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.

The homemaker can also be the breadwinner
I agree with you here. I do think it's important that the law does protect women (a bit) when there had been a joint decision for her not to work, or to take a back seat. Or a bloke for that matter.
However that's often not the case when the woman is the main earner. In our household I'm the main earner by far, and had a small inheritance that gave us our home deposit, while DH has been the main spender, got to have a career he is passionate about but doesn't pay well, freelanced etc - all while I do the night feeds, take on most home responsibilities etc.
I dread to think what will happen if we divorce. Op would be much better off in many other countries...

The (a bit) above was to recognise that sahps still aren't perfectly protected - not to say they should only get a bit of protection!

I was you op. I earned more than him, he had a very expensive hobby which meant he didn’t pay into a pension or outgoings (we merged the finances each month), I gave up the expensive hobby (it’s how we met), when the dc came along, as We couldn’t afford for us both to do it, and I preferred to pay money into my pension and save for the future. I remember asking him time and time again to start looking at his pensions and not to rely upon mine as it wasn’t worth that much for 2 people. Of course he didn’t.

When we got divorced I managed to scrape enough money together to buy him out of the house (Im the primary Carer for the dc) and gave him more on top so he wouldn’t touch my pension. I was lucky that he was greedy and wanted cash there and then, rather than pension shares which he’d only see the benefit of when he retired.

Who works harder or has more holidays or spends more on hobbies, doesn’t come into it. 50:50 is the starting point and the rest is agreed on requirements, dc etc. Child maint isn’t taken into consideration either. It’s why I’ll never get married again.

I’m afraid if you divorced you’d be in the same position as me. And once you are truly aware of that there is no escaping. I am not just the resident parent, I am the only one doing any parenting now!

Was your Divorce settled after the FDR? My FDR was a shambles. Reading comments made by Legal FDR is often rushed though in minutes.

Yes it was. I found it was okay. The Judge had obviously read through the bundle, and must have been with us giving his recommendation and hearing from the barristers for about 30 minute tops. We then bashed it out via barristers and went back in at the end for us all to sign the Heads of Agreement. 7.5 hours from beginning to end.

The law is an ass, though, and England is fairly unique in saying that the value of home making depends entirely on the joint assets and income of the couple.

So a stay at home parent can get millions or tens of thousands for doing the same job (or actually generally less work for the wealthier couple as they have help).

The idea that a few years of marriage justifies your needs (generally interpreted as what you are used to, nothing to do with your needs) being met until your death is ludicrous.

In Scotland it is 3 years, in England maybe 45....

The idea that a few years of marriage justifies your needs (generally interpreted as what you are used to, nothing to do with your needs) being met until your death is ludicrous.

That’s not what happens though, and orders for spousal maintenance are rarely made.

Assets are shared though.

And after all if you have millions, you will in all likelihood be less affected by someone “taking” half. They aren’t taking it in any case, since they are marital assets.

I would say that the law supports everyone within the family unit or tries to, and rightly can’t legislate for whether or not someone “deserves” what they get.

People know this before they get married.

I am sure my ex now hates me even more than he already did - but he might have considered the outcome of his awful behaviour at the time, rather than thinking he could carry on behaving as he did, without my ever turning round and saying enough. And that went on for many years.

Heck I would rather we were still married and actually got on. Divorce has damaged me forever, but then the marriage did as well.

Wondering,

I sometimes think that most people are effectively financially illiterate.

The purposes of asset sharing are twofold:

Firstly (and rightly) to make sure the needs of the children are met.

Secondly, to do exactly what I said, to make sure the ‘needs’ of the non-working spouse are met until their expected death date (actuarilly).

The assets plus the assumed income arising from them is meant to meet this need.

There is this no need for spousal maintenance and no one wants it, so it is obviously ‘rare’. It only comes into play when someone has a current and future income with few assets.

I sometimes think that most people are effectively financially illiterate.

I am not financially illiterate, but thanks for the lecture, and by all means resort to rudeness to get your point across.

The assets are split because both parties need to be housed first and foremost. Spousal maintenance absolutely was a thing regardless of the existence of assets, but a change in culture has meant that pretty quickly both parties will be expected to fend for themselves.

Are you suggesting that the “non-working” party shouldn’t be housed after divorce?

And most families do not have assets which will generate enough income to keep them for the rest of their lives.

If you are not financially illiterate, then you are being deliberately disingenuous.

I said the children’s needs should be met, first and foremost, which clearly involves both parties being put in a position to look after them, so I have clearly said both parties need to be housed (and assets split fairly to allow the children’s ongoing care to be well supported in both households).

How do you justify London being the ‘divorce capital of the world’ or the difference between English and Scottish law in this area?

@larrygrylls you don’t seem to have grasped the law.

Joint marital assets are split 50:50 as a starting point, apparently regardless of contribution. The court’s priority is need. So if there are not enough assets to house the children then more might go to a resident parent, whether or not a SAHM. Otherwise the assets are split to meet the needs of both partners equally.

All parents with a child over seven are expected to work to support themselves. There is no question of spouses being maintained without working until death.

Pension pots should be shared fairly but some schemes guarantee a better income than an apparently large sum in a private pension.

Child maintenance is outside the settlement and musf be paid according to the CMA formula - as a minimum. Non-resident parents are of course free to make larger payments should they choose.

Not financially illiterate or disingenuous larrygrylls.

