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

Is he proposing that info to solicitors and draft this properly ? Because I think they would be advising him it's not fair or reasonable and therefore would not be relied upon anyway.
If he is just suggesting he signs a bit of paper that he shoves in front of you then sign it because it won't be enforceable at all.

I’d be very surprised if he married Op. I suspect if she says yes I’ll sign a pre nup he won’t get around to it, come up with another fob off.
I’d be very curious why marriage is being mooted now 18 years down line. Long term cohabiting couples sometimes marry in later life for IHT reasons but to suddenly be talking marriage now in your late 30s seems odd.

If you do agree to a pre nup have an independent lawyer check it on your behalf.

is planning on divorce and is planning to shaft you.

If he is planning on divorce, planning to shaft the mother of his children, why on earth would he even consider getting married ?

The sensible thing for him to do in that situation would to break up sooner rather than later. Getting a pre-nup in order to get married and then divorce makes no sense whatsoever.

My advice remains unchanged. Read the proposed pre-nup, get married and take it from there.

I think I'd be taking out an insurance policy and then getting a new patio laid........

Those insurance policies are sadly more expensive than might be expected. I know, I've investigated.

I too could do with a new patio. 😀

Yep, he’s probably wondering why the sudden change of mind, and worrying that you only want to marry him now to get a divorce settlement you wouldn’t currently get. He’s not thinking in terms of what you’re (morally) entitled to as his long term partner; but what he stands to lose if you leave him. I doubt he’s trying to be malicious tbh, it sounds more like a knee jerk reaction of someone suspicious and worried.

Based on what he’s said, he’s not actually taken steps to start the process of getting one drawn up at all. He’s not even spoken to a lawyer, because if he had he’d have a better understanding as to what to propose to you.

I wonder if he’s said this because he wants to see your reaction. If you agree then he’ll think you’re wanting to marry for ‘good’ intentions, and if you disagree then it will confirm his fears that you want to marry him in order to divorce with something.

I’d guess the children aren’t far off 18 and Op is getting older and realising what a vulnerable financial position she is in so is pushing marriage. I can’t see why he would suddenly want to marry as it’s not in his financial interests.

@Andromachehadabadday

No where did I say men who choose to get married and then get divorced by their wives are “victims” of their own choices any more than the OP is. You might have taken it that way because you are inclined to be pro the woman wanting marriage rather than the man not but it wasn’t intended that way.
They both knew the law and made their choice which they will have to live by. The point I was making is that it’s unfourtunate that being married seems to protect one while not protecting the other and vice versus for not being married, so unfourtunately there is an adversarial situation around the marriage contract between a main earner and a stay at home or primary carer (usually a man and a woman). That sucks for the both of them - if one gets the protection they want the other feels unprotected.

I think the point about fault based settlements isn’t that they are intended to punish and shame - but rather to offer security to a spouse that if they treat their so well and obey the “marriage contract” then they at least won’t be totally screwed in divorce and have to start from scratch. You can disagree that that’s what’s best and that alright, but I’m just saying with a divorce rate of half and divorces initiated by the wife about 80% of the time I can see why men would want that safety net. And why barring that they may not marry.

After all there is a far higher chance there wife will leave them than vice versa. So basically these men go into marriage with the knowledge they are working toward a good situation for themselves and family together (not apart) but because they know the stats on divorce they are expecting to split “family money and assets” when their wife wants to divorce (or at least expecting a fair chance that will happen). Why would they be rushing into marriage only to split half the family assets (of which they enjoy all of while married) amongst other things, when they are expecting to be divorced against their Will? (Statistically speaking) That doesn’t sound like much to get excited about or any incentive for men to marry.

Im not sure what you mean by “I’m expecting women to stay in a marriage they don’t want”? I don’t think I wrote anything which implied that and it’s not what I meant at all.

Im not sure where you live but I’ve seen a lot of men have to leave the family home while wife and kids stay there (sometimes even a new partner moves in) and have to move into a smaller rental while contributing financially toward the old house he no longer lives in. It’s unfair but it seems to happen a bit from what I’ve seen.

well he could have done his fair share of childcare and housework for a start

The thing about that is “his fair share” isn’t what you decide you would want in your relationship, it’s whatever they decide to do. Often men will do quite a bit less (especially if the high or only earner), but given a lot of women are fine with that and don’t really want a 50/50 situation in that regard, it is fair. It’s just as fair as her not earning as much, it’s the situation they choose which is fair if they both made the choice knowingly. Different strokes.

The only time it isn’t fair is when the man sets himself up as someone who will do more only to do the old bait and switch after kids arrive or whenever.

I would say that women should go into relationships making their expectations on that clear and not expect a man to act different to what he does in the beginning. Just as it would be unfair for a man to set himself up as a feminist mr mum type who will do alll the childcare only to spend all his time drinking and playing Xbox, it would be unfair for a woman to set herself up as being fine with or wanting with a more traditional set up of husband working and her being the main carer of kids (though obviously the man should spend time with his kids) and doing housework only to turn that around and expect him to do 50 percent of that despite working as well.

Everyone should make their intentions on that clear from the beginning and not expect people to become something they’ve never been or said they would be.

I said you come across as though married are victims because your talk women wanting a divorce and taking their money.

