Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Pension entitlement in divorce? why

102 replies

keyser · 23/09/2025 18:02

Please someone make me understand why this makes sense or why it is a thing, what am I missing?

Why are pensions considered a joint asset in divorce? let's say I am in a marriage, I work , contribute my equal financial share to the home with a salary that has gone through deductions already(to my pension etc). I am all for equal contribution (chores/finances/child care and I have done it with my ex and it worked just fine and we both worked and paid equally except during maternity).

I am not for marriage on paper since I was a 13years old and saw my dad divorce his ex-wife and lost 1.5 million worth of assets in divorce after just 6 years of marriage.

OP posts:
JaninaDuszejko · 23/09/2025 18:08

Well if both you and your ex worked presumably you both have pensions so no issue, each person gets a fair share of the total marital pot.

Octavia64 · 23/09/2025 18:14

in a divorce (in England) all assets that belong to either the husband or wife or both are considered marital assets.

a pension is an asset.

it’s that simple.

RB68 · 23/09/2025 18:14

ITs about equalising the finances between two folk who are supposed to be partners. Regardless of what one or the other was earning, unless a case is put forward for unequal distribution the assumption is 50/50 and includes pensions which were paid out of income that was meant to keep you both

Minnie798 · 23/09/2025 18:19

I think pensions should only be considered in a divorce where there has been a sahp,
Where both parties have always worked, I don't think they should. I know the law says differently but I have a friend who is about to lose a significant proportion of her pension. This is because despite her stbxh always working, he chose not to pay into his own work pension. I'm angry for her.

Schoolchoicesucks · 23/09/2025 18:29

If one spouse is a SAHP or works part-time or in a lower paid role in order to care for children and allow the other parent to pursue a highly paid career, then the trade off is that the higher earner's pension is meant to support retirement for both of them. Agreeing a split of the higher earner's pension is the way this works as part of the divorce settlement. If both parties were able to earn equally and one chose not to pay into a pension, the settlement should be for less than if one couldn't save as much because they were supporting the other person's career

Ihateslugs · 23/09/2025 18:42

If the money comes from his pension pot, it has to go into another pension, not into a bank account to be spent! Or at least that was the case in my divorce, I got £50k to invest in a pension for the next 15 years until I retired. It was to compensate me for not paying my own pension contributions for the time I was a SAHM.

IsThisLifeNow · 23/09/2025 18:48

We equalised our pensions and addressed the difference via a cash settlement. We did that because I'd accumulated less pension during the marriage because I'd had 2 maternity leaves and I also worked part time for a while for childcare reasons.

Why should I be penalised for that? STBEXH agreed btw, to making it equal, and also to the length of maternity leave and the part time thing too. It saved us money on childcare

IsThisLifeNow · 23/09/2025 18:50

Ihateslugs · 23/09/2025 18:42

If the money comes from his pension pot, it has to go into another pension, not into a bank account to be spent! Or at least that was the case in my divorce, I got £50k to invest in a pension for the next 15 years until I retired. It was to compensate me for not paying my own pension contributions for the time I was a SAHM.

I'm getting cash, but its nowhere near your amount, more like 5k. I'll be using it to add to the house deposit fir a new place, but the longterm plan is to pay it back into my pension when I'm able to

PollyannaGladGame · 23/09/2025 19:02

I think it's fair enough, it's a joint asset.

When I was pregnant with DC1 20 years ago DH and I made a joint decision that I would chill on the career (i out earned him at the time) and focus on the house and kids.

We had no real money back then but with DH being able to focus on his career he now earns a six figure sum and has a great pension. I always worked, then went full time and was on £44k at my peak. Now age 47 am now on less due to redundancy and starting again.

Without me at home there is no way he would be where he is. He could do the late nights and get in the office early, never had to get home in time or leave for an ill child etc.

DH is brilliant and appreciates me, he does loads around the house and all money is ours. He understands he couldn't have had the three kids he wanted, not to mention loads of pets, and have the job and income without me.