So you are suggesting that one party comes out significantly richer than the other after divorce if they think they have worked for the assets and claim that their spouse hasn’t. Without taking into account the lost earnings, pension and earning potential the “non-working” spouse may have suffered due to looking after children. Or the fact that they may have enabled the other person to bring in the money and build their career.

And there are variations - short, medium length and long marriages will be treated differently. Also, once both parties are housed, money which can be proved to not have been part of the marital pot (like inheritances in some cases) can be argued that it should be kept separate. This might have happened in my case had it not been for the fact it had to be used as part of the housing “pot”.

Cases like the NBR’s where she has done the lion’s share of earning as well as child rearing and continues to do so are frustrating, but still the law has a duty to both parties and can’t see within marriages to know what they were like, or make judgments on that basis.

So a stay at home parent can get millions or tens of thousands for doing the same job

Why should a monetary value be assigned to being a SAHP - surely the moral premise should be (and is in law) one of equality - so yes half of whatever there is - even if it is a lot. In law it was family money, and I would argue that a marriage where everything is not shared or thought of as joint is not great.

When one party comes into a marriage with a huge amount and wants to protect it, I suppose pre-nups could come into play, but I don’t know a lot about them.

Why should a monetary value be assigned to being a SAHP

Why not? Most jobs have a monetary value and this is a job.

In my case I was an SAHP during maternity leave etc. He wasn’t, although he did walk out of jobs (without family discussion) and have periods when he was looking for work. Otherwise we both worked.

Wondering,

You are conflating the law and a discussion about fairness. The law does have this concept of marital assets and the idea that they are split 50/50.

However the reality of efforts made within a marriage and earnings potential vary greatly.

Again I ask you to comment on why England is considered ‘the place’ to choose to get divorced and why Scotland ;and most of the world) looks at things so differently?

Because in this area the law in England is more progressive. Thank God. Most people are struggling enough after divorce as it is.

It’s regressive as far as I can see. Might suit oligarchs’ trophy wives but no good for working women.

You are completely dismissive of women who don’t have a pension as “stepford wives”.

Many of us don’t have one due to financially abusive husbands, who either prevented us from working (easy if they earn lots/turn up when they feel like it), or manipulated the situation so that the wife, if she could work, couldn’t afford a pension due to every penny being required for house/kids due to the main wage earner not contributing enough financially to the household. Whilst still paying for their own pension, of course.

When you marry it’s expected that it will be forever, and that you will pool resources for life. Hence pension sharing (although your ex sounds like he’s asking for a bit much, to be fair).

Divorce is hard, and no-one gets exactly what you want. Just because you feel aggrieved by the process, and feel that you are losing out financially doesn’t mean that the law is wrong. Trust me, to be the lower earner in a stereotypical situation is really, really shitty.

A man can’t stop you from going out to work - unless you are in some sort of forced marriage arrangement! And these days pension contributions are compulsory. What would someone say to me if I was in such an arrangement? You should have left long before etc....we all know life is not as easy as this when you are in a long term relationship with children.

Even so, my point was the law is there to protect stay at home mums - I understand that - but it’s working dads who are now exploiting it.

What goes around comes around. I would only support NBR logic if a change in Divorce Law could be applied retrospectively so that former ex husbands who were bled to death by scorned non working wives could get back what they earned. Impossible of course to apply new law retrospectively. So women should not complain when they get a taste of their own medicine

@MissedTheBoatAgain not all women think or act alike, just as not all men are the same. To divide the entire population into two camps because of their gender is deeply sexist. If your thinking was correct we wouldn’t have different political parties, just a men’s one and a women’s one. It sounds like you got a bad deal. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

To answer an earlier comment, people who don’t build up their own pension pots over a lifetime are irresponsible. I wouldn’t ever advise my daughter to forego her pension thinking a man will support her. I have saved over a lifetime, including before marriage. Maybe I should have not bothered and spent it all so my ex couldn’t get hold of it.

My settlement was fair taking into account the large difference in earnings. The difference in asset split has been recovered in the time since divorce 2 years ago

When you say Additional Needs, is your child likely to be independent or dependent on you for life?

I had to written in the Court Order as an Undertaking that ex would pay me maintenance as long as DS1 was financially dependent on me. Was also written in that he has to pay half of all school costs i.e uniform, trips etc and half of any extra curricular activities

Many people are not in that world however.

My ex and I were relatively asset rich but otherwise low wage earners. Neither of us have a pension - well ex has a tiny 30K one which he kept.

I stayed at home for some of the marriage and worked for another part of it. We had 3 dc close together and my earnings would have been completely wiped out and more by childcare.

So that’s what happened to us. The assets were split down the middle upon divorce, though I don’t think ex declared everything.

I don’t consider that I “bled him to death”. He is angry that I was treated as an equal, but maybe he should have thought of that when he was spending weeks and weeks giving me the silent treatment - one of the reasons we are now divorced.

I feel your pain OP.
My ex was self employed and when we separated his work seemed to nose dive and I found he had stopped paying into my pension.
I earn a modest wage and have a pension.50:50 meant that he look all my savings to offset my pension.
I have a small house ,after divorce went through be bought a big house,mortgage free and I found evidence of a large amount of undeclared savings they he had.Nothing I can do about that.
Anyway,dd and I get by.I would not want her married however as when ex or I die she will get everything.Obviously there are a few years before that happens but I would like her to be forewarned..

To Seventh

If you have evidence that assets had not been fully disclosed by Ex you could have reopened the case? Maybe you had had enough by then and pleased it’s over?

Courts seem to struggle with Self employed and limited company in divorce?