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?

^ Good point about Child Maintenance. IIRC that has to go, in full, to whichever parent is named the "primary caregiver" which I imagine would be her, as she doesn't work full time. In which case, even if he had the kids 49.99% of the time, he wouldn't see a penny of that, unless she agreed to reimburse him.

If she has been setting money aside, as he suspects, then not being married will benefit her - had they been both would have been legally obliged to declare all assets so they could be split (people often assume the split is 50:50, however this is often not the case - in mine my ex made a case that, as primary caregiver, she was owed a greater share and I acquiesced). As they're not, whatever's in her name alone - such as savings accounts - he can't touch.

You don't say how old they are or how long she has been working part time. This is relevant because of her lack of pension rights. Had she been married she would have had a call on his pension fund as they would be splitting their assets down the middle.
She needs to go full time and try for a better paid job as a matter of urgency but I guess she won't want to. It is, of course not just her own financial future she's risking but her children's too.
It's not clear whether the house is in his/ her/ joint names ? Very important of course. If it is in his name she has no call on it as she isn't married.
Unless you have a sizeable private income / good earnings, it is rash ( to say the least) , and planning to have a pretty disastrous old age, as a woman to have children if you are not married to the father. In my experience it is a 'romantic' outlook to decide not to marry but it is rarely compensated for by either party making provision to compensate for the benefits lost ( ie widow's pensions, being next of kin, sharing assets etc.) Indeed families like this rarely make any provision for ill health, death, children's education etc either. They are pathological non planners.
I spent 30 years advising women on financial matters and have found it very difficult to persuade them to think ahead ( a hundred and one reasons why they don't need to marry - their relationship is so strong they don't need a piece of paper, we are both grown ups etc.) .
Women tend to act as if they are married, eg going part time, not making proper pension provision, not having the house in joint names and consistently declare their partner is lovely, would never abandon them etc etc right upto the day when he doesn't come home from work.

He absolutely would be 'screwing her over' if he chose not to split things fairly, (unlike what @Ffsffsffsffsffs said

Legally, 'fair' can be very very different to what is moral. He certainly can walk away with his own assets and future earnings intact and protected, just as she could if she was the higher earner. Marriage is so, so much more than a piece of paper. If he decides to offer her more than the legal minimum then she's on a winner; otherwise they both take what is legally their own and their only obligation remains to their children. This can be an exceptionally bitter pill to swallow.

Whose names are on the mortgage? Both or just one?

As the mother is the lower earner she can either try to increase her work hours and/or apply for universal credit. She can find out if she would be able to claim anything using the governments benefit calculator. The non-residing parent would have to pay child maintenance to the other parent.

Try not to take sides, keep to the facts and point them both in the right direction.

@Ffsffsffsffsffs there's no such thing as legally 'fair'. Fairness (like screwing over) is a moral point.

I totally agree that marriage is an important contract, and as a single high earner with DCs, I personally would quite like to keep the current setup and minimise my risk if I want to live with someone in future. HOWEVER there needs to be vastly more education for young people and perhaps expectant mothers in particular about this, because so many people don't realise. MN likes to be smug about it, but for a lot of young women, they don't know that common law doesn't legally exist, their man doesn't want to get married, or he's ok with it but they fall pregnant and want to wait for a 'big white wedding' because the industry and media have sold them the dream, and then suddenly they're single with one or.more young DCs and no leg to stand on.

People are having a go at the woman described in the op, but stastically it's far more likely that she's in a lower paid part time job because she carries the main load of childcare and family management, and that when he works out that his legal obligation is CMS only (and even that is dodgeable if self employed), he'll be off. Sure, that may not be the case this time, but I don't see why this thread is so sympathetic to.an unknown bloke when anyone who is on here for any length of time realises that the vast majority of supposedly hard done by separated men are anything but.

[quote OverTheRubicon]@Ffsffsffsffsffs there's no such thing as legally 'fair'. Fairness (like screwing over) is a moral point.

