Just had the "I've paid for everything and now you're going to steal it all" conversation

[Amicus1966]

Have told DH that I cannot live like this much longer so he really needs to push the estate agent re selling the house so we can both find somewhere else.
He has come at me with a tirade of how HE put the majority of the money into the property, how he pays all the bills ( including HIS sky sports) and that I can't expect to just walk off with half the proceeds from " his" house.
Seems to have completely overlooked the fact that I have spent eleven years liking after our children so he could go to work, play golf whenever he felt like it and bugger off on his all boys golfing hols.
Tried to explain that the proceeds from the sale have to be split to but a home for him and a home for me AND his DCs. Have also explained that neither of us will be able to afford a 4 bed detached with downstairs cloakroom and master bedroom with ensure (which we currently have) so get over it!
He is stalling as he doesnot want to leave this house. Neither do I but hey ho shit happens.
He has come out with the classic line that "all women are gold diggers", and "home wreckers".
He just doesn't get that downsizing is the only option and says the DCs are going to hate me for making them move into a "cramped hovel" as he calls it.
Why do they have to be so awkward when things are hard enough already?

[Amicus1966]

Thanks all.
I just have this image in my head of him sitting on his ugly sofa in an empty house, counting his money and scratching his head trying to figure out why his marriage crashed.

[MrsYoungSalvoMontalbano]

Nomama your post was very clear and helpful re assets coming into a marriage or civil partnership.
OP - yes, re the sitting there scratching head and counting money - the very point I put to mine...

[fifi669]

Why should choosing to be a SAHP mean you get more than 50% of the assets? Why should anyone get spousal maintenance? Child maintenance yes, but for your living costs? That's ridiculous! What happened to independent women?

Half the money in the accounts, half the equity in the house, half the pension.... Seek advice regarding the company, it is a seperate legal entity so the money and assets aren't actually his.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Because a stay at home parent makes a career sacrifice for the sake of the family.

The person who stays at home gives up their earning potential, and any place on the career ladder they may have. They are probably out of the workplace for a number of years, maybe even a decade or more - whilst supporting their spouse in their career progression.

They are also far more likely to be the primary carer for the children after the divorce - and so often get a greater share of the house to reflect this.

[Georgina1975]

NoFlyingAllowed

No - I think the settlement was fair.

She was the resident parent and required a greater share of the property to purchase a suitable house. They lived in an expensive area and both wanted to kids to remain there - near to good schools etc... And even though she has a good job and a good income, her earnings would have been a lot higher had she remained focused on her career. She went PT for 10/12 years and did most of the childcare during this time.

I guess they were very lucky in having sufficient assets/income between them for neither to feel hard done by.

[TheCatThatSmiled]

Because Fifi when you have children the whole thing changes. As a parent if you agree to stay at home you give up both your financial independence and any means to earn money. Your career is stalled or curtailed. Even 5 years out of the work force makes it difficult to get back into your career. Child care costs often make it impractical to return to work, even after they start school.

The parent who works benefits financially from having the other parent at home. Their career progresses unimpeded, and their financial warning power increases. This would not be the case if the stay at home parent did not support them by looking after the children. In addition they often get house cleaning, shopping, laundry done for them, so life is easier and they can concentrate on their job.

After all both parents agreed to marry and have children, why should one of them be penalised for that if the marriage breaks down?

[Amicus1966]

Well fifi one of us had to look after the children when they were young and I didn't see his hand shooting up.
As for both if us working, fine. If he felt that me being SAH wasn't fair then he should have spoken up. Reason for not doing so? Because he didn't want to have to contribute to the childcare bill when he had me doing it for free.
Hope that answers your question.

[fifi669]

It doesn't answer it at all. You chose to stay at home and look after the kids. You decided to be out of the workforce. If you didn't want to, you would have got a job. Why should your ex have to pay maintenance to you for your choices?

He also wants the children, so by that reckoning will have them a lot. So why would it be fair for him to have less than 50% of the assets?

