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

And how many men do you think do this?

@Andromachehadabadday

I suppose the reason men might not like it is because given the high divorce rate and the fact that the divorce is initiated by the wife about 85% of the time, men would be reluctant to enter into a marriage contract which they see as beneficial to them when married but not when divorced and they know that they are quite likely to be divorced and that will be at their wife’s want and not theirs.

I mean it’s like entering a business deal that is sweet for you but fucks you when it ends - and entering into it with some crackhead who is liable to break it - why would you? It makes no sense.

I would agree in principle that perhaps she could get half depending on circumstance - but that divorce rate coupled with the female divorce initiation rate makes that a completely uninviting contract to enter into for men when it’s no fault.

I just can’t see that law lasting long term if the divorce rate stays high and the female divorce initiation rate stays what it is. It offers no incentive to men but plenty of dis incentive.

Her partner like many has instinctively realised this.

He only earns 70k and hes looking for a pre nup. Tell me another joke!

I guess the question is how do you feel about it? Do you wish to get married or continue within this relationship with regard to entering in to a prenuptial? What provisions will be made for you and your shared children within the pre-nup? Does your husband currently have a will and have you and the children been made sole beneficiaries? Has he got life insurance in place to help you and the children in the event of his death. Sounds like he's worried more for himself than his family.

you are just parroting the same rubbish.

I already explained how the fact that more women initiate divorce means nothing.

Often the person initiating it IS the wronged party. If a woman has taken the career hit and her husband leaves, it’s in her interest to get divorced and sort the finances. Many women are left in the shit between the split and divorce. Many women have to divorce because of DV including emotional and financial abuse.

You have decided that because more women start divorce proceedings they must be choosing to just walk away.

Again, generally speaking, divorce leaves both people worse off than they would be together. It would only be preferable (financially) for the woman if she has very limited access to money.

why are you comparing the op and/or women to crack heads?

loads of legal agreements and business agreements have get out clauses and rules around how it’s done and often leaves both parties in worse positions. It’s done all the time.

and again, the obsession with ‘no fault’. Having a fault impacts nothing and makes it worse and more expensive for everyone. And if women are starting divorce more often, then it’s likely they feel it’s the mens fault.

Fault was not financially compensated for years before this.

of course it will last. It’s the law. Fault hasn’t really meant much for years apparat from giving a splitting couple more to argue about.

And this is a perfect example of why you get married before you have children....

@Andromachehadabadday

of course it will last. It’s the law

Yeah not like laws to change is it. You mean you want it to last so your argument is “well because it’s the law it must stay the law”, which is a pretty crappy argument.

Ive made my point but the reality is, no matter what you may think about it or if the women choosing to leave think their men at fault - the reality is they are choosing to leave and so men don’t feel protected by the law and so we get more and more men like OP’s partner who seek to avoid it altogether. Plus studies have shown that in the main those who initiate/file for divorce are those that wanted it and one of the main reasons listed is “grown apart” - as in they grew apart from their spouse.

The fact those who like current marriage law and those who seek to avoid it are in the main separated by gender doesn’t bode well for it at all. Clearly men feel unprotected by it, that’s the reality I see. Marriage law is tweaked often and has been changed significantly over time, I’m not sure why you think that wouldn’t happen again if it doesn’t work for a large demographic of people. (ie men i or and higher earners)

’The law is the law’ was not the extent of my argument at all. Divorce law changes very rarely. And there’s no reason to. If someone wants to end a legal agreement, they can.

Again, reasons for divorce in applications are not accurate because it’s advised to put the most mundane reasons down, to keep the peace and make the divorce smoother.

Its not really a choice to walk away if your husband has left, but can’t be stayed actually divorcing. It’s not really a choice if you are a victim of abuse. It’s not a choice if your husband has broke your vows and ruined the relationship.

We are back to what I said before. You have a problem with women being able to end a marriage. Doesn’t matter if it’s unhappy, they should stay or walk away with very little. That’s your stance.

If it doesn’t work for men and they choose not to get married, divorce law won’t change for those it does not impact. No marriage = no divorce.

I think it’s fine if men don’t want to get married. They can also stop expecting, in lots of cases, to opt out of parenting by staying late at work (I have a senior role in a large company most of the senior men could be more involved), they can stop expecting women to give up work to run the house and do majority care of their joint kids. They can realise that childcare is a joint expense. ImThey can take responsibility for writing their own wills and be upfront about their plans.

It works both ways.