If we were to divorce why should I be considerably worse off than him in old age? We made decisions and plans jointly and I would think it dreadful for me to live badly due to a divorce.

Original poster
keyser · 23/09/2025 19:30

I get all the points and will reply to each But If I have worked hard in life to build a career and settle for someone who earns half of what I earn(which is my case now) it just seems unfair to me, My partner opted out as she earns minimum wage and I contribute 12% since I was about 25 and I am now past 30.
It just seems unfair.

What can I do to protect this ? I do not benefit financial if we do get married(I own my house and can afford all my bills without a penny from her), so why would one benefit from it in divorce?

OP posts:
ZoggyStirdust · 23/09/2025 19:34

Minnie798 · 23/09/2025 18:19

I think pensions should only be considered in a divorce where there has been a sahp,
Where both parties have always worked, I don't think they should. I know the law says differently but I have a friend who is about to lose a significant proportion of her pension. This is because despite her stbxh always working, he chose not to pay into his own work pension. I'm angry for her.

This. It’s not fair when one party chooses not to save, then takes half of the other persons provision.

ZoggyStirdust · 23/09/2025 19:35

keyser · 23/09/2025 19:30

I get all the points and will reply to each But If I have worked hard in life to build a career and settle for someone who earns half of what I earn(which is my case now) it just seems unfair to me, My partner opted out as she earns minimum wage and I contribute 12% since I was about 25 and I am now past 30.
It just seems unfair.

What can I do to protect this ? I do not benefit financial if we do get married(I own my house and can afford all my bills without a penny from her), so why would one benefit from it in divorce?

I hope you’re a woman in a same sex relationship. If you’re a man you’ll get a kicking…

spanieleyes · 23/09/2025 19:40

I stayed at home for almost 12 years, a joint decision first because ex worked abroad when the children were young so I left my job to go with him and then because he stayed abroad so I had to bring the children up single handed. I had a 12 year gap in pension contributions ( not state pension as I got the home responsibilities credit for most of the period, but a private pension) so he agreed that I should have some of his pension as “ compensation” . Seemed fair to both of us!

SoManyTshirts · 23/09/2025 19:44

I have a friend who got half of her XH’s army pension when he deserted her after almost 30 years. In the years that she was able to work, he told her not to make pension contributions but to put all of her money towards expenses, as his pension
would keep them both. 50% was well deserved.

Not saving isn’t always a personal choice, especially in an abusive relationship.

OP- if you don’t want to share, don’t get married. The marriage contract mandates sharing.

mamagogo1 · 23/09/2025 19:45

Either accept the law or don’t get married. I brought up dc moving continents and cities for my exh’s job, my career was thus non existent for over 10 years, also have dc with Sen that couldn’t access wraparound care - we got 50/50 on the pensions which lent him giving me a chunk of his and we sold the house

MrsSkylerWhite · 23/09/2025 19:46

Octavia64 · 23/09/2025 18:14

in a divorce (in England) all assets that belong to either the husband or wife or both are considered marital assets.

a pension is an asset.

it’s that simple.

This.

MyFortieth · 23/09/2025 19:51

If one describes their spouse as “settled for” then frankly they should expect to be divorced. What a way to speak about someone.

It seems you don’t really understand what marriage is, and therefore to realities of divorce are a surprise to you. You can’t honestly claim it would be a surprise?

In the majority of cases including mine, the reason he can earn more is that she takes on his share of the load of everything else (whilst working). See how your career progresses if you have to pick up kids, or leave meetings if they get sick.

mnbvqwertyqwerty · 23/09/2025 19:57

Marriage and civil partnerships are binding contracts for life that impose obligations in respect of money, property and children. If you marry, your assets and liabilities are shared and this includes pensions.

Most people accept this because they know that marriages have ups and downs. So even though your partner earns less than you now, that might not always be the case. Or it could be that you get seriously ill, for example, and your partner supports you financially and emotionally at the time. Or one of you becomes a stay-at-home parent if you have children, so it's only fair that partner isn't financially disadvantaged because of that joint decision.

