Husband pressing me to earn more

[starsandladybirds]

Been married for 4 years and have one DS who is 2. I went back to work part-time after DS was born for 3 days a week, husband earns much more than me in his job, nearly £100k.

A few months ago he told me he wanted a divorce. He wants 50:50 in terms of custody which I’ve agreed to although I feel sick at the thought of not seeing DS for days at a time. Day to day we are civil but I feel stuck in this awful limbo, no love, no affection. It feels very lonely.

We are still living together as neither can afford to move out but he has been pressing me to get a full time job. He says he’s spoken to a solicitor about the divorce process and wants to give me a chance to get a full time job before he files to give me a chance to get settled and earning more.

I spoke to a solicitor and they said to stay in my current job but increase my hours if I can (I haven’t been able to) so it doesn’t affect me trying to get a mortgage due to not being in a new job long enough - however a mortgage adviser I spoke to said that doesn’t matter and I could get a mortgage as long as I had a job offer.

I’m not coping well at my present job and feel I can’t face searching and interviewing for new jobs - I am struggling with the grief and uncertainty about what’s happening and am trying to keep it together and things consistent for DS. I also feel I need consistency for myself as I’ve been at my present job for a few years and know what I’m doing. I’d rather he filed first and we got the financial agreements/custody etc sorted first before we sell the house and before I change anything drastic in my and DS’ routine. I'm prepared I'll need to work FT when we do divorce to support myself as a single parent.

Does anyone have experience of this as I’m worried he is wanting me to increase hours/change jobs before filing so there is a better outcome for him in terms of financial split? He’s mentioned if I don’t do this I’ll end up having to rent or on benefits when we come to sell the house as I won’t be able to get a mortgage on my part-time salary, and I’m so worried about what the future looks like and providing a suitable home for DS. I’ve sacrificed so much for our family and worried I’m going to be left destitute if I don’t act quickly.

I do 5 days in the office every fortnight. If it were me, I'd arrange things so that I did 5 days on the week I didn't have the kids and work from home when I did.

Why are so many women assuming that it's simply impossible for a man with a career to manage 50:50 custody? It's not the 1950's.

I think the boom in WFH arrangements has had quite a big impact on the feasibility of 50/50 childcare arrangements.

Because when it comes down to it, this sort of man (NAMALT etc) doesn’t actually want to do 50:50. It’s not that they can’t do it, they just don’t want to. Of course he can do 50:50 with a high-powered job but he’s not doing it now. It would be a hell of. Lot easier to do 50:50 while married to your wife so you can enjoy all of the benefits of having a family and being with someone you love and want to share a life with. If you don’t want to participate in that then you don’t actually want a family life or to share your life with the person you chose to have a child with. In that situation, it’s more than likely the 50:50 is to benefit his pocket and not his child.

The OP works part-time. It would be completely unreasonable to expect her husband, who is working full-time, to do 50:50 childcare. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Also, the OP doesn't mention anything about having a 'high-powered job'. She says he earns nearly £100k. It is perfectly possible to earn that sort of money working 9am-5pm, Monday to Friday - e.g. I.T., accountancy, actuary, etc.

This thread is full of man hating nonsense and outdated stereotypes.

The OP needs ignore all the the 'set yourself up for a freeride' advice and get a full-time job. She needs to make sure that she's in a position to get a mortgage when the divorce is finalised. If she doesn't, she'll probably find that her savings are too large to qualify for UC and all the house equity will get eaten up by rent and living expenses. If that happens, she might never be in a position to buy a house again.

He's the one that wants 50/50. It's right there in the first post. Maybe you should have a re read.

