Advice about divorcing a high earner

[Fedupnowhadenough]

Hi my husband earns about £400,000 a year plus more in bonuses. I earn £20,000 a year and work part time.

We have 3 school age kids (infant and primary).

I have no savings etc, don’t know about him as we have separate bank accounts. He pays all bills, mortgage etc

If I was to leave him, does anyone know roughly what my financial position would be? He obviously earns so much more than me, and I just don’t know how I would survive financially if I was to leave 😢

He isn’t abusive, just a shit parent and doesn’t help or support me with the children in any way whatsoever apart from financially. We rarely have sex, I do all the parenting etc.

@carmenitapink I disagree entirely. Earning a 400k salary is not parenting. Beyond a base level of financial provision to ensure all members of the family are supported and cared for there is no necessity for her husband to work for a 400k salary. He may want to do it and they may both enjoy the lifestyle it brings but it's not a necessity and it's certainly not parenting. It's contributing to the family yes, parenting no. If he did a 80k a year job which meant all members of the family were still kept fed, watered and cared for he could presumably be more present to do some actual parenting like reading stories, collecting and drop off, making meals, days out etc. Much of parenting is mindless drudgery only made worthwhile by the joy you get from being around your children. Many people recognise the mindless drudgery and prefer to outsource that to care providers or their wives, which is fine if it's a choice made as a family and with honesty about that choice. Telling yourself earning a massive salary and flying around the world being important is parenting is nonsense and I can assure you your children would agree.

@carmenitapink he didn't start out on 400k, in order to reach that you need to sacrifice quite a bit of your personal life, and OP picked up the slack and did all the childrearing, at the expense of her own career. Fairly bananas that you think people on those kinds of salaries started out on them in their twenties, and could fork over 100k a year for nannies. You've been watching too many films.

T@bravelittletiger I took a screenshot of your post so o can show my high earning husband

@falsepositivenervous you are also wrong. Some careers just pay more and is not a reflection of the time and sacrifice it takes . If OP was also a high earner there would have been two salaries before kids came along and they could have planned out childcare etc

Did OP have a high paying career before she had kids? That's the question to answer to see if she had indeed sacrificed her career

@bravelittletiger I hope my children will agree as they admire my DH lifestyle . Perhaps when they have kids themselves

Some jobs mean when you go up the ladder you manage people and go out wining and dining to win the business and actually have a lot of time at home

Kids were too young when it was a struggle

@chopc what career starts out so high and then levels out at 400k twenty years on?

What do you mean by "Did OP have a high paying career before she had kids? That's the question to answer to see if she had indeed sacrificed her career"? It sounds like you're saying a career that pays highly is actually valid as a career? There are a whole load of academics/teachers/nurses out here who would take umbrage with that 😂

No it’s saying did she have a 100k plus job before but gave that up and now is only on 25k

or was she always on a 25k job so I reality has not been disadvantaged just happens to have different job and different earnings

ie if teacher when married and teacher now, then it’s hard to really argue career and earning sacrifice

I don't see parenting as a financial transaction but I do think being financial responsible for the sake of your children is part of being a parent. Often the posts I read on this forum are from people with entitlement issues who think provision for the children financially is solely the responsibility of the other parent.

This is valid but actually most of the time in divorces it's got nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is incredibly rare, almost non-existent in fact. Most high net worth divorces instead go along the lines of a 50/50 split and then time limited spousal maintenance until the point at which the weaker financial party can live off the capital they received (e.g. Waggott where after appeal the wife got 3 years SM with a section 28 bar).

For more "normal" divorces it is dictated by needs, not compensation. The weaker financial party don't get more than 50% of the assets or ongoing maintenance because someone decided they "earned" them. They get more because they're seen as too pathetic and incompetent to be self sufficient and meet their own needs. Sorry, but that's the brutal honest truth of the matter.

And yet in this case the OP IS working. Also you can provide for your kids on a fraction of 400k.

@BetterFuture1985 sorry but that's not the brutal truth of the matter even if you would like to peddle those sorts of misogynistic lies. Legally that's almost the exact opposite of the way family law is intended to operate.

I know divorces aren’t done this way
my point was women often state they’ve sacrificed careers and earnings / but in reality didn’t really have one to start with or just happen to do a job that pays different amounts

First of all, you're the misogynist for the simple reason that you made a leap of logic that the weaker financial party is always a woman. Increasingly that is not the case and you need to check your prejudices.

