income bracket will be in future? Circumstances always change.

Taking out what you put in would be the best arrangement.

There were times when I envied the lives of the mums I met at the school gates who could go home for the day while I struggled in to work.

Now my financial contribution apparently counts for nothing.

I’m still supportive of some well thought through reform as there seems to be too much risk in marriage and too little protection in cohabitation for many people.

For this to happen everyone needs to be more realistic about just how much savings can be accrued by just one person and how much detriment arises from career breaks and part time working. I just don’t see how anybody could save enough for 2 pensions given most people struggle with funding one decent pension. Fewer people have the benefit of home ownership and that is happening latter in life. Big equity increases gained through ridiculous house price increases are a thing of the past.

It is just plain wrong to say marriage offers protection if you want to be a SAHP or work PT. There is an awful lot of small print associated with that.
Knowledge and forward planning are protections and it is a personal responsibility. If your partner encourages you to sacrifice your career, you need to check they know that it will cost them down the line if you split. You need to see that the financial provision is being set aside.

As I countdown to retirement, I worry whether I have enough and would be devastated to have to give up 50%. You don’t have enough time to save more and you can’t just get a mortgage for 25 years.

I do disagree with green beret on the free childcare assumption - originating from a country where childcare is very cheap and mostly funded by the government, I do assure you that free childcare indeed gives women so much more freedom and career choices. A woman can choose to stay with her baby longer and not rush back to work but then still have an opportunity of returning to her previous job without needing to look for a part-time employment or sacrifice her earning potential. Needless to say it is incredibly difficult to work full time when the children are little - but doable as proven by millions of women worldwide.
This arrangement also gives females equal rights to work and therefore the government assumes that in this case a woman is not some weak creature unable to provide for herself (yet indeed women and men are not the same but I can see why they can’t be equal!).