myth or truth? Continuing a similar lifestyle

[almostdivorcedeek]

STBX has a very good lifestyle, he earns about £70 000 a year more than me, I was the stay at home parent to our DC who have now all reached over the age of 18. I do work now - 34 hours a week but obviously do not earn anywhere near as much as him. I am literally living hand to mouth each month. I am entitled to a very small amount of WTC but nothing else. I am constantly counting the pennies.


Obviously over the years while he was building his career I was there supporting him especially when he was frequently away, helped with his studying etc.... We had been together over 30 years - married for most of them.

I don't think I am after spousal maintenance but just wondered if I was entitled to anything extra to help make my life a little easier. I'm not expecting steak and champagne every night, but I am in no way living a the life I used to have. He does not want to use mediation or solicitors, mind you I couldn't afford a solicitor anyway!

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

The vows are a nonsense

So why commit to the Vows?

Would you sign a Contract without reading it first?

People are free to choose whether or not they marry. No obligation to do so. If people have entered marriage due to perceived social and family pressure that does not change the Vows THEY TOOK.

Seems to me that some on MN want to the Laws to be changed to reflect their marriage has turned out to be to their disadvantage.

Some people may find it easy to walk out of a marriage. I didn’t

Again entirely your choice.

I realized early on in my marriage that it was a mistake as wife could not adapt to living in another Country. However, as there was a 3 year old son and 15 year old stepdaughter I did not think it was in their interests to return to their Mother's native Country as it is dangerous and has limited work opportunities.

So I decided as soon as Stepdaughter was eligible for UK Citizenship I would file for Divorce. Stepdaughter has a UK Job and is supporting herself.

Did the Wife receive the largest share of assets even though she had not worked either before or during the marriage? Yes she did. The logic was that she could never earn same as myself and there was a 10 year old child to take into consideration.

Does it annoy me that non working wife received largest share of assets? No it does not as my superior earning power has enabled to catch up quickly. By time I am retired I will be massively better off than Ex Wife.

[NotBeingRobbed]

@snoutandab0ut you are spot on! The irony is I have made my own money independently but now I have to hand it over to a man because of this nonsense! The societal pressure should not be dismissed. It’s everywhere - the myth that marriage is an achievement and a happy ending. You only have to watch Call The Midwife to see the pressure there was in the 1960s for women to be married. It was still there in the 1980s and 1990s and still exists now - especially amount those who are concerned to do the “right thing”.

Why is the law as it is? To protect the women (nearly always women) who give up work to care for children. 1) That’s a luxury some of us could never afford 2) I wouldn’t choose to abandon a career and 3) This idea just shores up the gender pay gap.

Actually I have made a lot of sacrifices for my children and worked part time at some stages but still earned the most. None of this is truly recognised in the daft 50/50 split.

[snoutandab0ut]

NBR you’re articulating all of the reasons I had in mind when I said marriage for me is incompatible with feminist principles. It harks back to a time when women were seen as property, daughters would be upgraded to wives at the will of the men of the family, women couldn’t work or have their own finances without prior agreement or permission from their husbands. While none of that may be true now, I do believe the financial contract of it undoes so much progress for women in the employment world, leaves them trapped when husbands are abusive (especially financially) and generally removes autonomy by having all assets legally bound with the husband’s. However I totally understand your reasons for getting married - it definitely was, and still is, a societal pressure felt far more by women.

[NotBeingRobbed]

Don’t get married blah blah blah. I did get married. Why? We’ve been through this argument before and I’d still argue that 20 plus years ago it was still seen as slightly shocking to have kids and not be married. It was in my family! I believed the myth that it was the correct way to live and raise children, in a partnership. However I did not think my pension would be taken off me etc etc etc. Actually, pension sharing didn’t exist back then and I didn’t imagine it would be invented in the meantime.

Some people may find it easy to walk out of a marriage. I didn’t. Even now I have family members treating this as if it’s a shame of failure.