I am not prowomen wanting to get married at all. I won’t be marrying. I am more in the dps position here but have been absolutely clear we won’t be getting married and having shared finances. I would rather see women maintaining financial equity in their relationships when then have children. But the mats not always preferable or possible.

Exactly why would the higher earner, who agrees their spouse should lower their earning potential, need protecting. When you get married you choose to combine finances. It’s an active choice.

I a man, during the marriage has truly shared childcare, they will have a good chance of getting 50:50 care.

yes, women are more likely to request a divorce. That doesn’t actually mean more women end marriages. Often the marriage has been ended by one or Both behaviour. Often men leave but don’t start the divorce process. Leaving the mother of their children, financially screwed until divorce and maybe even after.
You are also working on the assumption that the one filing for divorce is just wanting the marriage over just because. Forgetting that the one filing is often the ‘wronged party’. Most women divorcing aren’t doing it because they just fancy it. Generally speaking both husband and wife are worse off after divorce (until they get another relationship), so if divorcing isn’t advantageous to a woman. Unless the man is purposely denying her access to shares money.

i don’t think there’s much incentive for anyone to marry. But I think if you want or support your partner picking up the leg work at home and with the children, negatively impacting their earning potential, while you build a pension and ‘family, money, and you don’t want to give that person some protection you are a dick.

If you feel that on divorce family money should just become only yours, you didn’t see it as family money at all. That might be why there’s a divorce at all.

So you have been together 18 years since you were teens and have 2 children together, yet Prince Charming has the absolute audacity to demand a pre-nup, to protect ‘his’ assets, ie the family home.

I say sign it without any legal advice, if your marriage fails, you will likely be entitled to half of everything as I do not think the pre-nup will be enforceable especially due to the length of your relationship the fact you have children and are the main care-giver.

They won't give you less than you're entitled to via marriage that's not entirely true. I have a pre nup and will take nothing from my current husband's assets as that is what I decided ( and vice versa). I would be entitled to more under the law.

I agree. I would sign the pre-nup without a solicitor, get married and then in the event you do decide to divorce you will be able to say you were pressured into signing it even though you knew it wasn't right.

@Plantstrees

Thats horrible advice, she’s being pressured into nothing. If anything she’s pressuring him into marriage - does he also get to say he was pressured into that even though he knew it wasn’t right and not have to abide to the terms.

How totally immoral

THIS

If you sign it DO NOT SEEK ADVICE.

@Tamzo85 no what is immoral is using another person who you supposedly love to feather your own nest at their expense for most of their life. That is one of the most immoral things I have heard of in the context of a relationship.

Do whatever benefits you best OP, as that is what he has clearly done for your entire relationship.

@Ohsugarhoneyicetea

they have both chosen to be unmarried all this time. If she is wanting this now he is likely thinking it’s because she may want to leave, so why would he go for it.

She chose to spend more time with the kids - he facilitated that and feathered THEIR nest. It’s common revisionist history to act like someone in her position has been forced into being with the kids more and matured herself for her man when in fact it is what they choose and what they wanted their partner to facilitate.

Well now she doesn’t feel like she’s protected without marriage? The time to think of the was more than a decade ago because he doesn’t think he’s protected by marriage - and you know what? He’s right.

She chose to spend more time with the kids - he facilitated that and feathered THEIR nest.

Exactly. THEIR nest. So why should op be entitled to part or their shared nest if they split?

The time to think of the was more than a decade ago because he doesn’t think he’s protected by marriage - and you know what? He’s right.

only a twat would think it’s ok for someone to dedicate nearly 20 years to their, joint, family. Take the hit in their earnings, take on most of the housework and childcare and then not be entitled to something from the life they built together.

@

@Andromachehadabadday

Not everyone thinks that no matter the circumstance of breakup - whether there is cheating or simply she wants to blow it up that there should be a 50/50 split. Perhaps he doesn’t.

If she’s pushing marriage now after being gone with not being married all this time he should be very suspicious of why.

Let’s put it this way. My relative has been with his partner 15 years. They live in his house. But the both worked towards making it a home. They built a life together.

They are splitting. Even though he doesn’t have to he is giving her half of the equity. Because he recognises they were building a life together. She worked towards that, just as much as him.

I really respect him for that choice. It’s what a decent person would do.

Then he has never seen it as THEIR nest or shared money then.

nowhere does op say she changed her mind about marriage. It’s likely he has kept promising it. Yes naive to go along with it. But he didn’t have to do that either. He could have made sure she was financially secure.

@Andromachehadabadday

Perhaps she should be entitled to something even if it’s her leaving, but “something” isn’t what marriage will do - it will be half or more than half and more custody than that too. Pre nup is his (stupid) idea at defining that something as something he is comfortable with and considers fair. If OP is actually a fair person maybe she could discuss what the prenup would actually stipulate and try to work it out between them. Unfourtunately that would be academic as they don’t really work, though in my opinion giving couples the ability to design their own marriage contract is good thing and would avoid situations like this where the man would be a complete tool to marry at this point.

Why not half?

it’s been almost 20 years. She supported him through Uni.

the split is to reflect that it’s shared money. The lower earner, usually the woman, often gets more to reflect their contribution was just as Valuable but has left them in a worse position going forward.