I totally agree that marriage is an important contract, and as a single high earner with DCs, I personally would quite like to keep the current setup and minimise my risk if I want to live with someone in future. HOWEVER there needs to be vastly more education for young people and perhaps expectant mothers in particular about this, because so many people don't realise. MN likes to be smug about it, but for a lot of young women, they don't know that common law doesn't legally exist, their man doesn't want to get married, or he's ok with it but they fall pregnant and want to wait for a 'big white wedding' because the industry and media have sold them the dream, and then suddenly they're single with one or.more young DCs and no leg to stand on.

People are having a go at the woman described in the op, but stastically it's far more likely that she's in a lower paid part time job because she carries the main load of childcare and family management, and that when he works out that his legal obligation is CMS only (and even that is dodgeable if self employed), he'll be off. Sure, that may not be the case this time, but I don't see why this thread is so sympathetic to.an unknown bloke when anyone who is on here for any length of time realises that the vast majority of supposedly hard done by separated men are anything but.[/quote]
Nailed it

@Ffsffsffsffsffs I too would like to see far more education about the financial cost of bringing up a child and I think men and women need this. It might not help some women because as you say they have this dream of a white wedding/ baby and deliberately choose to not think about this sort of event.

Men need it too so we move away from this idea that mothers are ripping them off. If you have a child with someone you need to understand the cost of childcare and bringing them up, the impact on a career and appreciate that ‘burden’ needs to be shared.

That was to @OverTheRubicon not @Ffsffsffsffsffs

@Ffsffsffsffsffs

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.

This totally, especially in the cold light of day when he's reviewed his finances and seen his solicitor.

This is undoubtedly going to be controversial but it's my opinion that a break down in relationship shouldn't leave one person (usually the woman/lower earner) in a more comfortable lifestyle than they could have afforded on their own had they never met their partner? Just because one person earns more doesn't mean they should subsidise the other - taking out all childcare costs of course (or assuming a strict 50/50 split) and assuming that custody arrangements are shared 50:50

Assuming they own the house jointly then it should be sold to allow both parents equal opportunity to buy a home of equal status and suitable for the child to share time

He won't need to pay her mortgage - very rare that a judge would insist on that as well as funding his own home - his obligation is to pay what the CMS suggests and up to him if he wants to give more.

He's a kind person so I think he'd support them even if it made him worse off
I have never heard of a man supporting a woman he was not legally obliged to when they are no longer in marriage. I have heard of lots of men finding ways NOT to give money to ex's that they are legally obliged to.

This is undoubtedly going to be controversial but it's my opinion that a break down in relationship shouldn't leave one person (usually the woman/lower earner) in a more comfortable lifestyle than they could have afforded on their own had they never met their partner? Just because one person earns more doesn't mean they should subsidise the other
Women often subsidise the partners career by enabling them to concentrate on it by providing the majority (or totality) of child rearing and domestic labour. So yes, those women are absolutely justified in expecting a share of the family wealth they have helped the family accumulate through their role. Not to mention the extremely nice and easier life the men have (especially with SAH wives) due to the wife's labour. Like to see them trying to rise to the top of their careers if they were exhausted from all the family labour.

@ivfbeenbusy

This is undoubtedly going to be controversial but it's my opinion that a break down in relationship shouldn't leave one person (usually the woman/lower earner) in a more comfortable lifestyle than they could have afforded on their own had they never met their partner? Just because one person earns more doesn't mean they should subsidise the other - taking out all childcare costs of course (or assuming a strict 50/50 split) and assuming that custody arrangements are shared 50:50

Assuming they own the house jointly then it should be sold to allow both parents equal opportunity to buy a home of equal status and suitable for the child to share time

He won't need to pay her mortgage - very rare that a judge would insist on that as well as funding his own home - his obligation is to pay what the CMS suggests and up to him if he wants to give more.

But many women would have been in a far better financial position if they hadn't taken a step back in responsibilities or hours worked or left the workforce altogether to care for their joint children. And many men wouldn't have been in their higher paying jobs if they'd had to take days off to pick up sick kids, or missed meetings to get to after school care before closing time, or been somehow in charge of giving everyone a truly magical Christmas.

