Husband has willed our home to Daughter without consulting me 😢

badmemory

Of course we don't actually know if she will even get the pension as if it is not a DB one then it could all go to the child too.  It depends who he has nominated!

AskAsk

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:h

elsien said:

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

lol.  so i am using artistic language 

but our friend, for example, earns 150k a year.  he has provided for the whole family.  he works long hours and he works very hard.  his wife stayed at home to look after their 2 kids until they were at primary school, so she was only ever at home until they were old enough to go to school, then she went back to work part time.  she works in a school so she earns very little but she has a middle class lifestyle, thanks to her husband.  she chooses to work part time because her husband earns enough for the whole family.
they are still together, but if they got divorced, she would end up with half of his assets.  she would never have been able to accumulate this if she worked for herself and she would never have afforded the middle class lifestyle if she didn't marry someone that earned that much money.

we have a friend of a friend who worked as a secretary before she met her husband. he is some big wig film producer.  after 6 years of marriage, they got divorced.  she ended up with a huge house, that she would never have been able to afford on her salary as a secretary.  and to kick him in the teeth, she sold the house and moved far away from him to make it difficult for him to get access to his son.  again, how can that be fair.

i have more examples of the same.  so in my experience the bloke always loses out big style if they are the big money earner.  i am not complaining as the law works in my favour, i am just saying it is not fair in my opinion.

A single man with two children he had full time care of would not have been able to accumulate that wealth either. 

not sure why people don't understand about nanny!  i have come across families who employ a live in nanny or a day nanny.  they don't actually cost that much and you only need them until the children can go into nursery.  for people who can earn a lot of money, including women, it is not unusual for a nanny to be employed. 

A nanny costs a lot more than a wife who works!  And children still need a fair bit of looking after outside of nursery/school hours you know.  I bet your ‘friend’ never had to take them to a single appointment, get up in the night or get called out of work for them either. 

I really thought these attitudes that caring for the children is women’s work of no financial value we’re dying out.  Depressing to see some still believe that only financial contributions to the family count. 

my friend worked as a live in nanny and she got free board and lodgings, she was from france, so she only got paid £100 a week to look after the children.  people who employ live in nanny tend to employ them from abroad as they count board and lodgings as part of the benefit.
i also know of a day time nanny and she only gets paid £420 a week.
so for someone who earns £150k, that is nearly £3k a week, paying the nanny will be cheaper than staying at home and looking after the children.

letthemeatcake

You can get a free half hour with any divorce solicitor and find out what you might get from a financial settlement and how much it will cost before making any decision.If you decide to go ahead with a divorce one of you is likely to need to leave the house, again get advice on your rights before you do or say anything to your husband. Get copies of his savings, pensions if you can without his knowledge. The house, pension, savings, debts all go into the pot and then its negotiating a fair deal which enables you both to move on. However housing any children is a priority. Be prepared.

onwards&upwards

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:h

elsien said:

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

lol.  so i am using artistic language 

but our friend, for example, earns 150k a year.  he has provided for the whole family.  he works long hours and he works very hard.  his wife stayed at home to look after their 2 kids until they were at primary school, so she was only ever at home until they were old enough to go to school, then she went back to work part time.  she works in a school so she earns very little but she has a middle class lifestyle, thanks to her husband.  she chooses to work part time because her husband earns enough for the whole family.
they are still together, but if they got divorced, she would end up with half of his assets.  she would never have been able to accumulate this if she worked for herself and she would never have afforded the middle class lifestyle if she didn't marry someone that earned that much money.

we have a friend of a friend who worked as a secretary before she met her husband. he is some big wig film producer.  after 6 years of marriage, they got divorced.  she ended up with a huge house, that she would never have been able to afford on her salary as a secretary.  and to kick him in the teeth, she sold the house and moved far away from him to make it difficult for him to get access to his son.  again, how can that be fair.

i have more examples of the same.  so in my experience the bloke always loses out big style if they are the big money earner.  i am not complaining as the law works in my favour, i am just saying it is not fair in my opinion.

A single man with two children he had full time care of would not have been able to accumulate that wealth either. 

not sure why people don't understand about nanny!  i have come across families who employ a live in nanny or a day nanny.  they don't actually cost that much and you only need them until the children can go into nursery.  for people who can earn a lot of money, including women, it is not unusual for a nanny to be employed. 

A nanny costs a lot more than a wife who works!  And children still need a fair bit of looking after outside of nursery/school hours you know.  I bet your ‘friend’ never had to take them to a single appointment, get up in the night or get called out of work for them either. 

I really thought these attitudes that caring for the children is women’s work of no financial value we’re dying out.  Depressing to see some still believe that only financial contributions to the family count. 

my friend worked as a live in nanny and she got free board and lodgings, she was from france, so she only got paid £100 a week to look after the children.  people who employ live in nanny tend to employ them from abroad as they count board and lodgings as part of the benefit.
i also know of a day time nanny and she only gets paid £420 a week.
so for someone who earns £150k, that is nearly £3k a week, paying the nanny will be cheaper than staying at home and looking after the children.

