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?

Taking out what you put in would be the best arrangement

Assets acquired during marriage are regarded as Joint irrespective of who paid for what. The Legal Persons who post on MN have said this many times, but does not seem to sink in?

However, especially for a lower earner marrying a higher earner, it is a meal ticket for life, which is blatantly unfair

This is why Prenups should be allowed. I am sure it would result in fewer divorces as there would be no point in marrying for money.

Certainly there should be more childcare options to make working life more possible. Isn’t this what the Suffragettes wanted? A chance for equality.

At present the law is still saying one parent must be supported by the other rather than treating both partners as equal. The ruling that housework/childcare is equal to paid work is a strange one based on a 1950s utopia that never existed.

If one partner is for example a brain surgeon and the other a farm worker with both sharing child caring equally, why should the farm worker be subsidised by the surgeon?? Isn’t that making marriage a little like prostitution?

@missedtheboatagain the legal persons are correct in explaining the law. The question is whether the law is just. If nobody questioned the law it would never be reformed and it would still be legal for one person to own another as a slave. So my point is more for the lawmakers than the mere administrators of an unjust system.

“Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” - Jean Jacques Rousseau. “Ditto women” - Jackie Rousseau!!

This thread predominantly seems to be one of people complaining about their own lot, whether the SAHP or the main earner. Ironically, this proves how litte it has to do with sex (or 'gender') these days. THe main earner complaints are the very same ones we've been hearing from men for decades, and the SAHP ones seem to be the result of a move towards 'equality'.

As such, to claim that this is a sex problem is evidently nonsense. It's a people problem. Marriage, kids, relationships are all a risk. The best any of us can do is to consider the 'what ifs'' and put measures in place to mitigate against the worst outcomes.

I wouldn't want to be the sole breadwinner, nor the dependent SAHP. To me, a marriage of equals is jsut that; equal contribution (and independence) in everything. Personally, I would see any other arrangement as too high a risk for me to take.

Is this thread just to be dismissed as people moaning or rather are they making legitimate complaints?

Marriage isn’t some small minority activity - it’s a long-standing institution. So the law should be just. I think it’s very reasonable to complain if being treated very unfairly.

Babycham, the point is marriage does not treat people as equals nor require an equal contribution. It immediately combines the wealth and income, regardless of contribution. It then unequally separates

This unnecessary risk dissuades people from any form of commitment and has led to increasing numbers of cohabitating couples. Where there are no rights.

What some people are calling for is reform that enables more commitment particularly where there are children and less risk.

What some people are calling for is reform that enables more commitment particularly where there are children and less risk

What 'people' seem to be asking for is a system that favours women, whether they're the main earner, or a financially dependent SAHP.

You reap what you sow.

What would be a good idea is that by law a pre nup has to be drawn up before a marriage can take place that states what each partner is bringing to the marriage & is updated as things change, ie if one party owns the home before marriage & pays the mortgage & maintenance of the home, cars who owns what, if a joint property is bought, who paid the deposit, who pays the bills, almost like the forms you have to complete when getting divorced. Make couples think properly on What they are entering in to. It's too easy to go rushing in to marriage, make it so that whatever you bring to a marriage you don't end up worse off afterwards. It's 8 years since I divorced & I'm still not in the position I was before I married, I'm getting there but have some way to go, if I'd known I would lose the house I owned & lots of my personal possessions( I haven't one baby picture of my DS, ex has them all) I wouldn't have bothered getting married.

Have we really got to the point where marriage is just about who contributes what financially how very very sad - notbeingrobbed I think your angst is with yourself you obviously had doubts about your marriage early on but stuck at it as you say for the “dream” family. Yeah me too not for the dream but because when I made my vows I meant them. Incidentally I was the higher earner when we married and had my own house!

take 20 years off how insulting!