50:50 is fair to both of you. Child maintenance is a seperate issue. You're seperate now. Your bills are your own. Stand on your own two feet.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Whether one parent stays at home with the children is considered a joint decision of the marriage, fifi.

Whether it is her 'choice' is neither here nor there - she has sacrificed her career for the good of the family. That is how the law sees it.

[HowLongIsTooLong]

Exactly Sabrina. It is presumed that both members of the couple decide at the time that it is best that one of them (usally the mother) stays at home with the newborn and toddler. This is not a solo decision and has much bigger implications for the financial future (insecurity I should say) of the SAH person if the couple later separates. Fifi, page back a bit and look at an earier post today by moonfacebaby and her situation and you'll see what happens and how "fair" the 50: 50 idea pans out to be. It's bollocks, basically. Thank god the UK law is progressive enough to recognise that.

[fifi669]

And in doing so despite not putting physical money into the house or bank accounts has been compensated by receiving 50% of the marital assets. Her contribution and sacrifice at home being seen as equal to his contribution. Why is that not fair?

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Because he can just carry happily along with his career progression uninterrupted. She cannot. She has already given up her financial independence for the sake of the family, so is compensated accordingly.

[fifi669]

This situation is nothing like moonface either. OPs ex wants the children and wants to do the school runs etc. OP wouldn't have to worry about childcare or school hours. Except of course she'll want the children. That again is her choice and not something her ex should finance because she can't get work that fits in with school.

There are plenty of single mums out there that work, keep the house clean and tidy, do the housework etc. They manage on their own and don't need a man to pay for them. I don't see why because you were once married he should continue to pay for you.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Luckily, the law sees it differently. Believe me, spousal maintenance is rarely enough to continue being a non-working parent, unless you are super rich. The sahps are expected to try and maximise your earnings as well, but that's not always that easy when you have taken a career break.

Spousal maintenance recognises the career sacrifice that a sahp has taken for the sake of the family.

[fifi669]

In all honesty if you can get spousal support and the lions share of the house just because you stayed at home, the law is a joke.

[Fluffycloudland77]

F4J?

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

No - because the working parent has the financial independence and has benefitted from the other spouse doing the childcare.

I'd like to see the childcare bill the OP could tot up for her children over the years.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Quite possible fluffy.

[fifi669]

I'm not fathers for justice. I'm a woman who doesn't get why some others think they should get more than their fair share!

[fifi669]

Then she'd have to split that childcare bill in half to account for her share!

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

It is a fair share - it reflects the fact that the children will be most likely living with the sahp and that they have sacrificed their own career for the good of the family. I really don't think it's that difficult to understand.

[fifi669]

She's had free rent and board, bills paid, clothes bought etc for the period she was at home. In exchange she provided childcare and kept the house running. In addition she leaves with 130k by last 50:50 calculation up thread. Sounds like a good deal to me!

I'll point out again that OPs ex wants the children and wants to be fully involved so it isn't as if he's abandoning them.

[Amicus1966]

Actually fifi, I was being slightly sarcastic there. DH doesn't want the children in the week because he wants to be with them as such. He wants them in the week, where they will be at school, because it would mean that
A) won't make any difference to his work as he starts after 9 and finishes before 3 through choice.
B) most importantly, it means his weekend won't be fucked up re the golf. With his DCs from a previous relationship he used to take them to 'visit' his mum every Sunday so he could play golf. He can't do that now as she has died. So his idea if me having them at the weekend is all for his benefit not the DCs.

[Amicus1966]

Oh and he's never paid for any if my clothes or the DCs. All that comes out of CB. He's just brought himself yet another pair of golf shoes whilst DS2 is walking round in holey school shoes. But then I suppose the 'free rent' compensates for that.
I have also never had a visit to a hairdresser, manicurist, health spa etc.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

The settlement in divorce is to provide for her as she continues to look after the children - and get her and the children a house which meets their needs - preferably one where OP doesn't have to sleep on a sofa bed in the lounge. While the dh seems to think he can keep most of the money and the 4 bed house.