But certainly not cheaper or easier than having the children’s mother doing the bulk of the care while also bringing in a part time wage.  

How many of these men who complain that the mothers of their children are freeloaders would actually be willing to do what they do every day?  I sure as hell wouldn’t even for a 6 figure salary!

AskAsk

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:h

elsien said:

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

lol.  so i am using artistic language 

but our friend, for example, earns 150k a year.  he has provided for the whole family.  he works long hours and he works very hard.  his wife stayed at home to look after their 2 kids until they were at primary school, so she was only ever at home until they were old enough to go to school, then she went back to work part time.  she works in a school so she earns very little but she has a middle class lifestyle, thanks to her husband.  she chooses to work part time because her husband earns enough for the whole family.
they are still together, but if they got divorced, she would end up with half of his assets.  she would never have been able to accumulate this if she worked for herself and she would never have afforded the middle class lifestyle if she didn't marry someone that earned that much money.

we have a friend of a friend who worked as a secretary before she met her husband. he is some big wig film producer.  after 6 years of marriage, they got divorced.  she ended up with a huge house, that she would never have been able to afford on her salary as a secretary.  and to kick him in the teeth, she sold the house and moved far away from him to make it difficult for him to get access to his son.  again, how can that be fair.

i have more examples of the same.  so in my experience the bloke always loses out big style if they are the big money earner.  i am not complaining as the law works in my favour, i am just saying it is not fair in my opinion.

A single man with two children he had full time care of would not have been able to accumulate that wealth either. 

not sure why people don't understand about nanny!  i have come across families who employ a live in nanny or a day nanny.  they don't actually cost that much and you only need them until the children can go into nursery.  for people who can earn a lot of money, including women, it is not unusual for a nanny to be employed. 

A nanny costs a lot more than a wife who works!  And children still need a fair bit of looking after outside of nursery/school hours you know.  I bet your ‘friend’ never had to take them to a single appointment, get up in the night or get called out of work for them either. 

I really thought these attitudes that caring for the children is women’s work of no financial value we’re dying out.  Depressing to see some still believe that only financial contributions to the family count. 

my friend worked as a live in nanny and she got free board and lodgings, she was from france, so she only got paid £100 a week to look after the children.  people who employ live in nanny tend to employ them from abroad as they count board and lodgings as part of the benefit.
i also know of a day time nanny and she only gets paid £420 a week.
so for someone who earns £150k, that is nearly £3k a week, paying the nanny will be cheaper than staying at home and looking after the children.

But certainly not cheaper or easier than having the children’s mother doing the bulk of the care while also bringing in a part time wage.  

How many of these men who complain that the mothers of their children are freeloaders would actually be willing to do what they do every day?  I sure as hell wouldn’t even for a 6 figure salary!

in families where the man earns more than enough for his family, women will not work part time.  even when their children are grown up and gone to primary school.  they only do so when they feel like it, as their income is not needed.
i am sure men would love to stay at home and look after the children and their wives go to work and pay for everything, but men often earn more than the woman in the family so it makes sense that they go to work and their partner stays at home.
working is not easy and can be very stressful without any reward, except the money.  staying at home, looking after the children is very rewarding so i am sure a lot of men would quite happily swap role if they could.

elsien

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:h

elsien said:

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

lol.  so i am using artistic language 

but our friend, for example, earns 150k a year.  he has provided for the whole family.  he works long hours and he works very hard.  his wife stayed at home to look after their 2 kids until they were at primary school, so she was only ever at home until they were old enough to go to school, then she went back to work part time.  she works in a school so she earns very little but she has a middle class lifestyle, thanks to her husband.  she chooses to work part time because her husband earns enough for the whole family.
they are still together, but if they got divorced, she would end up with half of his assets.  she would never have been able to accumulate this if she worked for herself and she would never have afforded the middle class lifestyle if she didn't marry someone that earned that much money.

we have a friend of a friend who worked as a secretary before she met her husband. he is some big wig film producer.  after 6 years of marriage, they got divorced.  she ended up with a huge house, that she would never have been able to afford on her salary as a secretary.  and to kick him in the teeth, she sold the house and moved far away from him to make it difficult for him to get access to his son.  again, how can that be fair.

i have more examples of the same.  so in my experience the bloke always loses out big style if they are the big money earner.  i am not complaining as the law works in my favour, i am just saying it is not fair in my opinion.

A single man with two children he had full time care of would not have been able to accumulate that wealth either. 

not sure why people don't understand about nanny!  i have come across families who employ a live in nanny or a day nanny.  they don't actually cost that much and you only need them until the children can go into nursery.  for people who can earn a lot of money, including women, it is not unusual for a nanny to be employed. 