In that situation, it's hardly fair to say she gets 50% of the house and then they get to go on their merry way, her with her compromised earning capacity and lower pension and him paying what can be pretty minimal CMS, or none if he's self-employed and sneak or does 50/50 (even is, as the case for some of my friends, they're officially 50/50 but she does all the buying of school clothes.etc and he does 50/50 nights but far fewer waking hours). In fact, as an unmarried couple if it's his name on the property deeds she won't even get a penny of the house.

Yes, in principle it isn't always like that. For me personally it's not like that. But in the vast majority of cases it is, which is why the system is set up accordingly (though only for married couples).

It's also about the children, and them.not having a huge disparity in their life with both parents.

@OverTheRubicon

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.

She is not entitled to half (or any amount!) of everything he owns just because she chose to have a child with him ffs. They aren’t married, he has made no financial commitment to her, only to their child, so he doesn’t really have the power to screw her over even if he wanted to.

I agree though that educating young people about the benefits and pitfalls of marriage versus having a child while unmarried would be a good idea. I think we’d find more men refusing to get married, understandably so, but that would be balanced by women knowing that they shouldn’t have children unless they can support themselves and provide 50% of their child’s financial needs.

@NailsNeedDoing how many young women in this country truly know that there is no support if they take a career step back after having a child with their unmarried partner, often because the women is doing so much more at home? Or that if, as many women seem to do on here, they pay the childcare and he pays the mortgage on a house in his name, it doesn't matter if they were both contributing equally - when they split, the house is all his. There's a case taught in land law where a woman took a year of work to singlehandedly renovate a house in the name of her unmarried partner, at his instigation - doesn't matter, still all his.

Of course that's screwing someone over. Legally fine, but morally.

Why focus on young men not getting married and young women choosing not to have babies? Maybe education might instead lead to more young women refusing to lose their careers and expecting their partners to step up more at home (and maybe them refusing to get married).

He is not responsible for paying her mortgage.

He's only responsible for child maintenance. He needs to put his financial details into a CMS calculator to see what the amount should be.

Anything on top of that is voluntary.

[quote OverTheRubicon]@NailsNeedDoing how many young women in this country truly know that there is no support if they take a career step back after having a child with their unmarried partner, often because the women is doing so much more at home? Or that if, as many women seem to do on here, they pay the childcare and he pays the mortgage on a house in his name, it doesn't matter if they were both contributing equally - when they split, the house is all his. There's a case taught in land law where a woman took a year of work to singlehandedly renovate a house in the name of her unmarried partner, at his instigation - doesn't matter, still all his.

Of course that's screwing someone over. Legally fine, but morally.

Why focus on young men not getting married and young women choosing not to have babies? Maybe education might instead lead to more young women refusing to lose their careers and expecting their partners to step up more at home (and maybe them refusing to get married).[/quote]
I agree the answer is better education. I sympathise with the examples you quote @OverTheRubicon, however I think this only furthers the point that this is what marriage should be for - not for the lovely white dress and celebration, although that's a nice extra, if you can have it, obviously - but as a legal contract to ensure a stable foundation for starting a family and some protection/stability for all parties should it all fall apart.

But many women would have been in a far better financial position if they hadn't taken a step back in responsibilities or hours worked or left the workforce altogether to care for their joint children.

That might have been true years ago but these days most women DONT have to take a break from there careers - they make the CHOICE to be stay at home parent. I know plenty of families where the woman continued to work and they paid childcare fees even if it was the same as her salary to preserve her career.
Similarly the women I know who did give up their jobs worked in traditionally low skilled low paid leisure, retail etc jobs where you can easily come and go with having had a couple of years out of the workforce.

Both parties usually suffer a drop in living standards unless someone starts earning more. That's basic maths - if joint income stats the same and suddenly needs to cover 2 gas bills 2x rent or mortgage, 2x council tax 2x washing machine repairs, 2x internet bill etc, then there isn't going to be as much left over and something has to give. Holidays and pensions / savings are usually among the first things to go but other stuff too.