Just because there is no financial tally for SAHM - well there is actually - do you think I did not contribute?
The joint decision for me not working meant my x could be away overnight, meant my x could start work at 5.30 in the morning or finish at 2 in the morning, could work weekends, could work during holidays. There was no childcare to pay for, there was no need for a live in nanny, a cleaner, a gardener, a decorater, there was no need to juggle workload when a child was sick! It meant my kids could do after school activities, it meant my kids had a home cooked meal from scratch most nights, it meant that my depression was managed! Yes I could have chosen to return to work ( MH allowing) but this would have impacted on my x’s EArning power and I doubt me working full time would have equalled 1/2 what he earnt.
And who would have done all of the above most women admit they still have the majority household and kids needs to deal with so my view is I would have shot myself in the back.

You have come out no better off than me Infact your resentment is that you worked too hard! I have no regrets my kids were my priority and even yesterday my Ds needed a lift something I would not have been able to do had I been working. If I was working I would have been signed off sick many a time with depression with breast cancer and currently with back issues. With my history I’m not even sure I’m employable _ nothing to do with ability to earn but to do with how my emotional health impacts on me. So it’s employers that need to look at themselves something that gets mentioned time and time again!

I guess from your posts you have not been through the full divorce process maybe by the time you have you will realise the law is a load of old bollocks that has no consistency and cannot even take each case on its merit s because it will trot out some old case law that has no relevance to your own circumstances and make it fit to justify the outcome they have decided on that’s particular day.

You obviously have ability to manage a lot - count yourself lucky you are able to do so gives you many more choices although currently you cannot see this.

You know and I have a Dd and I ask myself what will I tell her - will I say never get married because you will get shafted, never trust a man because he will use you and then throw you on the scrap heap when someone younger comes along, make sure you are completely self reliant financially & emotionally, don’t give up your career if/ when you have kids make sure you keep working even though you will be bloody knackered because it will be you getting up in the night when they are sick, it will be you shouldering most of the emotional responsibility.

Even know my x that made a huge fuss over contact cant be arsed if something better comes along cant see the damage he has done through his intent to destroy me, will take his kids on holiday but will not do the washing will not pay his maintenance but will sponsor his OW in a run against people trafficking and abuse.

It wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference if I had been working fulltime the last 20 years he still would have tried to shaft me because there is something fundamentally flawed in his way of thinking - no consistency, doesn’t even know his own values or what really matters in life and I’ll give you a clue it ain’t money!

I lost my job 4 months after I left my marriage, 5 operations, PTSD, depression & permanent disability have left me on benefits for the last 8 years, who is going to employ anyone who is in that state? I don't get any maintenance for my DS as my ex is also disabled & unable to work. Marriage cost me my health & my career, was it worth it? No

What are you telling your Ds Nat6999?

He knows the truth, he knows what happened & he knows my opinion of marriage, it's not worth doing.

@greenberet from what you’re saying it seems like you 20-year break was due to your MH or cancer, not parenting. So maybe you should have claimed on insurance for sick cover, if you had it.

There is no reason why you couldn’t work 9-5 and your ex start early and finish late - not having a party but working. Couples do juggle these things. And if your earning power was half as much as his this was surely down to your own abilities? Or you could have worked longer hours and had an au pair or whatever.

It’s your wish to live off somebody else that is making my circumstances so hard when I have stood on my own two feet. Because of the way the law looks at cases. As you say, how rude!

I think it is important to separate out framing this in anything other than society’s and therefore the state’s interest in marriage. Religion and romance are separate matters.

The state and the judiciary view marriage in relation to the security and protection it affords the vulnerable. Specifically children and sometimes the spouse. Increasingly the vulnerability of a spouse is not assumed. Hence clean breaks and an expectation that you work to your full potential.

The OP’s point is that the state and judiciary intervention went too far and provided a level of security to her spouse over and above reasonable needs. Simply because she could afford it and he was entitled to half. So she paid the price for feckless decisions on his part in the marriage and his feckless behaviour after the marriage. She doesn’t think this intervention was needed and the law should be changed to reflect it.

Others are saying they won’t marry because they don’t want to automatically share their wealth with their spouse. They would prefer to protect it for their existing children or other dependents. Or they don’t want to risk being financially responsible for somebody who decides to give up a good career to sell cupcakes on eBay.

