Save my Pension

daska

She's put in how many years and you want her to get a basic state pension?! My first husband had your attitude. He's still a shi!te.

pool-hustler

assumptions again.
She could have got a pension. She preferredexpensive clothes and wine

pool-hustler

anyway. i'm giving her at least £40k

GobbledyGook

Who will be the primary carer for the children? That will be key as to what kind of split will be deemed as fair.

pool-hustler

not sure yet.
I don't get how the split is determined by that though. Surely after the money is split the kids could end up with either of us tho?

GobbledyGook

pool-hustler wrote: »

not sure yet.
I don't get how the split is determined by that though. Surely after the money is split the kids could end up with either of us tho?

When I got divorced who was having the children was a key part. The person with care of the children, and therefore the bulk of the financial responsibility for them, got the bigger share of the divorce pot.

For example I was/am the primary carer for our children and my lawyer's initial thoughts were that the children and I remained in the house until the youngest was 18 and everything else was split 60/40. After the youngest was 18 the house was to be sold and equity split 50/50. We sorted ours ourselves in the end, but I kept the house on the basis that I was expected to provide the primary home for the kids for the next 17 years.

So 50/50 (on everything) is just the starting point when there are children involved.

tanith

In my settlement because the children stayed in the marital home with my husband a third went to me , two thirds to him as he had the children. It was fair at the time, although they both came to live with me within 2yrs so I really got the raw end of the deal in the end financially although in my mind having the children was worth all the loss finacially. He got the house and I got a third of its value when he sold it even though one of the children was already with me and the other came soon after.

GobbledyGook

The children also come into the equation particularly if one party has given up work to care for them and that that has impacted on their earning/career potential (I would imagine that has a particular impact on pensions).

pool-hustler

so there is an arguement for the initial split having nothing to do with who has the kids cos that can change.

GobbledyGook

pool-hustler wrote: »

so there is an arguement for the initial split having nothing to do with who has the kids cos that can change.

That would only work, imo, if you have a comparable income, but even then the issue of your home has to consider the children in terms of does it get sold immediately, does one of you stay etc.

Anything can change - one of you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, but you can't base your divorce settlement on that. The split has to work so that your children are treated fairly and that the parent who has the main financial responsibility for them is treated fairly.