@Andromachehadabadday

Well time will tell it would be pointless for us to believe either of us can know for 100 what the future of marriage law might hold.

You again try to present it as though I’m saying women should become paupers if they want the divorce which isn’t so - I’m just saying I don’t agree with a 50/50 split for every occasion. Perhaps there should be a baseline minimum, less than half but enough to get set up somewhere.

Yoy also try to paint it as though the majority of those majority of female initiated divorces are because the man’s bad behaviour or cheating drove them to it. But there really is no evidence to support it. Quite often you will hear people say “they grew apart” while really meaning they wanted the divorce which their partner did not. It has little to do with being treated badly.

If someone wants to end a legal agreement they can

Yes and the ending of such will come with different clauses and outcomes which is what we are discussing here. We have a difference of opinion on what they should be.

I suppose from your point of view of men being responsible for the high female initiation rate of divorce your argument makes sense. However if that is not the case and women are simply more prone to want divorce then a assumption of 50:50 or more really doesn’t work for men nor is it sensible for them to enter into such an agreement.

The reality is there will always be marriage - it’s just that if the current marriage contract becomes undesirable the contract will change to whatever all the coupled up people are doing and want and in some cases already have (in limited law). Marriage is just couples law in essence - even this couple is bound by some laws, just less extensive ones than marriage.

There is a base line. Half. Because marriage joins your finances. In the eyes of the law your money and assets are common property. Shared. So both entitled to half each.

You keep stating that women instigate divorce more and that should be taken into account or that it means they were the one that behaves badly. Except, you have no proof of that. I didn’t say in the majority of cases. You seem to have a comprehension issues.

I said, who initiates divorce does not implicate who is wrong. No ‘grown apart’ doesn’t mean one wants it and one doesn’t. Both could feel that’s the case. In many divorces both want it. But one has to apply, you couldn’t both apply jointly.

Again, who imitates the divorce has no bating on why the marriage broke down. The reason given often doesn’t reflect why the marriage actually ended.

For years people have been encouraged to not use reasons that could cause problems or cause the other person to contest it. It makes the process quicker. With less drama. Making the divorce quicker and cheaper for all sides.

You have taken one set of data and decided it means something you have no proof of.

Again, there’s no argument that you have given why the person starting divorce should lose out. That would leave people not being able to get divorced, because neither wants to instigate it. Not really helpful.

Marriage law won’t change because people don’t want to do. A new type of legal agreement may come in. Like civil partnership .

Christ. What a selfish arse. YOU have facilitated him getting on in his career and becoming a high earner while looking after HIS dc. He couldn't have done it without you. Doesn't he understand that??

I'd be seriously considering my life with him. And getting good legal advice.

@Andromachehadabadday

Civil partnership is just marriage by another name. Whatever law it is that protects couples in legally binding contract - that is marriage. Once such a thing becomes standardised it’s inevitable it will become celebrated upon entry etc. Hey Presto that is marriage.

When we talk about historic marriage from cultures unlike ours we are simply talking about the laws applying to couples in situations like this, often with family. They aren’t really called marriage and may not be marriage as we know it but we think of them as marriage because that is how we can understand it. So whether “civil partnership” becomes more popular than marriage law or not is irrelevant - at that point it might as well be marriage.

What I don’t understand is why you think it’s so impossible marriage law will change when it’s changed many times in minor and major ways. It’s highly likely it will change if it no longer reflects what people want or becomes unworkable in society. Many people want marriage law to change - not on Mumsnet and probably not the women you talk to but if you talked to more men you would see many are dissatisfied with it - as you can see in this thread with OP’s man not wanting it.

@springtimeishereagain

And he has facilitated her being at home with the kids - she couldn’t have done it without him.
But actually he could have had a career without her unless she’s secretly doing his work, he just couldn’t have had the exact family setup he had now.

T*amzo85
*
A couple of things. Firstly you said this: if one gets the protection they want the other feels unprotected

In this case, the OP has no protection AT ALL. Marriage wouldn't leave her DP destitute in the event of divorce. He would just get the proportion of the assets he is deemed entitled to given their respective contributions to the family. He is refusing to give OP any protection while knowing that marriage would leave them both with something if they split. If he cared about her then protecting her (as the mother of his children) from absolute poverty should be something he wants to do. He owes her that. The law agrees.