Finally we have people who are shocked by the settlements they have received. This shock is felt on both sides. Quite simply there is a long term cost for 2 people from career sacrifice that most just don’t plan for or anticipate until it is too late.
The courts will split assets so both parents, who will now both be resident parents, have a home that meets their individual needs. Given the cost of housing this is usually unaffordable without 2 incomes and a lot of savings. So there is a strong case to say marriage creates a false sense of security for a SAHP and a hidden risk for their spouse.

Finally neither men and women can expect to have lifelong jobs with big pensions. Increasingly both genders will have portfolio careers that include breaks, self employment and part time work plus they will need to plan for their old age.

So is reform needed. Yes, if you want to have an institution of marriage that continues to offer security for children that people are willing to risk. As others have said, pre and post nups will spell out the details up front and it will be buyer beware. Not romantic but it makes things clear and forces both to address the realities of life especially as parents. And yes, on this basis you can extend rights to cohabitees with children.

@Notbeingrobbed - im not really sure i get you - i have not had a 20 year break or 20 years off or whatever you want to call it - it was a joint decision that I stay home to look after our kids - joint decision.
prior to this i was off sick for a year from work diagnosed with PTSD as a result of bullying in work. actually and when the JOINT decision was made that i did not go back to work on a phased in part time basis we didnt even have kids!

During the marriage when i got bored of being at home and the idea of me taking on some sort of part time work was mooted i was always persuaded against this a for tax reasons and b because of the demand of my X husbands business - yes i know some couples juggle but my x husbands business was seen as the priority. He couldnt start or work late around me if he was away overnight for a couple of nights sometimes at short notice and I believed the effort he put into this would reward us both in the future! Wrong!

Yes I had sick cover - which paid out for breast cancer - this was just as my x decided to bugger off - but he made sure that I didnt get the benefit of this by running up huge debts during the divorce process that wiped this out.

I suffer with depression - obviously you know very little about this - it means i need to sleep during the day most days otherwise i cannot function and this is even when i have had a reasonably good nights sleep - so no i cannot work 9 -5 - i could do admin at 3 - 5 in the morning if this is any good to someone on a good day but may not be able to get out of bed on a bad day. I was like this even when i thought I was living the "dream" life as you call it so something is amiss.

I dont beleive im living off someone else - i contributed whole heartedly to the marriage which i saw as a joint venture - not both of us being exactly equal because this is impossible and never going to be achieved but each of us working to our strengths and supporting each other as required.

except when push came to shove i was no longer seen as being supportive and kicked out on my arse with far less financially than i put into the marriage - I am facing court over child maintenance payments because the arse does not want to support his own kids. I have paid for my sons school fees because the X decided he could no longer afford them - what bollocks - more like his OW does not believe in private school and so i have paid for them out of my housing allowance which means going forward i cannot buy in this area.

ask yourself this would you have done things any differently - would you have chosen to stay at home and look after your kids had you been able to - or would you have always chosen to keep your career going - i suspect the latter. if this is the case then it doesnt matter really what the outcome is - your x is an arse too but then you suspected this but chose to stick with it - you gave him the benefit of the doubt but he let you down and your kids - the law is an arse - dont expect anything from this and then you wont feel shafted. my solicitor told me i was a dead cert for jnt lives spousal - all she was interested in was getting me to court to rack up her fees. I wanted out way before this but she told me I would not survive on the offer my x gave me. She then jumped ship when I started to wise up and ask her questions she did not wnat to answer. I lost far more than I would have had if i had accepted his offer. Im trying to pursue this through professional negligence it is a battle but if it does not succeed i will manage - i have too by making choices that i am not wholly happy with but hopefully will pan out in the future.

but at the end of the day I beleive in karma - i think i took a wrong turn 20 years ago but ive been given a second chance - i do not beleive money makes the world go round i believe it just makes people more greedy and selfish - it is a destructive evil.

Dont let your anger consume you - as i said you are lucky that you can cope - its the likes of nat6999 who have been let down by the system meant to protect those with kids

Persuaded not to work for “tax reasons”? This sentence alone does not make sense. Taxation is individual, not based on joint marital income!

It sounds like you had a very fortunate life - no need to work and school fees for your child.

