Who is more financially vulnerable after a split?

[ManvsWoman]

NC as potentially outing

My closest best friends (Male female couple) are on the verge of splitting up and both are confiding in me about things. Both feel as though they'll be struggling financially vs the other after they live separately.

They have been together very much long term but aren't married and have a child, She works 4 days a week and doesn't earn high. She thinks she will be struggling due to this as no marriage to fall back on. Isn't sure what she would get from him but I know he would never play dirty. From what I can gather, she seems much more for the split than him and feels they aren't as close as they used to be.

On the other hand, he is concerned how he will cope. Good job and earns well but seems to think he will need to pay her mortgage, move out and then finance a place of his own on top. (It's been suggested that this is what she's expecting but that hasn't been mentioned to me and I wouldn't dare ask!) He also mentioned she has been hiding money away so feels like this has been a long time coming for her.

I don't know how all of this works, especially when marriage isn't involved, I thought after a certain time marriage made no difference to what people were entitled to.

What is most likely to be the case? I am trying to reassure them both but I do tend to agree with my male friend that he will be expected to cover a lot more than she would.

Thoughts?

I thought after a certain time marriage made no difference to what people were entitled to - no, this isn't correct. And for this reason, the lower earner is more financially vulnerable after a split.

Answering your question generally I’d say it’s too variable.to answer and shouldn’t be based on whether male or female. It’s usually unfair to one and not always the woman.

Your friends scenario...accepting your lifestyle will take a dip is part of splitting up tbh.

If I was the man here I would have concerns but so would I as the woman. Both of them need to decide what they can do to draw a line, alter their financial future and stop looking to their partner for that solution.

Invariably where the child lives makes a difference to where most of the financial security needs to be.

I think they plan to share custody but I don't think the finer details are worked out.

I've got him saying she's going to take him for every penny he's got and worrying how he'll survive as although he earns high he's a contractor and in the current climate that could disappear at any minute.

I've got her in bits that she's going to not be able to afford a comfortable life and wondering if he is going to provide for her or screw her over.

He's a kind person so I think he'd support them even if it made him worse off. She seems to have a lot of built up resentment but I don't think he actually wants them to split.

Not my place to suggest they work on it for a bit longer is it.. but I feel like piggy in the middle!

Based on years of MN reading , because they aren’t married he can walk out and only be liable for child maintenance; he has no legal requirement to pay for the mortgage or anything else. I’m sure someone with actually experience or qualifications will come along shortly and advise.

I would imagine that if they aren't married, the family home would need to be sold and the proceeds split in half. Child maintenance would depend on whether childcare was 50/50 or not, but I would think that both parents will need to work full time going forward, so 50/50 is likely so no child maintenance. Generally, not getting married puts women in a poorer position, as they are usually the lower earners due to being at home with the child in the early years, and having a job to fit around childcare.

If they are not married, and depending if they own/rent their house, each walks away with what is currently in their own name. If the house is owned 50:50 it will need to be sold and equity split 50:50, or one buys the other out. No ongoing financial obligation for either of them as far as that goes (ie he will not have to pay her mortgage and rent himself - she will be responsible for her own living expenses).

Who will the dc be living with? The non-resident parent will have to pay CMS at the usual rate, there is a good online calculator for this.

Both of them will have bigger financial responsibilities now, and things will be tight for them both. Being married would have enabled a more equal financial split, eg she gets more equity if he's a big earner, and all savings go onto the pot. This isn't the case at all if you're not married.

I've got her in bits that she's going to not be able to afford a comfortable life and wondering if he is going to provide for her or screw her over.

They're not married. There is no obligation for him to provide for her, only for the child. There is no 'screwing over' - they both chose not to commit to marriage and the legal securities it provides (especially in the event of break up), if he does any more than cms requirement and fair/legal split of the house equity then he's doing more than he is legally required to.

I think he probably would do more to be honest which is why he feels he will be putting himself at a disadvantage. I don't understand how any of this works as I don't have children myself.

I guess this explains why so many 'stay together for the kids' - so much will be torn apart: the home, the family, the friendships... it sucks that we will probably have to invite one over the other to gatherings from now on... there is a lot of animosity so I'm not expecting them to remain friends!

There is no common law marriage, no matter the length of the relationship. So he will leave with his assets / savings and she with hers.

Sorry for their predicament . To be blunt as they’re not married there’s ‘ no legal or financial protection ‘ and giantsfallovers comments sum it up .

Assuming they are in England or Wales. Then he could walk out and leave her with nothing but child support. And he could get the house sold and take his "share". Not being married is very very important here.

And don't be taken in by his "I want to be fair"- most people can't be rational or fair when money is involved. I'm getting divorced and my Ex believes I'm out to take him for every penny, and doesn't see that after a long marriage his 10x or more my income, means 50:50 isn't fair (and can also claim he needs £800 a month for leisure). He also used to talk about wanting to be fair, but now hides his new address from me (only 1 of our children knows it but is sworn to secrecy).

What they said. If you choose to have children with someone who earns significantly more than you, remain in lower paid employment yourself and don't get married, you can't complain that you aren't entitled to half your partner's money when you split up.

She'll have to work full time. Unless she can take on the house herself they'll have to sell it and split the proceeds according to whether they're joint tenants or tenants in common. She'll be entitled to child maintenance unless they split care 50/50 (which often isn't practical).