Ops ex doesn’t do 50:50 childcare now as they were a family unit with a wife working pt - his role was to provide income, to allow and facilitate op to work less. Ops role was to do childcare to help ops ex work. Op could only stay at home as her dh worked so op is not some self sacrificing person- she’s benefitted massively from this arrangement

but that only works when they are a unit. Now they are not roles change.

its highly unfair to say ex only wants 50:50 to avoid maintenance and that he doesn’t do it now. Sounds like op only wants the children so she can avoid work thinking she gets a free ride for next 15 years ( she won’t)

op needs to work more and increase her income. Op ex needs to facilitate more childcare.

op cannot expect things to stay the same and have sane lifestyle as now. Thats simply not correct and wont happen

Op could only stay at home as her dh worked so op is not some self sacrificing person- she’s benefitted massively from this arrangement

Being a SAHPis only a benefit if you WANT to be a SAHP.
When you don’t but the situation is engineered in such a way that you are basically a single parent working full time (as in he doesn’t do any pick-up, child being ill, hospital appointments etc etc), suddenly the decision isn’t one where the (usually) mother has freely chosen but she was coerced into.
And of course, the only reason this man can do his very important job, working long hours is because she was there. The OP clearly says he’d struggle to do 50/50 because of that!

So let’s stop bashing women who stay at home. More often than not, esp in cases like this with a ‘very well earning man’, the arrangement has benefitted more to him than to her.
Just look at the answers in this thread - she has sacrificed her career but is now expected to earn well. She is a leech for not wanting 50/40 because clearly ‘that’s because she thinks she can the life of Riley doing fuck all’.

And then we wonder why women don’t want children nowadays….

He's saying he wants 50:50 after the divorce, but lots of women have claimed this is bullshit because he's not doing 50:50 now. Why would/should he do 50:50 now, when his wife only works part-time?

Yeah. That's great and everything, but the majority of women I know, including my wife, are very happy to go part-time/no-time.

I'm my marriage there wassn't really much discussion and it was basically just a fait accompli at the end of her maternity leave. It certainly isn't some huge sacrifice that my wife is making for her husband - it's more a sense of entitlement on her part!

Because he’s telling her to get a full time job now, what happens if she get a full time job, first week ds is ill, will he take a week of work or will op be expected to be the default parent as her job is less important? I guess it will depend on what happens now if their ds is ill on one of op working days.

@ThisOldThang your marriage isn’t a yard to establish what women want.
And you are likely to be surrounded by women who think the same by default.

Your comment about it being a ‘fait accomplis’ tells me you’re not happy about it though.
No surprise you’re now pushing this idea that tough shit the OO should earning plenty and that she was benefiting from the arrangement and not her dh.

Because if he was happy to take time off when dcs are ill, there is a school, play etc etc… he’d have supported his dwife to work full time by ta
king half of the load if her shoulders.

He hasn’t and then you wonder why the dwife prefers to work part time? 😂😂😂

You can tell you're a dude like. How about pitch in and do 50/50 now so it's an even playing field?

Why would he take time off to cover illness, if his wife isn't working on those days? The scrambled logic on this thread is breath-taking.

They are getting a divorce. Whatever arrangements that have existed before, won't work after the divorce. He's asking for 50:50. There is no reason why he won't get 50:50. At that point, child illnesses falling on his days will be his problem.

Op wanted to stay at home her exh wanted a sahm, the relationship has ended. She cannot afford to do that and her husband will not be required to fund her doing it. While her husband can find another partner to fulfil this role, the op cannot do the same easily. This isnt her husbands fault or responsibility. He should fully care for his kids 50/50 why dhouldnt he. Op can either find a way to generate enough money to provide herself with the living standard her ex did. Its not nothing thst he worked to support the op not working, it was a huge feature of the ops world. Its a shock for sure to realise your future depended on the ability of one person to provide for you and your children. Raising children is hard but most people on earth and cats manage it. Op is more then just her housekeeping skills shes a worthy person im her own right, that they loved each other was enough, now its not.

Currently you are the main care provider so you’d get a larger share of the home and more custody of kids. Don’t change a thing until you’ve received proper legal advice

She did mention going to work full-time a couple of weeks ago and had a bit of a look online to see if there were any local jobs that might be suitable. She decided there weren't any and said:

"Seeing as we're done with two kids, I think I'll stay part-time. I enjoy being at home with DS2."

To which I replied:

"Yes. It must be lovely."

I got a bit of a funny look for that comment.

It must be nice to be able to assume that the other person will just keep on providing so that you can enjoy yourself!

Before the wrath of Mumsnet descends upon me, I should point out that I've just booked off three days of holiday and TOIL so that my wife can work when our childminder goes on holiday. It is a team effort in our house and I certainly pull my weight.