Thirty, 40 years ago or more most women were pressurised into marrying if they wanted children. Don’t see this as a contract in a vacuum free of society and all it’s pressured because it’s not like that.

Yes, there was a for richer or poorer vow but there was also a vow to love, cherish and forsake all others and those vows are happily broken without any repercussions for the party who is in the wrong! The vows are a nonsense.

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

•But I don’t personally see why being in love should include handed over your life savings•

It’s called the vow “for richer or poorer”

Don’t get married if you don’t want to face the consequences of a Divorce.

[NotBeingRobbed]

Because I believed in marriage being a serious and long-term commitment and I took my responsibilities seriously. I wanted my children to have a stable home - although actually they are happier now. Of course at the beginning I thought we were in love. But I don’t personally see why being in love should include handed over your life savings.

So I was very unlike you @MissedTheBoatAgain as you have stated that you only stayed married so you could get your stepdaughter a British passport!

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

To NBR

Why did you not kick him out sooner?

[Ella1980]

@NotBeingRobbed I hear you!

I was married to a wealthy man who left me literally without a home and with 89p in my bank account. When I left all I had was literally my car and the clothes on my back.

I'm engaged now and as my fiance is a relatively low earner we very much work as a team. I don't envisage splitting up but if we ever did I'd have very little money to give him and he'd have very little to give me. It's feels free to be non money-driven. Don't get me wrong it's very hard at times, but I'd rather a man who spends quality time with me than with his office 24/7.

I'd simply never, ever look for another relationship with a man that had significantly more money than me.

[NotBeingRobbed]

@snoutandab0ut well said!

I’ve been the main earner and have done most of the “wife work”! Now I’m being fleeced!

My ex and I both have pension pots but he is allowed to simply steal some of mine. He had as much opportunity as I had to apply for promotions and attempt to earn more during the marriage but chose not to - because he could sit back exploit me anyway!

My hard work, meanwhile, is not recognised. As for “facilitating” home life or social life, we both did some of it but I did more - I was always the one expected to arrange childcare or book medical appointments or haircuts or buy clothes simply because I was the mum!

The principles used by the courts are deeply old fashioned and sexist, basically assuming that one person gives up all earning ability to raise the children.

We didn’t live like that and I doubt most of the upcoming Millennial generation will do so in future.

I will never marry again because once I am free of this abusive leech then neither I nor my children cannot afford to acquire another one!

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

Why should pensions be any different?

Pensions will be included in the assets. Although how it is calculated I am not sure.

[TearingUpMyHeart]

Pension is just a savings account. Marriage is a joint venture and all savings are split accordingly. Why should pensions be any different? Savings are not split on the grounds that one person earned more of the money in the past.

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

Spousal maintenance and entitlement to someone’s pension should be abolished

In some cases it is necessary. eg one partner is disabled or has illness that prevents them from working.

In other cases Spousal Maintenance is awarded because there is sufficient money to go around. Take the extreme case of Jocelyn Wildenstein (the cat woman). She was awarded an initial sum of US$ 2.5 Billion and US$ 100 Million per year for 13 years afterwards.

Nobody on the planet needs that amount of money, but as the Ex husband would still be wealthy after paying it was considered a fair award.

[snoutandab0ut]

*missedtheboat is undoubtedly being goady but as a woman, I think marriage is incompatible with feminist principles. It disincentives women from being financially independent. Spousal maintenance and entitlement to someone’s pension should be abolished. People should obviously be responsible for their children and that should be legally enforced but they shouldn’t be responsible for another adult capable of working. If ever there was a compelling argument against marriage it’s threads like this!

[IndieTara]

@MissedTheBoatAgain
That's a bit of a large drip feed presumably aimed at goading us on here!

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

Why should the fact grandparents were retired and lived close by mean they should look after the child

No obligation for Grandparents to look after grandchildren.

It was taken into account by Judge when assessing Wife's claim for Joint Lives Spousal Maintenance. Wife argued that she was unable to work because she had a 10 year child to look after. Judge dismissed her claim for numerous reason including fact that grandparents were willing to look after child when wife was at work just as they had done so previously when wife went overseas for weeks at a time to visit relatives.

