Pre nup- long term partner

[Newpjamas]

How would you feel if your partner of 18 years & 2 kids said they will marry you as long as they can sort a pre nup?
he is the bigger earner 70k and owns the house where i am on a lower wage 12k

doingitforthegirls · 10/05/2022 07:49
I'm the higher earner and I'd say my DH absolutely hasn't furthered my career an inch

I also agree with this statement. I’m generalising and it’s an unpopular view on here but it’s interesting to me how many women think they have hugely benefitted their partners careers and similarly how many men are unable to do their share whilst working. I was able to do 50/50 of everything as the more senior you are the more flexible it is. Meant I was on call all the time and working late at night but I did 50/50 pick ups, sick days, school events, after school clubs etc.

How can you actually measure if his career has actually benefited from you being home

Are you seriously saying that you can't see a career benefit to having someone there ho puts themselves as first port of call for the children so you dont have to? My career would benefit literally every day.

Hes wants the pre nup so i cant take anything from the house or his savings if we divorce

As there is always a chance of 50% of divorce happening, it's not unreasonable at all to predict it might happen, and try to protect yourself financially if you can.

I think it's slightly unfair the level of criticism aimed at the view that a partner staying at home, looking after children etc does not help further the other's career as it's literally part of England and Wales divorce law to consider and can lead to large settlements if courts feel one partner has facilitated the other's career (albeit here the OP and their partner are not married). It just seems that not only if you're married do you get more financial protection, there's moral support as well.

Been together since late teens had children he furthered his career in uni whilst i worked then had children and i went part time to look after them..he bought the house not long after and yes ive always paid toward bills food 50 50 bought most of the kids stuff and 50 50 on holidays etc…Done all the housework & childcare since hes worked full time saving his money to pag off the house

So as thought.

The prenup should include you getting 50% of everything attained during the relationship - including his pension - especially as you've been paying 50-50 despite huge income differences.

Anything less than 50% for you and I think I'd play the long game, negotiate whatever you can, marry in a registry office and then divorce the fucker.

He sounds like an utterly selfish arsehole!

You gave up work to loon after HIS children and presumably he has not taken any career breaks or done much childcare etc.

In general I don’t have an issue with pre nups. I also don’t see the issue with going into a marriage, which is a legal contract, with a plan of what happens if it doesn’t work out.

However, presuming (in this situation) you have always believed you are building a life together, that you have been together ever since he has been earning and building assets and you were both in agreement about working PT and he has happily let you pick up the slack at home, then I wouldn’t be happy with this at all.

He has led you to believe it’s joint partnership, then pulled the rug out. However, you can use a prenup to secure your position

At the moment if you split you get nothing. CMS, that’s it. If he wants to secure his money, tell him that’s fine and you want to secure your financial future too.

Oh OP this is so sad to read, I am sorry this is the situation you find yourself in. This is a very unbalanced relationship. He sounds very controlling. Is everything ok with you?

No I wouldn't sign it unless he was giving me a shit load of cash-- you've been paying in so he can pay off a house you have no rights on- ? Stuff that

Why didn't you question the relationship at the point he bought a house in his name only, if you had kids etc?

He wants too much. He wanted a family, his children's mother in the role of his not legal wife but a gf/partner for long 18 years, his children she gave him and not to pay for it financially and in case of the divorce potentially leaving you to live in poverty & rent a council place?

The house & savings will be divided in some sort of % 80/20, 70/30, 40/60 or 50/50 if you get married but how much you will get will depend on how long you stay married if divorce happens.

I would sign it and get married. As previous posters have said they don't count for anything in the UK so the joke will be on him. You and the kids will be more protected financially if you are married and if he turns out to be as selfish as this makes him appear then you can always get divorced.

As most SAHM and part-time working mums, you have sacrificed your potential good/better earnings to give you time to raise your children.

It's now called a motherhood penalty.

Indeed.

I will add the caveat that, in my experience, women who are high earners tend to continue doing the vast share of childcare and household admin/chores too. Even if that involves paying cleaners and childminders. It is still their responsibility.

I am sure there are some men who properly take on the supporting role to free up the higher earning woman, but I have never met one. I know some stay at home dads, who do nothing other than the school runs (thinking of one in particular). His wife still does all the organising, cleaning and household admin.

