Split after 20 years - nothing but half the house - really?

[WeaponisingIncompetence]

I've been in a relationship for 20 plus years and have recently left because it was intolerable. But that is for another thread. We have a 13 yo son and I was always primary carer - SAHM until he started nursery at nearly 3 then changed my work so I could take him to and pick up from school. Also only working during term times so was at home for all school holidays and half terms.

We own the house 50% 50% so I feel secure with that but am borrowing money from family for rent until I can access this money. I am now in my late 50s and though I have my own business I have a very low income with no prospect of that changing much. Meanwhile he is in the high tax bracket (as he was able to grow his career) though I don't know how much because he never thought this was my business. He bought other properties for 'our' pension... I have no pension and no other assets. He will continue being a high earner. Our agreed 'temporary' arrangement is that we have custody 50/50 (week on, week off) even though he works normal hours and sometimes leaves our son on his own from after school. I only have evidence of this twice but I think it's now all the time. At first he was leaving work early everyday but he couldn't sustain this. My son doesn't talk about my ex to me and I won't ask him to. I presume it goes the other way too.

I believe our son would be better off primarily with me and desperately want him with me but he will not want to choose and my ex would never want to be seen as a part time Dad. Not good for his view of himself. I'm not sure how I am going to fight this or if I can/want to put my son through that...?

I believe and have it from a good solicitor that I am not entitled to anything other than half the house as we were never married. Here's my question...Does anyone have any experience of this NOT being the case? My friends have encouraged me to ask here and say I need to try and get more than just the house! The initial solicitors advice may have been because I said I didn't WANT anything else, but reality is hitting. Thank you for any help!

We currently have the option of civil partnership to register your partnership and get same protections as marriage. Last time I priced it it was £170 inc certificates same cost as marriage.

^@donttellmehesalive

"Whilst she could have increased her hours or improved her career progression as her child grew older, who wouldn't be tempted by part time hours if your dp can support the household and your pension seems taken care of."^

Well, clearly not all women would be tempted, because many of us see finances as being a shared responsibility (as well as household chores, and all other aspects of running a home and family.)

Quite frankly, someone who is still only working mornings 13 years after having a child, and who didn't earn much or plan their own finances in the 20 + years of working life before having that child, is not behaving in an adult way.

Because lots of us don’t want it.

I don’t. I am a higher earner. Me and dp don’t want together. Nor do we want to financially tie ourselves to eachother.

We are separate adults choosing to be in a relationship, living together but not legally tied. if that relationship ends, we walk away with what we both have. Dp has been able to have a higher standard of living and grow his own assets because of my wage. Which I am more than happy about. If we split he would leave with all his own assets.

If I wanted to be legally tied, I would pursue that. Nothing wrong with having a choice to tie yourself to someone or not.

dworky
If you aren't married you need to protect yourself and be aware of what can happen if you split up.
Loads of threads like this on this board.
I can't believe the naive attitude of some people.

But women don’t have to move in and have kids with a man that won’t marry them. Before they start taking hits to have children.

They have had the choice. The information about their position is available to them. Just like it is for the rest of us.

In Ops case, though, she was already making poor financial decisions before this relationship. Her position is not all down to not getting married.

I remember someone years ago saying that 'marriage is just a piece of paper' and someone else pointing out that when it comes to a split it might be 'just' a piece of paper but it's a very important one.

Defacto sounds a good idea in theory but by making it the default what if you want to prove you aren't in a DF relationship?

As per the numerous posts like this one on here regularly, women - and men - need to take responsibility for their financial future. If you are the one with less money and fewer assets, be you male or female, marriage is always going to be a better idea for you than the partner with more money and more assets. A lot of us find out the hard way sadly, as we often don’t think about these things in the early stages of a new, shiny relationship.( I have a house, good job and great pension and my partner doesn’t - we keep our finances separate - it would be crazy of me to marry him…)

I don’t want de facto marriage either, I want to choose whether to combine finances or not. However, this does come with the need for everyone to understand and proactively attain the position they want / need.

I have someone in much the same position on my 'bank' staff. She has a very part-time job elsewhere (I think about 16/18 hrs a week). On the week she doesn't have her children, she works a few night shifts with us then nothing on the week she has the children, just her other job.

Her ex knows nothing of her arrangements (and why should he, she is always contactable in an emergency on her mobile) and he cannot understand how she is coping financially, he thought (and probably hoped) she was condemned to a life of penury.
But she has her own place (shared ownership but again, none of his business), runs her little car, the dc are absolutely fine.
We laugh a lot about this.

Well this is why it's important to get married, and / or maintain your own financial independence.

@Dery it shouldn't be changed. If you want the legal protection you have the choice to get married.

you should be able to choose to live with someone & each retain your financial independence.

it's awful for people like the OP of course, but hopefully the message will get out. If you want the protection of marriage-get married OR protect yourself by getting properties etc in joint names & don't give up your own career for someone else's.

living in a country where cohabiting gives you the same legal protection as if you wee married is much more complicated if you just want to live with someone & retain financial independence.

Younger posters please be aware that those of us in our late 50s were never advised to pay into a works pension. We were often paid less than our male counterparts and would not have been able to afford to even if we had known.
What may be normal now to you was not historically so.
And I was married and always had been when my ex h ran off. He paid no maintenance for 6 years and then cheated his way to the minimum he could. He cleared the bank accounts. It was the 90s when he left and there was no equity in the property at all.
I have been poor raising my children throughout. Marriage is not always the security people think it is.
OP, you need to look at what you will be able to do with a half the property value. Also what benefits you can get.
Google and it will take you to suitable advice.

Younger posters please be aware that those of us in our late 50s were never advised to pay into a works pension

I'm 67 and have been paying into a works pension since my 20's.

But I don't live in UK.

It's normal to do where I am too if you can afford to. Most people I know started in their early 20s.

@GordonShakespearedoesChristmas , I’m late 50s and my husband is early 60s , and I have older siblings and we’ve all been in pension plans since we started working .

Ask your solicitor about promissory estoppel. The concept that you relied on his promise of the additional properties forming part of your pension.

Should add we are all in the UK .

Where's the contractual relationship? Or cause of action?

My mum always had her own pension and was 66 when she died last year. As do all her sisters.

Younger posters also have older female relatives

no one said marriage ensures it’s ok. But op would be entitled far more if she had been married.

I'm still staggered that women such as OP don't know 'how few rights cohabitates have'.

Did you really have no idea OP?

@GordonShakespearedoesChristmas I'm in my 50s and have always paid into my own occupational pension. It's never been rocket science to work out that if you want more than the state pension then you're going to have to make other contributions.

It’s a really high percentage that believe in myth of common law marriage.
www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/common-law-marriage-a-peculiarly-persistent-myth.

I'm in my 50s and most of my earlier jobs didn't let you join the pension if you were on a low wages, as I was.

As soon as I got a job that let me join I did.

Marriage is the legal contract that shares assets and mitigates the risk of child rearing. It can also mean the female partner pays out in a divorce, but the point is that risk and benefits are shared. Skipping that contract is a conscious decision that you don’t want to enter into that arrangement.

I've also been paying into a private pension since my 20s

It has been the law for some years now, that all employers have to automatically enrol their employees into a private pension scheme. However, the employees can voluntarily not pay into the pension.