Also, from a legal perspective, financial settlements in family law cases are indeed almost almost needs based and not compensation based. Compensation cases are incredibly rare and it's also not that common to deviate from a 50/50 settlement once all assets are taken into consideration. The only exceptions are when one partner is so utterly useless at being a self supporting grown up that a court decides their needs are greater.

As others have said, they’ll start at 50/50 and then you’ll need to argue your case. If he’s a high earner though he may have the means to successfully hide some of his wealth.

My DP earns more than yours and I decided to keep working FT. DC attends a lovely nursery and with us both working FT it forces DP to be more present. Have you thought about changing your circumstances and seeing if the dynamic changes before considering divorce? This will also put you in a better position if you do decide to divorce.

@BetterFuture1985 nope that's still you. It's not misogynistic to make that assumption because sadly due to structural inequalities and biases in the majority of situations the woman is the one who takes on primary care of children and is the lower earner as a result. There are exceptions to the rule but that's the norm.

"So utterly useless at being a self supporting grown up". I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with the family law system.

I'm afraid none of your untested and unproven theories (largely opinions masquerading as fact and not subject to adequate peer review) have any bearing whatsoever on what I said. You made a leap of logic that was misogynistic; I didn't. You really don't have to look very far on this site to find higher earning women complaining about parasitic ex-husbands who sit on their backsides playing computer games all day. An exact male equivalent of my ex-wife.

The reality is that the vast majority of people - men and women - go and work full time after divorce and maximise their incomes. They tend to get 50% of the assets and move on with their lives. The exceptions are those with "need" normally generated by their own lack of work ethic, competence or a combination of the two.

So your own "peer review" is the threads of Mumsnet? Impressive. I really don't need to cite peer review to know that it's women who tend to take the impact on their career in families. Even trying to argue other than that is misogynistic. I made no leaps of faith about what you have said, your statements speak for themselves.

What about making small changes first. Get to grips with the money, ask for a shared account. Put some savings away. Tell him you'd like to do more hours, but will need nanny/cleaner etc.

I'm afraid it is still you who made a leap of logic, not me, and I find your argument based on generalities entirely superfluous to the debate. You tried to insult and degrade my arguments about the law by making erroneous claims about misogyny, an argument that amounted to a strawman. Then and now I find your argument entirely ridiculous, wrong and misplaced.

Talk to a solicitor to see what you’re entitled to. Also, have a think about what changes might make your life better if you were to stay together. He might not be there physically but if he’s earning that amount of money he should have no problem finding the cash for childcare, a cleaner and anything else that will lighten the load for you at home. Would retraining or further education be something you’d be interested in if you weren’t spending all your time working and parenting? If you felt more like a valued partner rather than the cook, cleaner, maid and mummy 24/7 you might find your feelings for him change.

Agree with this. I was in that position and was worried he might seek primary care of kids (he worked 4 days a week - did probably a little more in the house). I would never have wanted him to be the sahp but my job was very demanding.

I agree with this. In a lot of cases (not all of course but maybe the majority) people haven’t needed to give up a stellar career because their partner is a high earner. My ex worked four days before I met him and had the same job before and after. Yes he did more childcare during the relationship but he did not give up or sacrifice his career.

What @millymollymoomoo said @falsepositivenervous

I have a very valued job as a healthcare professional. But we are not very well paid in this country.

My earning potential was less than my husband's . In any case I was happy to work part time and spend more time with the kids. I saw it as a privilege and felt that he was the one who missed out.

However if we were to divorce I don't think I will go for 50/50 of the assets even if that is the norm. The reason being I would never have been able to accumulate all the assets even if I worked full time. I would however expect him to support the kids and I will live off my earnings

If you work in the city even starting salaries can be around £70K and jump up as the career progress. So if OP was also earning prior to having kids .........

This is largely what I was getting at before I was called deranged 😂

If I was earning £400k and my partner earned 25k and worked part time, then yes they'd be doing most of the day to day parenting.

There's also enough money for OP to hire in some support instead of just complaining

@carmenitapink Exactly that. We have cleaner and a gardener. We’re renovating a house at the moment and adding all the mod cons to make life easier. I still have more than 50% responsibility for DC but with a cleaner and a gardener and DC fed and happy after nursery, although he often has a bit more food with us, it’s manageable.

However, if after all this you’re still unhappy then it’s probably time to leave.