If you don't like the idea of that, then don't get married. Or get a cast-iron pre-nup and keep your fingers crossed that the court takes notice of it if you get divorced.

ScaryM0nster · 23/09/2025 19:57

As you say, why would you get married if that’s the view on the situation. Much better not to if that’s your outlook.

Pensions are seen assets because they are assets. The basic premise underpinning divorce settlements are that married couples are a team who pull together and their assets / achievements / liabilities are all joint. That’s there because in traditional marriages that’s the case. Individuals may bring different things to that team result, and those things in different forms, but ultimately it’s the financial assets that need to be split. One may have done more financial earning while the other did more of the home making.

If that’s not your outlook on marriage, then maybe marriage isn’t for you.

UnemployedNotRetired · 23/09/2025 20:08

A pension is just a different kind of savings account. If you think savings should be shared, so should pensions. Of course if don't think savings should be shared ....

housebuyer1 · 23/09/2025 20:15

Minnie798 · 23/09/2025 18:19

I think pensions should only be considered in a divorce where there has been a sahp,
Where both parties have always worked, I don't think they should. I know the law says differently but I have a friend who is about to lose a significant proportion of her pension. This is because despite her stbxh always working, he chose not to pay into his own work pension. I'm angry for her.

This
I now work full time but for most of my marriage was either on mat leave or part time. I still paid into my pension and we both split the bills 50/50. Ex DH chose not to get a pension. Now we’re divorcing it’s gutting I’ll have to give him some (but luckily not 50% as he still has 30 years until he retires) just because he chose not to and frittered his disposable income away. It’s not even enough pension for two people it would only have covered one person in retirement and now I’ll have to increase how much I put in to compensate.
Its great the law protects stay at home parents but unfair for those who are not

Sunflower459 · 23/09/2025 20:16

MyFortieth · 23/09/2025 19:51

If one describes their spouse as “settled for” then frankly they should expect to be divorced. What a way to speak about someone.

It seems you don’t really understand what marriage is, and therefore to realities of divorce are a surprise to you. You can’t honestly claim it would be a surprise?

In the majority of cases including mine, the reason he can earn more is that she takes on his share of the load of everything else (whilst working). See how your career progresses if you have to pick up kids, or leave meetings if they get sick.

I think this is the key point here. Of course marriages and families look like a lot of different things these days (and thank God for it), but I do think that where one partner works outside the home and the other stays home to raise children/clean/cook/otherwise run the home, the first partner often wildly underestimates how much the second is saving the household overall. The sharing of the pension in the way OP describes would be by way of compensation for that.

OP, it sounds like some serious, frank conversations are needed before any big decisions are made in your case. You really shouldn’t be going into anything feeling you’ve ‘settled’, for both your sakes.

AnotherVice · 23/09/2025 20:17

In cases where one spouse saves into their pension but the other one doesn’t, presumably because they’re lower paid and need to maximise their take home pay, that money is spent on living costs as a couple?

Hall84 · 23/09/2025 20:23

I'm in the process of finalising the financials of my divorce. I've agreed on 25% of his pension on the basis its about half of the pension for the time we were together. I work too but lost out during maternity pay and whilst he was making extra contributions I was paying the nursery bill. Should he benefit from me paying the nursery bill for 3.5 years?

Soontobe60 · 23/09/2025 20:27

Minnie798 · 23/09/2025 18:19

I think pensions should only be considered in a divorce where there has been a sahp,
Where both parties have always worked, I don't think they should. I know the law says differently but I have a friend who is about to lose a significant proportion of her pension. This is because despite her stbxh always working, he chose not to pay into his own work pension. I'm angry for her.

When me and DH got married, and in fact all through our married life, he was by far the lower earner with a terrible workplace pension. It has made much more financial sense for the greater contributions to be put into my defined benefit pension. He worked overtime and the extra money he earned enabled me to buy additional pension contributions. We’ve benefitted by having a pension that we can comfortably live on combined with our eventual State pensions. Why should I be the only person to benefit from this joint decision if we had divorced?

Swipe left for the next trending thread