Protecting money (Divorce/Separation)

homeless9

Hi,

What are the financial implications of a non-married couple separating who have children and a divorcing couple who have children? Do the courts see the 2 differently?

For example:

Bob is not married to Sandra, but has 2 children with her, they live in a house together which Bob owned before they met and he pays the mortgage himself. Sandra is a stay at home mum.

What is the typical outcome here? and would the outcome be different if they were married, if so, what would happen instead?

Gavin83

Yes, the outcome would be different. There is no such concept as assets being shared when they aren't married. In your first example as they aren't married and Bob owns the house Sandra would need to move out and the courts would ultimately decide where the children live. Assuming it's with Sandra then Bob would be expected to pay the usual maintenance.

If they were married it's probably still likely Sandra would have to move out as she's unlikely to be able to afford the mortgage on her own. However if she could then she'd likely be able to stay there until the kids are 18. Either way she'd be entitled to half the house. This is also assuming the marriage has been a reasonable length.

Essentially marriage is great for the person bringing less to the relationship financially, poor for the other party.

seashore22

Sandra is stuffed. It's why marriage isn't just a piece of paper and that's especially true for stay at home parents.

seashore22

Gavin83 wrote: »

Yes, the outcome would be different. There is no such concept as assets being shared when they aren't married. In your first example as they aren't married and Bob owns the house Sandra would need to move out and the courts would ultimately decide where the children live. Assuming it's with Sandra then Bob would be expected to pay the usual maintenance.

If they were married it's probably still likely Sandra would have to move out as she's unlikely to be able to afford the mortgage on her own. However if she could then she'd likely be able to stay there until the kids are 18. Either way she'd be entitled to half the house. This is also assuming the marriage has been a reasonable length.

Essentially marriage is great for the person bringing less to the relationship financially, poor for the other party.

Relationships and marriage aren't just about money though. A stay at home parent (male or female) can make a considerable contribution to the home that is above and beyond their potential to earn money each month. Many people are happy to have a housekeeper, administrator and child minder in the house while the marriage is happy. It's only when the relationship breaks up that they start resenting the choices they have made. The choice to have one parent not working outside the home is usually made jointly, after all.

74jax

Gavin83 wrote: »

Essentially marriage is great for the person bringing less to the relationship financially, poor for the other party.

I brought/bring far far less financially, in terms of what I had before marriage (maybe 700k less) and what I bring in now (maybe a quarter of what my husband brings in...). In fact if we were to divorce I'd be way better of than if he died, but we are both as equally happy. We each contribute to marriage in many ways, each pay bills, each treat the other, it's just financially he had the bigger balance.

Gavin83

seashore22 wrote: »

Relationships and marriage aren't just about money though.

I never said they were. However this topic is specifically about the financial side of things and my last paragraph is true, the person bringing more to the relationship from a financial aspect has more to lose. Of course most don't think about this when getting married, it's only when something goes wrong the richer person feels hard done by, rightly or wrongly.

Kynthia

Sandra is at risk as she has given up her job and impacted her future earnings yet has no protection should the relationship end.

The law doesn't recognise unmarried couples when it comes to assets as without marriage there are no marital assets (where assets and debts are considered as being owned by both parties in a divorce rather than just whoever's name they are in). There are no divorce courts for unmarried couples. Sandra has as much claim to Bob's house or pension as a stranger. Anything that is in Bob's name belongs only to him, and vice versa, and Sandra could only claim a share of it if she takes him to court and proves thatt she paid for some of it and there was an understanding that it would be partly hers. If she cant do that she gets nothing of it. She can't even argue that Bob was able to afford the mortgage because she paid all the bills or other expenses, as outside of a marriage they are separate individuals and if she didn't pay directly into the mortgage then she didn't contribute to that asset.

This is why I think that having children without being married is a risk. Having children often means you make decisions about what's best as a family which might be very different to what's best for you as an individual, yet legally you are an individual. Many don't realise the risk.and the difference being unmarried makes.

FBaby

A SAHM would understandably feel vulnerable financially and therefore crave the security of marriage and understandably so.

Her partner's approach to it will depends on a number of factor. Was the pregnancy planned and wanted by both. How long have they been together. How much assets did they both come into the relationship with. Did he agree/support his partner to be a SAHM and if so for how long.

That's assuming the relationship is solid and both can conceive spending their lives together forever.

mark5

As someone’s who just divorced with 2 young children I would say marriage is a good deal for Sandra and a terrible one for Bob if they were to split afterwards.

theoretica

mark5 wrote: »

As someone’s who just divorced with 2 young children I would say marriage is a good deal for Sandra and a terrible one for Bob if they were to split afterwards.

The question to my mind is which is better for the children?

Accountant_Kerry

Marriage gives equality for the financially weaker party, co-habiting does not.