Financial settlement always 50-50?

[tomasito]

Hi

I am getting a divorce after a 6 year marriage/9 year relationship where contributions were very unequal. I am really scared of the financial side of things and would like to hear people's experiences and set my mind at rest.

In short, my wife lied to me when I married her and pretended to be a medical student. I discovered after marrying her that she has no qualifications.

I have 2 twins (6 years old) and one stepdaughter (16).

Our relationship can be broken down into:
3 years - wife dependent on me, I supported wife + stepdaughter financially
3 years - wife was pregnant and then SAHM
3 years - my children went to nursery/school and wife did nothing. While I was working, she dissipated about £15k on an extramarital affair over 2 years, which I discovered only recently.

She has never had a full-time job and has been financially dependent on me the entire time, even before having children together. In the times when she wasn't working, I paid for university access courses for her, which never led to anything.

Under these circumstances would she normally get 50% of assets? Her contribution to the entire marriage can be reduced to a few years of SAHM and pregnancy, and I feel that the rest of the time, both before and after, she only took advantage of me. Does the law really allow somebody like this to take 50%?

Thanks!

The starting point is usually 50/50, with divergences based on need. The resident parent usually would have the greatest need.

If you have other assets from before the marriage which were ring-fenced, these may be excluded from a financial settlement.

Fault generally has no bearing on finances.

OK. thanks for the response. To me, 50-50 seems unfair, as it would leave me with the same net worth as when I met her, whereas she would come out of the marriage much better off than when she met me, after contributing almost nothing. Would it just be 50-50 in terms of assets accumulated over the marriage, or total assets? It seems crazy that the law works this way. Everything is in my name, including a rental property that I bought shortly after marrying her, with savings that completely predated meeting her.

I think you need to get some proper legal advice

I also think you need to understand that you cannot simply reduce it down to pregnancy and SAHM as if that is nothing

My advice is to come up with an offer than will enable her to house herself and your children when she has them in an appropriate house (so at least a 3 bed) because presumably you want your children to be housed adequately and maintenance and see if she takes it

You are married though so assets are joint

Thank you. I don't mean to belittle the role of a SAHM. My point is that my wife has not been playing that role for most of the relationship. For example, we cohabited for 3 years before having children, in which time my wife was unemployed and 100% dependent on me. Is that not factored into the settlement? Also, for the years prior to meeting her, I was responsible and saved money - it sounds like that's in the pot too! It sounds like hard work is worth nothing, and laziness is rewarded in this process.

My partner's ex ended up with 100% - she was a SAHM - and he got nothing. He's now on benefits while she's loaded. Get a good lawyer as the family courts really do not give a crap about fathers.

Presumably your wife had your blessing not to work for the first three years of your marriage

@DrDetriment

My partner's ex ended up with 100% - she was a SAHM - and he got nothing. He's now on benefits while she's loaded. Get a good lawyer as the family courts really do not give a crap about fathers.

This didn't happen!

OP, unless you protected your money before you married, then shes more than likely entitled to 50%, and if she has the children living with her most of the time, maybe she will get more. Your children will very much be taken into account.

Break it down this way:

3 years you supported her while she did "nothing".

Then you married her anyway. She had two children and raised them for the first 3 years of the marriage, thus contributing in a way seen as equal to wage earning.

Then she's been training to presumably get a better career to support herself and contribute financially to the marriage.

So far, you have supported these decisions and her contribution to the marriage is equal to yours.

But, it's not really that important. The law is set up to protect the needs of the children of the marriage. Their needs come first and must be met. So and settlement will prioritize the resident parent (you or her) being housed appropriately and having enough income. Next comes making sure the non resident parent has suitable housing for the children to stay there too.

Only if there are still assets left do you argue about contribution and who brought what I to the marriage.

You should get legal advice, and you should be prepared that if your wife is the primary caregiver to your twins, she is likely to be entitled to more that 50% so that she and your children are housed and have a suitable income.

Not trying to be rude or anything and I do see where the OP is coming from, but this is the exact reason I'd never accept to be a SAHM

You need a good lawyer, the court will always favour the resident parent which will probably be your ex. They won’t take into consideration any bad behaviour or a parent who wasn’t working.... Not fair but that’s the way it is

The amount of time you have your children will be a factor. Do you intend to apply for residency? 50/50? Less?

It is looking like I will get something like 60%, so majority residency. I guess that will work in my favour

In the nicest possible way you need to give your head a wobble
"3 years - my children went to nursery/school and wife did nothing."
Nothing? What on earth do you mean? Were they in childcare from waking til going to bed?
You need to focus more on ensuring your kids are adequately housed in both residences and see each other equally. She's been the primary carer - are you going to change that for your benefit or theirs?

@PicaK I have been the main person taking kids to school, putting them to bed, etc, as well as working full time. I paid somebody to come and do housework. My wife normally sleeps until 11am and misses school drop-offs. She has probably done the majority of school pick-ups but even that was always flaky. She makes it very clear that she does not enjoy being a mother. She goes out (social life) several times during the week and on weekends, often disappearing for 2 or 3 days, and comes back on Sunday night or Monday morning. Essentially living the life of a teenager with expensive tastes.
At the moment I have the kids 5 days a week, and my parents fill in gaps when I have to work, and the kids go back to her during the weekend, but she still has no job and I don't know what she is doing now Monday-Friday, although she's still financially supported by me. I have the utmost respect for any genuine full-time parent of either gender but that is not the case here. Perhaps I should given more details about this in the original post as I appreciate it could come across as me minimising the work of a full-time SAHM, however I wanted to focus on the finances in my original question.
I accept that she was full-time with them for a while, but that was only for their first few years when they were very small, but for the last few years she has done very little - neither looked after the children very much, nor found any kind of job. My problem is how to extract myself from the relationship and minimise the financial damage, and whether there is any way to protect assets that predate the marriage without me having had the foresight to sign a prenup at the time.

Working in a paid job and being a SAHP is viewed as making an equal contribution to the marriage.

Sorry op that sounds hard, you’re working and doing more than half the childcare.

I’m a sahm but my ex hasn’t ever taken dc to school or had them overnight so I work really hard. My solicitor told me that a judge would expect a sahp to go back to work at a certain point, they can’t just rely on the ex until the dc are 18. Also most sahms - after the house / assets division - are only entitled to child support, and maybe benefits, so I do think at some point she’ll need to work. A few of us are entitled to spousal support if we have high earning husbands.