I think the 'average' man usually suffers more financial hardship. The house is usually lost to the woman with the kids whilst they are in full time education. If it's a joint mortgage, he technically has to pay half and would have to cover his own accommodation too. Plus he has to pay maintenance unless it really is a 50/50 agreement, which is rare.
The main carer, not working or part-time, will be entitled to benefits on top of maintenance and half the mortgage payments - (won't get any housing benefit if co-owning own home) So, I'd say she would be better off but nope, she probably wont be living the same life as before.

I think it depends in this scenario who is worse off. You say the man earns more but is a contractor so it maybe that the female has (for example) a good public sector pension or other assets. As pps have said, they are not married so just need to split any assets they hold together. If she is the primary care giver, he will need to pay child maintenance.

MN always over eggs the “no children unless married” thing. Before I came on here I had no idea people thought like that. If you are expecting a man to keep you, yes you should marry a rich one. But if your partner has less money than you, it doesn’t make financial sense.

I split from my ex and was the higher earner with more assets so it was better for me we were not married. I did get educated at school on what marriage was, etc so I’m surprised others didn’t.

I do think though that child maintenance should be higher and properly enforced. So many absent parents (almost invariably men) are not bearing a fair proportion of the cost of their children.

I think the 'average' man usually suffers more financial hardship

This is absolute bollocks. The data is absolutely clear that women (as a population) are much worse off financially after a split, and much more likely to be living in poverty.

The mind boggles that there are posters here seriously arguing that the women is better off financially as she will be 'on benefits'. Ever think that the reason the man is NOT on benefits is because he is so comparatively wealthy he doesn't need to be?

Maintenance is a small fraction of what the non-resident parent earns.

I do think though that child maintenance should be higher and properly enforced. So many absent parents (almost invariably men) are not bearing a fair proportion of the cost of their children

Abso-fucking- lutely.

@NiceandCalm

I think the 'average' man usually suffers more financial hardship. The house is usually lost to the woman with the kids whilst they are in full time education. If it's a joint mortgage, he technically has to pay half and would have to cover his own accommodation too. Plus he has to pay maintenance unless it really is a 50/50 agreement, which is rare. The main carer, not working or part-time, will be entitled to benefits on top of maintenance and half the mortgage payments - (won't get any housing benefit if co-owning own home) So, I'd say she would be better off but nope, she probably wont be living the same life as before.

That is bollocks on bollocks.

Speaking as the higher earner (a woman) going through a divorce.

1. There is no assumption that the house will go to the woman while kids are in education. There is a strong bias to clean breaks, and the presumption is generally that it will be sold and equity split. A Mesher order could allow it to be lived in by the wife as above but they're not first choice, there's no need for the ex to contribute to the mortgage, and on sale, the split would reflect the overall settlement plus contributions.

1. As above, men except in very specific circumstances (like one very high earning spouse and another unable to work due to caring responsibilities) do not pay spousal maintenance nor do they contribute to a joint mortgage on top of their rent

1. Main carers are not automatically entitled to benefits. Benefits are means tested. Some of us main carers also work full time (I do this and also have the children 13 nights of 14). Others earn above the threshold. And not working can be a poverty trap, because benefits are really hard to scrape by on in most parts of the UK, getting a job with affordable childcare is hard, and if you are renting, like many newly single people, universal credit won't let you build up enough savings to buy a house.

Yes, I am a bit resentful about having to give half of everything I worked for. But that's only because I also did most of the child care and family care, and now have the kids 13 nights out of 14. If he'd taken care of the family the way the average mum does, I'd fully support the split (though we likely also wouldn't be divorcing...).

In my experience the woman is more vulnerable. If they own and if her name is on the mortgage she will get half the equity if there is any. She should get child maintenance.

If it's a joint mortgage, you are both jointly and separately liable to pay. If OP's ex refuses to contribute then she either has to pay in full or the house will repossessed. Having a house repossessed means that neither will be able to get a mortgage in the near future.
Maintenance is paid based on earnings and the number of nights the non-resident parent has the child.
I think it's fair to say that a single person on an average wage would struggle to pay half (the ex's) mortgage costs, maintenance, rent and living expenses.
So, in the short term, before the jointly owned home is sold, the man will be worse off. After that, then the woman would be as she would have savings (equity) above the threshold so wouldn't receive benefits.