[IndieTara]

*@MissedTheBoatAgain
*
It also came out that Ex had not attempted to look for Work and as child's grandparents were both retired and lived close by and could look after child at any time there was no reason for her to be a SAHM.

Why should the fact grandparents were retired and lived close by mean they should look after the child ?

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

which is why the law recognises that parents can each make an equal contribution to the team

No issues with that statement. However, still not convinced that if wife is SAHM it guarantees that husband will go further in his career and earn more.

[Jodieone]

Facilitated his career - as Sofa said!

I took care of all the domestic tasks & looked after our children. That meant that he didn’t have to!

It was a joint decision to have the children & that I would sacrifice my career to be there for them before & after school to support their well being & their extra curricular activities.

He never had to take time off to look after them if they were too ill to go to school, because I was there to do it.

He knew I was there which allowed him to work irregular hours and travel abroad for work.

I had to give up my job to accommodate his unusual & demanding schedule.

It is blindingly obvious to most intelligent people, which is why the law recognises that parents can each make an equal contribution to the team we call a ‘family’ & that contributing care, nurture, time, love and stability is as important as providing an income.

[wobytide]

If CN can be recovered through taxes why pay it out in the first place?

Because Child Benefit, as the name suggests is for the benefit of the child, not the parent(s). However it's only after each tax year that the exact circumstances of that relationship and their earnings for the year can be declared. If at the end of the year you find you would have been entitled you can't go back and claim it, however if you find you weren't entitled, you can then pay it back. There are also some nuances around claiming child benefit to ensure other circumstances /entitlements are obtained, if you are a stay at home mum and have children under 12 then the child benefit I think is what triggers you receiving National Insurance Credits for your state pension calculation. So even if the husband earns £100k and the wife earns nothing, she technically has a reason to still claim the benefits even if they are paying them all back via his income tax. And as this is the divorce board, it's probably relevant to those who may be the financially weaker partner

[MissedTheBoatAgain]

How does someone get CB when earning over £100,000?

I asked the same question before and the reply was that the CB will be recovered through taxation. Seems a waste of time. If CN can be recovered through taxes why pay it out in the first place?

Chartered Accountant so he knows how to play the game

I can believe that. The case in 2017 where the father was paying £7 per week in Child Maintenance was an example of how someone can be asset rich (the man in question had over £5 Million in properties), but income poor (his only regular income was state pension).

Even the Judge was appalled and remarked that clever accounting and putting properties in trusts had enabled the father to get away with paying very little in child maintenance even though he was a property millionaire several times over. Judge suggested that the asset Variation, which existed before the 2012 CMS Scheme, needs to be reinstated.

[Ella1980]

Simple answer is that he fiddles the system. He re-mortgaged and paid interest only when I left. He was paying abut £400 per month and I was paying £680 per month rent. I did get a pay-out upon divorce (he has a wealthy mum and dad) but it is not enough to get on the housing ladder. He lied on his Form E and said he was setting up his own business and earning £25k per year. Chartered Accountant so he knows how to play the game.

[NotBeingRobbed]

How does someone get CB when earning over £100,000? The cut-off is around £50,000. What happened to the equity in the house? Or does he just have a very big mortgage?

[Ella1980]

I was a SAHP (well teaching just 3 hours a week) until I left my ex. My ex earned (still earns) over £100,000k p/a. We lived in a huge five-bed family home with four bathrooms and a weekly cleaner.
Five years on I live in a damp rented two-bed with my two children (now 9 and 11) for half of the time. Abusive ex still in marital home with his 24 yo gf.
No maintenance due and he has CB for one son.
So is the "similar lifestyle" notion correct? Certainly not for me.

[thedogattacksthetissuebox]

We all need to just ignore missedtheboat, he is only here to be goady.

[sofato5miles]

But still liked him enough to know that we can salvage a good friendship.