I think I’ve learned a great deal about depression this last year in particular. It hasn’t been at all easy for me.

At least this thread has been hugely therapeutic for me because I can see I am not alone.

@notbeingrobbed I totally agree. Unfortunately many sahp (almost always sahm) have all these justifications about how their husband or wife couldn’t earn what they earned or do their job without a sahp. Yet when women are the ones doing these sorts of high earning jobs, they are expected to do them and lions share of childcare/house arrrangements. If women can manage it, so can men.

I was the main earner and when I was with my ex had a full time nanny and household help. It was my job to pick the nanny, to organise things to pay them too. My ex didn’t seem to think that it was his concern.

I think you should get back what you put in unless you explicitly agree to the contrary. Luckily I don’t have to worry as I didn’t marry my ex. But lots of ladies can end up in a bad situation thanks to the current law. Marriage should not be a lottery ticket.

@greenberet - not trying to be mean but sounds like a whole load of excuses. You couldn’t work for tax reasons? What tax reasons were those? You were off work with ptsd before you even had kids - how was that for your husband to compensate. No offence but what would you have done if you hadn’t had the choice? The place I trained at (and many places since) had a horrendous bullying culture but we all just got on with it. Because I had no choice.

And cmon - you had to sleep all day because you had depression? How many people in the uk are on anti-ds at one time. I have been depressed as have many people I know but I have never heard people claim they need to sleep all day.

It sounds to me like you have been living off someone else for quite a while. It’s not a nice situation for you but you are kind of the type of spouse op is talking about, no?

@Notbeingrobbed - yes tax reasons and it does make sense when you are a limited company

In someways yes you could say I was fortunate but I also suffer with depression which limits what I can do even things I enjoy doing can be effected by it. My depression is not as a result of circumstances it is something I think I have had all my life and so I am not fortunate in this respect.

I’m sure it hasn’t been easy for you and I’m glad you have got some comfort from this thread but please don’t knock those who make different choices to you.

I don’t doubt that men could manage all the things women do after all a lot of them run huge companies yet the underlying issue is that the majority don’t want to . It is still inbred for a lot of them that raising kids is Women’s work how this changes I have no idea. The more women take on the more they show they can cope with it maybe this is why we are being penalised in court.

Marriage or not being married is not the solution nor is having seperate and self sufficient finances - what happens if someone is long term sick and unable to work who picks up then - the partner or are you meant to provide for yourself.

I’m sorry Op you are feeling hard done by I understand this fully - you try and do the right thing and sometimes it is never enough

@zsazajuju - educate yourself - we all have choices you could have stood up to the bullying culture but you chose not to because it was in your interest to keep quiet.

Did I say sleep all day reread what I said

If you want to label me as someone living off someone else go ahead - I dont agree - I chose to look after my kids myself!

@greenberet - there are no tax reasons for not working and “you” are not a limited company. I assume you mean that you were being paid by the company for not doing anything (as you say you weren’t working). That’s tax evasion. Quite extraordinary that you claim you can’t earn for yourself as it would interfere with your ability to consort with your then husband to evade tax. And expect us to feel sorry for you.

Thanks but I have plenty education. Just not the option to quit my job and not work for 20 years! Not that that seem so to have worked out too well for you.

You did say that you had to sleep all day because of depression.

The looking after your kids all day (presumably when you weren’t sleeping) is supposedly a dig at me as I had to get paid help so I can work. But I spent a lot of time looking after my kids and I was able to provide for them and myself. You haven’t worked for 20 years and your financial position is everyone else’s fault, your ex-husbands, your solicitor. You chose not to work for 20 years and to have someone else pay the bills. You have the audacity to complain that you have to use your “housing payment” from your ex for school fees!

For hard working people like me, I’m afraid that sticks in my craw. I can only be thankful that I am not your ex husband.

@greenberet limited company? So was this your husband’s company you were going to work for? But it didn’t make sense for tax reasons? Or were you on the payroll and not working? Sounds like someone has been avoiding a lot of tax there.

Myself, I’m not a limited company but an employee. I’ve worked all sorts of odd hours and also raised a family.

Yes, I think we’ve identified some tax dodging here!