She's unbelievably more vulnerable for all the reasons above. He absolutely would be 'screwing her over' if he chose not to split things fairly, (unlike what @Ffsffsffsffsffs said), because although we have chosen this system in the UK, we have not matched it with education for young women in particular who are currently more likely to be the ones at risk in a split.

It sounds like a mess, but also not your business, especially if you're listening to both you need to keep out a bit.

My experience is also that talk of wanting to be fair goes out the window as soon as you get into the details of the finances.

Even if they were married the idea of him paying her mortgage is pie in the sky, as the main child carer you might get a greater share of the assets in a divorce and maintenance but your living expenses post divorce are your own. Spousal maintenance is relatively rare in this country and not usually applied where both parties are young and capable of working. Definitely not a thing when you're not married.

As they're not married it will be a straight split of any joint assets and if they split childcare 50/50 no maintenance.

How old is the child? I've got her in bits that she's going to not be able to afford a comfortable life and wondering if he is going to provide for her or screw her over.
What's her definition of 'comfortable' and does she not want to provide for herself?

Step away from ALL talk of finances OP

Another facet is that women tend to put more effort into caring for their children - e.g. will work part time so that the kids can be at home with them instead of at a childminder's - and this comes with a loss of income and prospects.

What (don't answer! Rhetorical question here!) would the man in this scenario do if the mum died and he became the sole parent? Go part time and lead a more frugal life so he could be there for his motherless kids? .. or get his (or late Mum's) parents to look after them? or work more so he could employ a full time nanny? Or move in quite quickly with a woman who somehow ends up doing a lot of childcare? Bear in mind the pension prospects are better if he stays full-time in a well paid job.

She thinks she will be struggling due to this as no marriage to fall back on. Isn't sure what she would get from him but I know he would never play dirty.

Honestly you don't know this at all. You would be surprised by the apparently good and decent fathers you know out there who stop giving a crap about their kids once they separate from the mother!

I've got her in bits that she's going to not be able to afford a comfortable life and wondering if he is going to provide for her or screw her over

The opposite of him providing for her is not him screwing her over!

From what you’ve said, it’s him I feel sorry for here. She doesn’t want him but she does want his money. She should provide for herself and he should provide for himself and they should both provide for their child. But she has not given up her job to care for his children at his request, he owes her nothing.

I think I definitely feel more financially vulnerable as a divorced man than I did when married, and possibly more than my ex

I work, am responsible for my house (which is also my kids house 40% of the time), and my payments to my ex (more than CMS. I’ve been made redundant before and that’s stressful to maintain all my responsibilities. It could happen again and I feel that pressure of 2 households being impacted if I don’t earn

My ex doesn’t work, benefits are secure, I’ve showed my payments are secure even when I’m not working, so maybe she feels more secure than I do.

I would get out from between them OP by advising them both to consult a lawyer about the legal situation, then to sit down and work out a fair deal that protects both of them and, most importantly, their child.

I don't know how all of this works, especially when marriage isn't involved, I thought after a certain time marriage made no difference to what people were entitled to

Marriage always makes a difference, unless the marriage was v,v short!

Assuming they're not in Scotland; (I think things are a bit different)

No concept of "Common Law" wife
People leave a relationship with what they legally own, and what they can prove they put in eg Put down a house deposit.
Mortgage is absolutely NOT the man's sole responsibility. He has to pay Child Maintenance based on his earnings. He does not have to pick up her housing costs, only his. The Law sees them as two equally responsible parents.

To answer your question, she will be worse off in some ways, but he will have to provide his children with a home while they are with him, and also pay towards their living costs whem when they are with her (assuming she is RP).

Mixed, but not great for either of them - or most importantly the kids.

She is delusional if she thinks he will be paying for a roof over her head as well as one for himself.

They are treated as two separate people legally. She has to pay her own way and he does the same. any assets he has, savings, car, equipment is his, ditto for her. any property, excluding their house, bought together they agree or sell and spit the proceeds. She or he can buy the other person out of their current home, or it is sold and the equity split. If one person can pay the mortgage and the other agrees they can have a 'mesher' order on the house, so that the person with the child who is living there, can pay all costs, but sell when the child is 18 and split the equity that was there when the order was made but not after. No court expects a man or woman to pay for the home of their ex partner and also pay for their own accommodation. Maybe your friend will rethink her plans once she learns she is not on a gravy train. Either way she needs to be more realistic and get full legal advice.

Maybe your friend will rethink her plans once she learns she is not on a gravy train

Why do so many people seem to think she's out to get him? Statistically speaking, far more likely that after having kids, she chose lower paying role four days a week (or couldn't progress due to shared childcare/home expectations), and didn't get married because he didn't want to and/or because women in this country get woeful education on your lack of rights as a lower earning cohabiting partner.

I'm a woman and the higher earner, and for me being married is going to screw me in the event of separation because I did the bulk of home care AND earning, but even as one of the 'unlucky ones' can absolutely see why it's so unfair that women in this position can be left broke and adrift.

It seems like she feels he has to fund her life post split? He doesn't. He is obliged to pay for his child and nothing else! She sounds a bit entitled and I can see why he is concerned. If they are going 50/50 for their child then he doesn't have to pay her anything and why should he.

In my case my exH is worse off than me. He pays maintenance and his rent is significantly higher than my mortgage. Under the terms of our divorce, I got the house for a small payout for him. He is renting and doesn't have much of a deposit to buy somewhere else. I earn and am topped up with universal credit and child maintainence and my mortgage is very low as I paid a large deposit.

I often think the person who has to rent again plus pay the ex for children is the one who is worse off in a split.