So women here saying that having a partner at home hasn't really helped them is probably true, but I think many men completely rely on their partners to do absolutely everything. Often while they are working themselves.

My mother had a good career which she gave up to raise us. My Dad had the 'big job' and moved us from promotion to promotion all round the country. Every time she put down roots and got a support system around, the rug was pulled.

She ended up leaving, restarting her career and did quite well by the time she retired. When they divorced, he was a nightmare and denied her any access to his pension (she agreed for a quiet life but hugely regrets this now).

She has absolutely hammered home with me and my sister the need to never be dependant on a man. To keep our careers at all costs.

Which may be why I'm a single parent!

”I would sign it and get married. As previous posters have said they don't count for anything in the UK so the joke will be on him.”

Yep, agreed.

If you sign it and split, even with a pre-nup you’ll be in a better position than if you split without it, where you’ll be entitled to nothing more than child maintenance.

In this particular case, it’s probably better if you don’t get independent financial advice, because in future if you want to overturn the pre-nup the judge may be more likely to set it aside on the basis that you weren’t properly advised. I agree with others who think this is a dick move by your DH though.

A pre nup in this situation really makes no sense. They have a potential use when partners are coming together later in life and have children from other relationships. This situation though is about control.

For those saying a pre-nup is worthless in the UK:

www.equifax.co.uk/resources/money-management/prenups-and-divorce.html

www.acclaimedfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/guide-to-prenuptial-agreements-in-the-uk/

So women here saying that having a partner at home hasn't really helped them is probably true, but I think many men completely rely on their partners to do absolutely everything.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment but the fact is women continue to enable and I’m not sure that’s any better than lazy men expecting it.

To the OP, I don’t want to get side tracked on a debate of the value of SAHM. I don’t think pre-nups are bad per se but in your case (and without knowing the details), it could be very inequitable for you given you have also been contributing outside being a SAHM mum before children.

I personally have not said that pre-nups are worthless just not legally binding which is a different matter and that they are advisory because they are subject to other considerations. I'm not sure if the following will work but I've tried a link to Foot Anstey (a National law firm) view of the document as I think this gives a good overview:

www.footanstey.com/our-insights/articles-news/guide-to-prenuptial-agreements-in-the-uk/

Prenups prevent a spouse claiming half of everything, they do not mean that a spouse and children are not provided for.
The “reasonable needs” of a spouse will have to be paid regardless if the cash is available, that will vary according to circumstances but will include housing, child maintenence and living expenses

The OP should marry regardless and not make waves because she will be in a much stronger position than leaving with nothing, prenups will be disregarded if they are unreasonable.

Check with a solicitor re the pre nup agreement. They are not legally enforceable as such but will be taken into account in the case of divorce. So a bit of a grey area. I would get married as, regardless you would have more security than you have now. In the event of divorce you could probably overturn a large part of the pre nup, just stay married a reasonable time, but the length overall of the relationship and the children, already puts you in a strong position if you were married. Unmarried you are screwed.

I'd probably go along with it in your position. If the relationship ends you'd likely be better off divorcing him with a pre nup that not being married at all.

From what you've told us, he's foolish for even suggesting it. Pre nups aren't legally binding in the UK, and they're only any use to super wealthy couples, with millions in assets. Divorce court would overrule an unfair prenup that didn't leave a wife/mother destitute.

When your husband gets proper legal advice, a good lawyer will tell him he's wasting his money getting a prenup.

Christ, what provisions have you made for your pension and secure housing? Your boyfriend could remove you from his house at any time. You need to work full time if you’re not back at it already, you’ve put yourself in a ridiculously vulnerable situation, sacrificing your earnings with zero legal protections.

Presumably he didn’t own a house and earn 70k a year when you first got together in your late teens? That means what he has, has been accumulated during the long relationship as part of your joint efforts. He could be injured in a car accident tomorrow and never be able to work again and that 70k a year would mean nothing. You would be supporting the family. It doesn’t sound like he has an assets to protect that he came into the relationship with (family wealth) and is just being a jerk.

The error you’ve made here is putting “he” in your post.

women with assets are advised on here to protect them

men whom protect their assets are castigated on here