Divorce advice - what’s fair when the wife earns more?

[Damnedlies]

I’m hoping for some advice from someone in my situation. I’ve searched for examples but seems pretty rare. I split up with my husband due to his alcoholism and infidelity with a mutual friend. We have two DS 10 and 8.
I am in the family home with DSs, paying the full mortgage and he is renting. We are not particularly well off - but I have always been the main earner. I’ve worked hard at my career and he has never really found anything he liked. He’s done various office roles. He did have 9-5 jobs which meant I could work longer hours as needed but he still worked full time so didn’t give up his career to be a sahd or anything. We shared childcare and domestic chores. My question is what split of family home do you think is fair in these circumstances. We don’t have any other assets although his pension will be worth less than mine. Only married 9 years. I don’t want to be unfair or unreasonable to him but need to think about how I support DS. I can’t afford to buy him out so will have to sell and buy somewhere cheaper. What sort of % split is fair? He sees the boys regularly as still lives local. We’re both 45, if that’s relevant. .

The starting point is that everything (equity, pensions, savings, assets, anything at all) goes into the pot and is shared 50:50. It is then adjusted to ensure that the children's lives can continue as normally as possible, given the thoroughly abnormal situation they are in.

If you have shared the childcare 50:50, the legal expectation is that you would share the assets 50:50, and that the children would share an equal amount of time between you. Your husband's alcoholism and infidelity are, unfortunately, irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

It isn't a question of what you or anyone else thinks is 'fair'. The law is quite strict about this, and it can be quite horrible for parents to digest. Your age is not relevant and, in fact, your situation isn't 'rare' at all. You being a woman/mother makes no difference to any settlement. The length of your relationship is potentially relevant (including any years together before you married). The fact that you are married is hugely relevant. As is the fact that you have children.

It makes no difference that you have been the main earner. You're just in the position in which men have traditionally been. My experience suggests that you will have to sell the family home and split the equity so you can both buy smaller houses. In your situation, 50:50 equity and childcare would sound reasonable on balance.

Personally I don’t think this situation is all that uncommon really, and I think (personally), it will become more common in the future if you look at the current HE stats

Usually the bigger share of marital assets follows the children if they are going to be spending the majority of the time with one parent, however this tends to be to the mother who is more likely to be on a lower income.

You need to assess all the marital assets including pension accrued during the marriage. He will be expected to maximise his income.

Where will the children be staying?

It depends how much time the children will spend with each parent, if it's 50/50 then all assets, pensions, equity and debts will likely be split 50/50.

It's irrelevant that you earn more, or your age etc. where the dc will reside and contact is.

It's really best to discuss this with a solicitor, however the starting point is always 50/50

I think it would be slightly different to where men are usually the higher earner. .
Mainly, because it sound the kids are staying with you, most of the time? Is that correct?

Generally, the higher earning men wouldn't be having the kids the majority of the time.

No one here can tell you, with any certainty. But 50:50 is the starting point. Which may end up being more in his favour (60:40/70:30 or anything), but then if you have the kids mostly then it could pull it back towards 50:50.

But he could claim part of your pension. Which you may be able to negotiate with by giving him more equity instead.

But so many details could change all that. It's really hard to say.

It's about where the children will be living primarily ... get legal advice.

Thanks for responding. Most of the examples I see are where the man was the higher earner and the woman has done most of the childcare or they have shared childcare equally - but the kids will live with the mother who is the lower earner therefore that justifies her needing more of the shared assets. In my situation kids are currently going to be with me until he gets his drinking under control. @Nyxly why would it go more in his favour?

@Damnedlies

Thanks for responding. Most of the examples I see are where the man was the higher earner and the woman has done most of the childcare or they have shared childcare equally - but the kids will live with the mother who is the lower earner therefore that justifies her needing more of the shared assets. In my situation kids are currently going to be with me until he gets his drinking under control. *@Nyxly* why would it go more in his favour?

Because you earn more. Which means you have more money to afford a house that can accommodate you and the children.

He will also need to be able to provide a home for them, unless he is legally banned from having them. Also he has the smaller pension provision.

He may not get more, that's my point. In most divorces there's things that can swing it either way. It's really impossible to tell.

I am hoping that we can do this amicably rather than in court but I will need the larger house as the boys will spend most of their time with me. I earn more but I will have all of the childcare costs and cost of a house - if he were to get 50% I’d feel that was unfair tbh. Will of course get legal advice I just was hoping to hear from some people who had been in a similar boat.

I was the higher earner when my marriage ended and the DC were/are with me 99% of the time. He does pay (just under) recommended CMS every month.

We went to court x2 and everything was split 50/50. I was fortunate in that I was able to buy him out of the family home, in fact the split was probably 55/45 his favour in court.

In my case the children and who they stayed with was looked at totally separately to the finances. It was deemed that we both had to have a house suitable for the DC to stay in (irrespective of whether they actually do)

I’m the higher earner (by about £30k) and did most of the childcare whilst the children were young. The presumption is 50/50 and my stbxh will receive an equal amount of equity to fund a home for himself and the children as we split care. He will also get a share of my pension.

@Damnedlies
Don’t forget that potential future earnings can also be taken into account, as the higher earner you may get less of a slice of the assets as you have greater future earning power

@Damnedlies
It might be worth you reading this, there is going to be a fair chance your husband would be awarded more than 50% of the martial assets

www.nevesllp.co.uk/our-news/pitfalls-for-the-career-woman-on-divorce

I do take exception with he always worked so didn't give up his career.

I always worked, but I was always the one who had to finish on time, couldn't take on a longer commute, had to be at the school events etc. I did it happily, but it does affect your career and your earning power, even if you're in a lowly "office job".

Similar situation here - husband worked 9-5 but didn't give up his progression because it wasn't the type of work that needed extended hours etc - mine did and when we divorced was the higher by about 40k - we split 50:50 in agreement with ourselves but I would have expected him to get more if it had gone to court as the pot would have been 50:50. We have 50:50 childcare though and him agreeing to 50:50 was because he essentially didn't want to go down the legal route and thought it was fair as I'd worked so hard in my career as well as doing all the thinking work with the kids.

I think if you want what's fair then you need to come to that agreement between yourselves rather than through the courts where they don't care who did what necessarily.

@shortdays

Similar situation here - husband worked 9-5 but didn't give up his progression because it wasn't the type of work that needed extended hours etc - mine did and when we divorced was the higher by about 40k - we split 50:50 in agreement with ourselves but I would have expected him to get more if it had gone to court as the pot would have been 50:50. We have 50:50 childcare though and him agreeing to 50:50 was because he essentially didn't want to go down the legal route and thought it was fair as I'd worked so hard in my career as well as doing all the thinking work with the kids.

I think if you want what's fair then you need to come to that agreement between yourselves rather than through the courts where they don't care who did what necessarily.

Thank you that is really helpful

Hi @Damnedlies sorry to revive an old thread but I wondered how you got on. I'm currently in the same position as you and very nervous how it all might pan out

HI all, an interesting topic. I am a higher earner too and do most of childcare as work mostly at home. Looking to divorce my husband but not willing to share 50;50 as his input into any aspects (kids, finances, etc) is much lower. I see from the above posts that it is possible to divorce without going to court even if kids are involved?