He is not wanting to protect what is his. He is wanting to take keep what is their's. It's not the same thing

Secondly, the thing about initiating divorce... you only need to spend a few days on the relationship boards to see how often women have to do the divorce paperwork after finding their DH cheating or behaving appallingly badly. There is usually no benefit for the husband to initiate a divorce, where it can be very necessary for the wife to do so. Women have the motivation. I'm sure many, many of the women involved would say it wasn't what they wanted. They would rather their (D)H bloody behaved.

No fault divorce makes no material difference to any of that.

Yes he has had the family set up he has because of OP, so what he could have done as a single man without her is irrelevant. The share of labour must have been agreed. He knew full well that he was free to concentrate on his career while benefitting from having a loving family without it messing his career priorities. He owes OP for facilitating that.

CP isn’t the same as marriage. Which is why a straight couple campaigned for it to be available to straight couples. It exists alongside marriage which is what said. Yes, I am sure marriage won’t change but that something else will be brought in alongside it as another option.

if marriage becomes unworkable in society, people just won’t do it.

who are these many people? People on incel sites? Because that’s where the theory that because women initiate divorce more means they must be more at fault and just want to run off with the man’s money. Despite most women being worse off after divorce as most women are not married to high earners. And most men not being high earners.

marriage doesn’t need to change. By getting married you legally share assets and finances. You don’t want it, don’t do it.

But also don’t expect to prioritise your career. Pull your weight with your kids. Do half the pick ups and drop offs. Half the housework and household admin. And most of all, be upfront. Before you take the benefits and out the person you love in a worse position, be honest about your intentions. Don’t take advantage of the person you say you love.

it’s really not hard. I managed it. No change in marriage required. No manipulation or putting dp in worse position.

@RoyKentsChestHair

i don’t know how many men do this. I only know what I expected and what I’ll put up with

She knew full well that she was sacrificing her career and paying 50/50 with zero legal protection for 20 years

Oh I know. It's not a choice I would make. I think she has been desperately naive and trusting and hasn't thought ahead at all, but short of a time machine there's not much to do about it now. However, her DP is I the here and now, knows the situation, was involved in the decision making and now wants to hoard family funds with a pre-nup. That's shitty behaviour.

@Tamzo85 - And he has facilitated her being at home with the kids - she couldn’t have done it without him.

She has paid 50-50 for everything bar marriage over those years. She has worked PT AND done ALL childcare and housework. I bet she could have done a lot more if she hadn't picked up all his slack.

But actually he could have had a career without her unless she’s secretly doing his work, he just couldn’t have had the exact family setup he had now.

You know what I mean; don't be obtuse.

How much do you think he'd have had to pay over all these years for a nanny, childcare, housekeeper, admin assistant, etc??

And they've been together for 18 years. He should see them as a partnership. But he doesn't, the selfish twat.

She knew full well that she was sacrificing her career and paying 50/50 with zero legal protection for 20 years

This is true. However, it seems op was led to believe that each person was working together to create something….together.

To reveal that’s not how it is after 2 decades is shitty. He doesn’t HAVE to take advantage of it now. He could choose to equalise their financial security.

*bar mortgage, my post should say...

I HATE this phrase that’s trotted out on MN all the time. All it does is belittle the role of women into a lowly caregiver and nothing more. It’s 2022, women aren’t slaves. Children can thrive and be cared for in a childcare setting. Mums can have jobs and it doesn’t mean children will end up in therapy if they don’t do X after school club. When in history has the average woman not had to work and have their child looked after by someone at some point? Yet we seem to think it’s ok women remove themselves from the workplace (despite achieving more than men academically on average), and need ‘looking after’ like another dependent and justify it as that’s the only way men can survive in the workplace.

Bollocks to that.

If the guy had built up all these savings, the house etc, before he’d met OP then I think it’s fair enough that he wouldn’t want to risk all that.

But they’ve been together since their teens, have kids and must be married in all but name. It’s unreasonable of him, IMO (male perspective), to be stipulating conditions like a prenup at this stage in their lives together.

It’s a deeply distasteful aspect of his personality - if he was my SiL (to be) then I’d be thinking a lot less of him right now.

Again her naivety is the main culprit here and where I think personal responsibility needs to be mentioned

He didn't have to lead her on. Relationships fail that I why we protect ourselves.

Did she think it would be sunshine and rainbows if they did separate a decade ago?

20 years...she has had more than ample time to get her ducks in a row.

Now she has to play to his tune. Yea she can leave like people are suggesting. But I wouldn't willing choose to struggle in my later years just to prove a point.

Bit cutting your nose off.