If you split up and it was your fault did you still take what you were ‘entitled’ to?

[Legoteacups]

For background - we’ve been married 17 years and together for 18, I’m 36 and dh is 46. Two dc, 10 and 5, I’ve been a sahm on and off, working part time now, but I’ve never put anything much in whereas dh earns over £100k and has various shares and properties and a pension worth a sizeable amount. He owns the house outright, I’m not on the deeds even though we bought it when we were together.
So basically I’ve not put anything of worth into the marriage and I’d be leaving with nothing, dh has a lot of savings etc too, I don’t have much of a pension even and haven’t been able to claim child benefit because of dh being a high earner. I’ve no access to any joint accounts. I have my own account for my salary but it’s only about £1k a month.
I have done everything - absolutely everything - for the children since they were born.

I am not happy. It isn’t dh’s fault, there’s nothing terrible, we aren’t arguing, I’m just very very unhappy. I’ve lost over two stone - now only 7.5stone at 5ft 7” I cant eat. It’s not a choice. I’m just really really unhappy and I feel guilty about how unhappy I am.
If I tell him I want to separate it doesn’t seem fair to take any money from him when he has earned it all and I’ve done nothing apart from laze around on and off since having the children.
If you instigated the split as the lower earner did you still take any money behind child maintenance? It seems very unfair, like stealing.

Find yourself a good Solicitor ASAP! You will probably find that you are entitled to at least half if not more .Your lifelong contribution to looking after DC is priceless ! You have to look at your long term future and that of DC.Most courts will expect a settlement that gives you a similar settlement to your current lifestyle .

Good on you for recognising and admitting that being a sahm is an easy life after the first year, especially when you don’t have a baby and toddler at the same time as in your situation. And that these situations are incredibly unfair financially on the breadwinners.

But the situation is what it is and you don’t owe it to anyone to stay in a relationship you’re not happy in. If you didn’t have your children it would be different, but it’s them that’s entitled to maintain their standard of living, and as their Mum, you get to benefit from that while they’re still dependent on you. You need enough that you can provide somewhere decent for them to live, but so does your husband. You could get a fair and reasonable divorce settlement as long as you don’t go into it with a ‘take him for everything I can’ attitude.

Expect him to support only the children, not you, and you’d have nothing to feel guilty about.

@Thingsdogetbetter

Is this reverse?!!

Yes, strange isnt it

So sad the OP apparently rates a 100k job so much more than what she's invested through spending those precious childhood years with their own children, time and memories a parent can never get back. I'm sure her kids much preferred having one parent at home rather than both away.

Your dh couldn't have done his 100k without you.

You need proper financial help, starting point is 50/50 for everything, regardless of who's name is on the deeds and who's name is on the bank accounts or who's name is on the pensions

"If I tell him I want to separate it doesn’t seem fair to take any money from him when he has earned it all and I’ve done nothing apart from laze around on and off since having the children.
If you instigated the split as the lower earner did you still take any money behind child maintenance? It seems very unfair, like stealing."

It's not stealing! You have given him two children and many years of your life caring for them. You are worth so much.

@Legoteacups

I know what I am legally entitled to but the law seems very unfairly balanced in favour of the mother in this instance.

"It feels morally wrong to take money from him as well, like a extra kick in the teeth. None of it is mine".

I think you have a very strange view of what marriage is (especially when kids are involved) and I find your views on SAHPs insulting but, if that's how you feel then don't take any money, no one is forcing you to!

Work out what you need. Don't sell yourself short.

No it’s not a reverse, Ive not had any help - why would he pay for help when I was at home to do it?
I had to have quite a lot of medical treatment after dc1 which would have made it tricky going back to work immediately but I went back when dc1 was 4 and when dc2 was 3. Only part time though in fairly unimportant jobs.

Value in a marriage is not defined in only monetary terms. I earn a third of my partner but that doesn't make me lazy or worthless in unequal. What poppycock.

If you truly think this of yourself OP your self worth is rock bottom and I'd suggest you are severely depressed.

It really is a genuine post. I’ve been on mumsnet years and years.
I’m not saying all sahm haven’t contributed, my house has never been as tidy as it should be given I’ve been at home some of the time and then only worked four days a week afterwards.
It’s different isn’t it. I’m not comparing myself to others.

You have worked 4 days a week?

He just gets worse. Let me guess no family support due to a bad childhood

OP you sound depressed. I would see your doctor and access some counselling before you make any big decisions.

But yes, of course you need to get half of everything if you separate.

