Justice turned upside down

[NotBeingRobbed]

When I married there was no such thing as pension sharing - it wasn’t in the “contract”....you know the contract we are never shown but apparently sign up to in a church service!!

Then it came in to protect women who were the old fashioned Stepford types and gave up work to support their dear hubby and stay at home baking apple pie for the cherubs. They found when they were divorced they had no pension... so the law changed.

Now it’s 2018. I am a woman and I am raising my kids plus have worked throughout in a difficult job with difficult hours - I juggled being home with the kids and working.

My hubby had an easier job and lower pay and longer holidays.

Cue the divorce. He wants to strip me of my pension and 65% of the assets. He resents paying child maintenance and has made it clear my DS at uni won’t get a penny from him.

The pension sharing was clearly aimed at protecting partners who had never worked. But I will lose out and will have my kids to support.

He has turned justice on its head. Or would you say it’s fair? I cannot begin to explain how unjust this seems to me.

Of course he could. And he’s be entitled to - he looks after our children full time. He’s given up his career potential to enable me to go to work free from child care concerns. No it’s not an act of ‘generosity’ from me! It was a mutual decision. While I understand you are angry, marriage/civil partnership affords legal protection to both parties in the equation. Whilst it hasn’t worked out for you as an individual it has stopped many women from being left with nothing after giving years of their lives to a marriage/family.

I never had the luxury of being able to give up work. If you choose this arrangement then fine but I don’t see why I should be suffering because of it.

I am still not sure why you think your partner isn't entitled to a fair share of the marital assets? Is it just because you were the higher earner?

I assume you will be staying in the family home, does he have somewhere suitable to live? What sort of split do you think is fair, 50:50?

He wants £85k more than he is entitled to. Better to pay costs than lose that. You could easily burn through that in court.

Yes, 50:50 is what I am offering. I don’t surrender to unfair demands. I have earned at least 70% and he has spent my money freely for years.

It’s not much of a justice system, is it, when the costs are so high? It’s a scandal.

"It’s not much of a justice system, is it, when the costs are so high? It’s a scandal."

100% agree.

But at least you're in the position to be able to afford legal advice. I know it might not sound like much but it would be a damn sight worse to try and go through a divorce self-representing - and a lot of people have to do that these days.

FWIW - In your case I think 50:50 makes total sense. Unforunately common sense and the law do not always agree.

I have got to self represent at final hearing .

I am dreading it and I am the financial weaker party .

Not my choice but needs must as exh is so unreasonable .

This is a women’s rights issue. Men, stick to DadsNet or Porn Hub or wherever you lot hang out! Don’t butt into our conversations please and mansplain to us@MissedTheBoatAgain.

Wow you are bitter aren't you.

Yes, 50:50 is what I am offering. I don’t surrender to unfair demands. I have earned at least 70% and he has spent my money freely for years.

Looking forward to you going onto alk the threads where the stbxh is the higher earner and saying that

I've seen missedtheboat on several divorce threads and I've thought his experiences were well written and useful.
There is no need to be so fucking rude.

Yes, you could say “bitter” or feeling a deep sense of injustice. Nobody ever changed anything without fighting for it. I suppose some people dismissed this Suffragettes as “bitter”. The word is nonsense.

Op you are in the middle of a divorce you have every right to feel aggrieved your ex is clearly a dick with little respect for you and no desire to be fair. This is not the fault of the law or marriage it is his fault.

If you can come to an agreement without recourse to the law - then great - cheaper all round. But difficult to enforce if one of you fails to keep to your agreement. If you go to court then you can both be heard. A judge can help come up with a "fair" financial arrangement one that can be enforced. It is likely not going to be as generous as he hopes or as punitive as you would like but you are dismantling a shared life and it is a messy process. There are some excellent and free to download guides to divorce and financial agreements available from the legal resource Advice Now :
www.advicenow.org.uk/divorce

I am one of those "stepford" wives you so insultingly referred to earlier, I proposed to dh after years of thinking marriage was unessessary. We both agreed I would take a career break when we had 3 kids in quick succession - in the end I was out of paid work for 14 years as two of my kids have SEN. I am working again now. If dh divorced me I would be expecting a fair distribution of resources and assets as dh was enabled in his career by my taking the lion share of child care etc. I could argue that in court if he became unreasonable. If your dh hasn't supported you in your career he has a weaker bargaining position.

Without marriage I would be screwed if dh decided to be a dick. So by all means tell your offspring not to marry but don't let them think they can build a life with someone without legal agreements in place to protect them to replace the protection of a marriage. Sons will need to ensure they are present to register the birth of their child or risk not having equal parental responsibility; both partners need to be named on deeds, rental agreements etc. to avoid being vulnerable to being kicked out. There are pitfalls to not marrying that need to be taken into account.

50:50 is what I am offering

If you are offering 50% of ALL assets, property equity (including family home), pensions, savings etc etc then you are being reasonable.

Does your ex give any reason why he thinks he is entitled to more? Maybe he is just chancing his arm, there must be something behind his demands.

OP has already said that that's what she's offered. There are some seriously goady fuckers on this thread.

OP has already said that that's what she's offered
Yes I have read the thread, but if that is genuinely the case, given op is going to look after the children it seems like the ex has literally no chance, zero, snowball in hell of getting 65% of the assets + her pension.

Surly in this situation you would just laugh at the ignorant fool and carry on regardless, she would have nothing to worry about. But op is obviously very angry, so there must be something more to this?

If you are offering 50% of ALL assets, property equity (including family home), pensions, savings etc etc then you are being reasonable.

It deoends. Its not that straight forward. Do you say ty?he same on threads where the highest earner us male?

There isn’t any more to it - he just wants more and thinks I’ll cave in because of the costs.

Can't you just just say no, don't even engage in debate about it. If he doesn't eventually gain some sense you will see him in court.

The legal costs rack up when you try to negotiate and get into an argument, just keep saying no I have made my best and only offer, accept it or see you in court. 50% seems to be very generous here.

I dont see what you have to worry about having your day in court.

You are right. It is my best and last offer and maybe he thinks he can push for more but it’s not the starting point in a negotiation!

I would bet he wont even risk court as its very likely he would get a worse deal. I know its hard but you have to try and block him out, he is just trying to get to you.

I wouldn't say it's the law or the institution of marriage that's at fault here. Merely bad choices. Don't want to have to deal with a cock-lodger? Don't marry one in the first place. I cant believe the signs weren't there when you married him.

I do understand your anger, but the law, as it stands, regarding no-fault divorces and division of assets is not unfair. Laws not really interested in 'fairness' so to speak, so there will on occasion be aggrieved parties. Blame the twat you married, not marriage itself.

Op your treatment of other posters is very harsh and unreasonable. Divorce is hard but it hasn't put me of marriage at all. My exh and I split our only joint asset the house 50:50 despite him ebing the higher earner I never pursued maintenance or his pension or his savings. I appreciate not all splits are as without bile as mine was.
Honestly seek legal advice as stated. If your solicitor and his advise this is reasonable then he can settle for it. The law is there to be impartial, often males are the higher earner due to children (not fair but often the case) and therefore the law applies equally to both sexes.
You should be very angry at your exh for his behaviour and abuse of the system but not at the system as a whole.
Good luck

Op. A lot of men have the same emotion you do...especially with working ex wives. However, the system does appear to be gradually changing towards expectation that both partners should where possible support themselves

I would bet he wont even risk court as its very likely he would get a worse deal

I wouldn't bet on it. He is tge liwer earner by quite a way.

*lower earner