@Wasityoubecayse OP works 3 days a week, she is not a SAHM

She cannot afford to support herself or her children even for 50% of the time on her P/T. Her ex is and will be able to support himself and his children.she has only been narried for 4 years and tjis includes the time from when the relatipnship ended so maybe 3. She will not be entilted to much of anything from his previously held assests. She did not help him develop his carrer infact this is the early part if he is on 6 figures you can expect that to double. The point is when you use opz household contribution as a comparison to her ex it doesnt stand up and in court the judge will pick her apart. She needs to negotiate with him now, not listen to any of the terrible advice and really start to own her finacial future.

Ok. If that wall of text was a reply to me, you aren’t telling me anything I don’t know.

I was simply correcting a misapprehension in your earlier post.

If she divorces she is either entitled legally to stay in the marital home until their child is 18 or she is entitled to half the house.

But he says he no longer loves me or finds me attractive, and that was months ago so I need to find a way to come to terms with this.

Cherchez la femme. He’s in a hurry for a reason.

Take it at your pace. As you say, you’ve sacrificed your earning power for his career and you need a really shit hot lawyer (SHL) to make sure this is recognised in the financial negotiations.

"entitled legally to stay in the marital home until their child is 18"

That's simply not true. It would require a Mesher Order from a court and isn't a 'legal entitlement'.

Given the father will also have housing requirements and doesn't earn enough to support both his and his ex-wife's housing requirements, it is unlikely that the OP would get a Mesher Order and far more likely the court would order the house to be sold and proceeds divided equally.

"she is entitled to half the house."

That might be true if the house was purchased during the marriage. If he owned it before they met, she might not be entitled to a share because it might not be deemed to be a 'marital asset'.

@JoBoJoBo thst is not legally correct or accurate at all. People should stop giving incorrect ‘advice’

Why are people still insisting on not only providing legal advice on this thread but debating the merits of it? No legal professional would ever be able to advise based on the information provided.

"She will get to stay in the house until the child is 18"
Unlikely because the child is only 2 and orders, which are already rare, don't tend to last more than 5 or 6 years when they are ordered. Without further information from the OP, this looks like very bad advice.

"He doesn't want to pay spousal maintenance"
He might not anyway and even if he did, it's unlikely these days to be for much longer than the child reaching school age anyway, although of course again it depends on circumstances we have not established. We don't know the full picture of their assets. I don't even think I've seen a figure of what the OP earns?

"It was a short marriage"
Not once there's children it's not. Once there is a child of the marriage, there is potentially a relationship generated disadvantage with a long tail.

"He cannot do 50/50 so he won't be awarded it"
Who knows?

"You shouldn't change your hours or your job until the divorce is over in order to maximise your settlement"
Actually, it might not matter a jot. It depends how many assets there are, what the ages of the parties are, what the needs are etc etc. Again, I wouldn't dare advise on the basis of the information provided. The only clue I have is that the OP's solicitor has suggested upping her hours with her existing employer which suggests they believe there is either some untapped earning capacity there or they need to establish a better argument as to why there is not.

It's really not a clear cut issue in divorce. People think that if they minimise their income they might get a better settlement but when you are dealing with a needs case that is quite unlikely because there are already not enough assets to go around. The courts won't impose all of the hardship arising from that on one party. It's more likely that there will be a brief transition period (normally a year or less but with a 2 year old maybe until they begin school) where the stronger party has to support the weaker party whilst they find a better job and assets like the family home are sold.

The real impact of delaying improvements to earning capacity beyond that probably include the following:

1. The weaker financial party being less developed in their career when support from the other spouse stops;
2. If a party is clearly not maximising their earning capacity, a judge might speculate more as to what their future earning capacity might be. Making an effort to maximise an earning capacity now reduces the scope for that speculation. For example, a judge might decide that once the OP's child is in school they can not only do their current job full time but could also use their skills and qualifications to greater affect. Her exDH might bring evidence of what those careers might be. Already working full time in a career earning less might be a more robust defence against such speculation than working part time three days a week. Please note I keep using the word "might." It might also be the case that a judge accepts the OP is already maximising their earning capacity. But there is certainly not one, definitive right answer to this as posters are suggesting.