Only between the dc then I stopped again until dc2 was 3. All in all I’ve had seven years out - til dc1 was 4 and until dc2 was 3. I’ve worked less than I have been in work.
I feel basically there’s no point to me.

If not for you, then you need to secure your DC's future. What you have done is actually priceless in terms of input, and all while working too.

Unless he keeps them too because it also seems unfair to take his dc from him doesn’t it?

Men seem to get a rough deal in divorce. My solicitor agreed. She said it’s just how it is.

Well, if you don't think your contribution to the marriage was worthwhile, instead think about the dc's interests.

Presumably you will be the primary carer if you divorce. Therefore you need to be able to provide suitable housing, a living standard and opportunities for your dc as they grow up. Your ex owes them his resources so they have the chances that children of high earners get.

It's not in their interests that you struggle to provide for them or that their living standard crashes going between houses, or that if he remarries, has a second family and loses interest in them (which does happen) that they miss out on what he could have provided for them. Only by taking your legal share do you ensure their security.

Absolutely ridiculous, you have children to house and support you need to have what you're entitled to, in any case no judge will sign off a divorce settlement where one party walks with nothing especially when they have dc. You need to think about what walking away with nothing actually means for your future and your children's future.

Hi Op
You really need to value yourself a hell of a lot better,
bringing up children ,running the house hold smoothly all these kinds of things are just as equally as a partnership in value as your husband working.

Your attitude reflects our society attitudes still, not valuing enough how bringing up the next generation/family bonds is essential very important for society as whole.

Why on earth didn't you ensure your name was on your joint house deeds?

Get that rectified as soon as possible,you after all brought this house jointly with your husband before.

Don’t do the take him everything thing as you say he hasn’t done anything wrong, that would be cruel and I think you are good for not doing that. I definitely think doing a job that pays £100k wouldn’t be easy and would be a lot harder than a stay at home mum whose children are at school full time, one is 10 and has been at school for 6 years. SAHM is boring and you probably suffer from boredom stress and maybe depression though. I’d feel very guilty I took the family home which I’d probably be entitled to but would never do that as it is horrible. I know someone who had an affair with her husbands friend, kicked him out the house, got the house off him which she’d never paid a penny for then moved her boyfriend in. Yay, go sisterhood. This needs to be spoken about more. Maybe move out and try and get a full time job to rent smaller terrace house, he’d have to pay maintenance which would help out and he’d probably want to see his kids are living in an ok area and can do nice stuff.

She can value herself and her contribution as little as she likes, but she's no business martyring the children's interests on her own altar of self-loathing.

@NailsNeedDoing

Good on you for recognising and admitting that being a sahm is an easy life after the first year, especially when you don’t have a baby and toddler at the same time as in your situation. And that these situations are incredibly unfair financially on the breadwinners.

But the situation is what it is and you don’t owe it to anyone to stay in a relationship you’re not happy in. If you didn’t have your children it would be different, but it’s them that’s entitled to maintain their standard of living, and as their Mum, you get to benefit from that while they’re still dependent on you. You need enough that you can provide somewhere decent for them to live, but so does your husband. You could get a fair and reasonable divorce settlement as long as you don’t go into it with a ‘take him for everything I can’ attitude.

Expect him to support only the children, not you, and you’d have nothing to feel guilty about.

@NailsNeedDoing

Whatever you think about mother’s who don’t do paid work, it’s not ‘incredibly unfair’ on the breadwinner, if that’s the set up they’ve both agreed to. When one parent doesn’t work , it’s usually the case that they’ve both agreed life is easier that way. That’s clearly the case here.

I don’t think is wise to give up a career completely, but if as a couple you make this decision and you subsequently split up, then what would be unfair is to penalise the stay at home partner for what was a joint life choice. Expecting to have a % of pension (because you are unlikely to ever recover your earning power after 10 years at home) , plus a % of your home on top of child maintenance is not ‘taking him for everything he has’, it’s a reflection of the at home work you did as part of your partnership and making sure you have a financially stable future to build on.

I don’t think it’s wise for mothers to give up work entirely, but the reality is both parents often find it’s easier if they do - because of childcare costs, general life stress and long working hours.

There’s a lot we can and should do to make sure mothers stay in work and fathers contribute more to parenting and home. But no one should be financially penalised for a common life choice.

You need to think a little more deeply about what is a complex matter.

Men seem to get a rough deal in divorce. My solicitor agreed. She said it’s just how it is

Utter bollocks. How many threads have there been on MN where the "poor Dad" as hidden finances, stopped working etc to ensure the woman has not come out equitable?

Women usually get the shitty end of the stick, actually, as man moves on.