Hmmm...?

[teisted]

Just had another mediation session.

Over 15 years married
2 DC's 17 & 13 (CMS agreed)
He earns £70K
I earn £17k
His pension £50k
My pension - £5
House equity £100k

Initially STBXH was offering his £50k of equity as a "clean break". I would make no claim on pension.

Today he wants £12k of equity and "clean break". No claim on pension. Mediator seemed to think this is fair....

I always worked (albeit part time) I am now full time term time. Big earning disparity/earning potential.

I see it as: pot = £150k

He wants £62k (£50k from pension, £12k from equity) leaving me with £88k (remainder of equity) and will take on mortgage (which I've established is possible)

Does this seem fair? Just after opinions before I take the proposal to my solicitor

@FutureExH it doesn’t matter whether the financially weaker spouse gave up a career. It makes little material difference. Had I only ever done low paid work before we married and had DC, we’d still be in the same situation right now. I would still have facilitated DH’s career progression by providing free childcare and running the house, and I would still only be in the position of being able to do low paid work in school hours right now.

I think the reason people get “animated” about the issue is because they don’t value women’s unpaid work (and it is largely women) in caring for children and they believe that SAHMs are watching Netflix and drinking tea all day. It’s really as simple as that.

I never understand why the wife gets a share of the pension. I will get just a state pension and DP has a pension pot of about 150k so far. If we split up, no way would I go after that

Er, you couldn't go after it, cause you ain't married. Don't be ridiculous.

@IWantT0BreakFree

I think you are on shaky ground there to an extent. The sharing principle is far more generous than simply paying someone for childcare and running a home. It's based on needs formed in the relationship.

Another problem though is every relationship is different. In my case I do 100% of paid work and 80% of running the home. My STBX does sit around drinking tea and playing on her phone for about half the time the DCs are in school. I think this is something women experience a lot when they are the higher earner. Won't make a blind bit of difference though and nor should it. Courts cannot be expected to examine relationships in this way.

@IWantT0BreakFree

One thing I should add to that. Divorcing couples will often have a much better idea how much the other works because of lockdown. That was when I realised how little my STBX actually does compared to me.

E.g. she does the school run, pops a load of laundry on and then watches telly for 2 hours. Then she puts it in the drier and has lunch. Then she watches telly or plays on her phone for two hours except for once a week when she vacuums. Then she does school run and has an intense couple of hours of feeding DCs. Then she watches TV with them for an hour before bed. I cook, iron, clean bathrooms, do the garden, wash up and work 8 hours a day.

@FutureExH sounds like a lot of bitterness and resentment there.. you do realise looking after 3 children doesn't happen by it's self don't you ... "going to work 8 hours a day" doesn't equate to not contributing the running of a family home...

@teisted

I'm afraid arguments without substance about how hard it is to run a home and look after children have less effect on me now than they did 18 months ago. I've not only observed but done the lion's share of housework and child rearing for the past 18 months whilst my STBX has sat around watching TV and playing on her phone all day. I also had to manage home schooling for three children virtually on my own because my STBX refused to, which meant for those months I was working late into the night to make up the hours. So please don't try and lecture me on how hard it is to be a SAHP as if I have no idea, or give my STBX a benefit of the doubt she has not earned.

I think it should be more generous to the OP, remember that her ExH has earning power £50,000 a year more than she does, partly down to her support for many years. In just 3 months he’ll earn this 12k he’s trying to get, and he’ll get that every year.

@bg21

you could always get a better paid job and increase your earnings rather than go after your ex husbands pension that he's worked hard for 🤷‍♀️

Wonder who was looking after 'his' children whilst he was working hard building up his pension.

@Brown76

Remember though there is no sharing principle on earnings, only on capital and pensions. In very rare cases there might be a compensation principle but that won't apply here. On capital and pensions, the sharing principle would be 50/50 but as the OP's needs are greater, the split will provide more of the needs on this basis. Thus the split has already gone above and beyond the sharing principle. Also, the law is not interested in a fair division of future income, only what the OP's needs are, to what extent they are already met and the ability of the exH to meet those needs.

You also need to be careful that you don't double count needs being met. If the asset split is already in favour of the OP then it is reasonable to ask how long it would take for the ex to "catch up" in terms of asset accumulation. If you tried to level up the incomes too, then the ex would in fact no longer have the higher earning power.

I think - and I'm not a family lawyer but I suspect this is what one will say - is that the asset split is about right provided the pensions are DCs and not DBs. Maybe the OP should have a bit of the pension but given the amount, the cost of transfer and the cost of legal fees to get it, it may not be worth it (again, whether it is a DC or DB is absolutely vital here). I do wonder though whether a clean break is fair, or whether there should be some sort of spousal maintenance because otherwise the OP faces a cliff edge only 5 years from now. I guess from what I've read is that it depends on how realistic it is to increase earning potential.

Wonder who was looking after 'his' children whilst he was working hard building up his pension.

This is why I would never allow my partner to look after the children. Or in my case just not risk marriage. If she chooses to look after the children its her choice and her change of career. I would happily pay 50:50 of childcare costs and 50% of pick-ups. If a parent chooses to sacrifice their career that is their choice not the other parents job to pay for it.
I would actually enforce doing away with chasing each others earned assets and extra income and if there is agreement from both parties that one does the childcare then they get paid a nanny's wage to cover the cost because childcare is work otherwise if one wants to pay for childcare why should the other claim they are doing them a favour raising the kids.

@Whoarethewho

Again, I don't think it's that simple. I've argued with people who think all SAHPs are martyrs because that simply isn't true. A lot of SAHPs chose the role because they made no effort to have a career and when the first DC came along the net of earnings after child care and commuting meant it wasn't worth working. It took me 7 years to persuade my STBX to stop underestimating herself and go and do something with her life outside the home (unfortunately she then split the time between studying and cheating but nevermind).

However, now I'm going to argue with you too. I just don't think the stereotypes of the downtrodden SAHP or the go getter with a career who owes nothing to their partner is that common. Tropes about how hard either of these stereotypes work is BS because they barely ever exist except in theory nowadays.

Also, it's kind of irrelevant anyway. There seems to be this view that courts worry about SAHPs who gave up a career and try to compensate them but I've been looking at the key cases in family law and the reality behind the headlines is completely different. The compensation principle has only very rarely been applied in exceptional circumstances not least because both spouses often benefit from putting all the eggs in one basket so to speak. Take Waggott v Waggott for example; Mostyn J as good as told Mrs. Waggott that she'd been advantaged by giving up her career because she got more capital than she would ever realistically have earned herself.

The way the court looks at it is to start at 50/50 on the sharing principle and then determine if either party has greater needs and that's it. They don't care if someone gave up a career or never bothered having one, of if someone has done all the work at home and in the office whilst the other had hobbies. They just look at need, what someone should be able to earn and award accordingly.

I think that's the fairest way to do it. The last thing I would want is the law trying to determine who was a better partner!

You need proper advice but please get full disclosure of the pension entitlements, both DH and your figures seem very low if you've been working and contributing all the time.