A nanny costs a lot more than a wife who works!  And children still need a fair bit of looking after outside of nursery/school hours you know.  I bet your ‘friend’ never had to take them to a single appointment, get up in the night or get called out of work for them either. 

I really thought these attitudes that caring for the children is women’s work of no financial value we’re dying out.  Depressing to see some still believe that only financial contributions to the family count. 

my friend worked as a live in nanny and she got free board and lodgings, she was from france, so she only got paid £100 a week to look after the children.  people who employ live in nanny tend to employ them from abroad as they count board and lodgings as part of the benefit.
i also know of a day time nanny and she only gets paid £420 a week.
so for someone who earns £150k, that is nearly £3k a week, paying the nanny will be cheaper than staying at home and looking after the children.

But certainly not cheaper or easier than having the children’s mother doing the bulk of the care while also bringing in a part time wage.  

How many of these men who complain that the mothers of their children are freeloaders would actually be willing to do what they do every day?  I sure as hell wouldn’t even for a 6 figure salary!

in families where the man earns more than enough for his family, women will not work part time.  even when their children are grown up and gone to primary school.  they only do so when they feel like it, as their income is not needed.
i am sure men would love to stay at home and look after the children and their wives go to work and pay for everything, but men often earn more than the woman in the family so it makes sense that they go to work and their partner stays at home.
working is not easy and can be very stressful without any reward, except the money.  staying at home, looking after the children is very rewarding so i am sure a lot of men would quite happily swap role if they could.

A straw poll of friends and relatives indicates that in my circle at least, they absolutely would not love to stay at home and look after the children. It's not just childcare, it's keeping on top of the house, the arranging the playdates, the life admin such as remembering birthdays, children's vaccinations, when the insurance is due etc. and it fills them with horror at the thought of doing it all the time. 
Staying and home and looking after children certainly isn't rewarding in many people's book. 

And now you're adding exploiting cheap labour from abroad into the mix as well. Although I'm fairly sure your £100 pw French live in nanny is far more likely to be an au pair with strict limits on the work they are meant to do. And probably the training (if any) that they have had. 

maman

Arranging a play date would be no big deal for someone used to genuine big deals! 🤣 All it needs is some organisation and then there'd be plenty of time left over for golf or lunches. 😉 

AskAsk

maman said:

Arranging a play date would be no big deal for someone used to genuine big deals! 🤣 All it needs is some organisation and then there'd be plenty of time left over for golf or lunches. 😉 

i think all that can be done on the app, then yes, golf and lunch, lol.

jackieblack

Every marriage is different and every couple is different.  If a couple decide together that it is ‘better‘ (by whatever measure they use to define that for their family) for one partner to stay at home and undertake the majority of childcare and homecare responsibilities, allowing the other partner to pursue their career, that is their joint choice. If the marriage subsequently fails then the ramifications of that choice are the responsibility of both partners equally.  Neither should be at a disadvantage because of decisions they jointly made.

The argument that ‘men tend to earn more‘ was certainly true in the past due to gender discrimination, but these days generally occurs where the man is older than the woman and therefore more established in their career when children arrive (as in OPs situation). 

When the couple are of a similar age and professional status this is no longer necessarily the case. Most couples I know in their 20s/30s who have not yet had children earn broadly similar salaries. 

onwards&upwards

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:

onwards&upwards said:

AskAsk said:h

elsien said:

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

lol.  so i am using artistic language 

but our friend, for example, earns 150k a year.  he has provided for the whole family.  he works long hours and he works very hard.  his wife stayed at home to look after their 2 kids until they were at primary school, so she was only ever at home until they were old enough to go to school, then she went back to work part time.  she works in a school so she earns very little but she has a middle class lifestyle, thanks to her husband.  she chooses to work part time because her husband earns enough for the whole family.
they are still together, but if they got divorced, she would end up with half of his assets.  she would never have been able to accumulate this if she worked for herself and she would never have afforded the middle class lifestyle if she didn't marry someone that earned that much money.

we have a friend of a friend who worked as a secretary before she met her husband. he is some big wig film producer.  after 6 years of marriage, they got divorced.  she ended up with a huge house, that she would never have been able to afford on her salary as a secretary.  and to kick him in the teeth, she sold the house and moved far away from him to make it difficult for him to get access to his son.  again, how can that be fair.

i have more examples of the same.  so in my experience the bloke always loses out big style if they are the big money earner.  i am not complaining as the law works in my favour, i am just saying it is not fair in my opinion.

A single man with two children he had full time care of would not have been able to accumulate that wealth either. 

not sure why people don't understand about nanny!  i have come across families who employ a live in nanny or a day nanny.  they don't actually cost that much and you only need them until the children can go into nursery.  for people who can earn a lot of money, including women, it is not unusual for a nanny to be employed. 

A nanny costs a lot more than a wife who works!  And children still need a fair bit of looking after outside of nursery/school hours you know.  I bet your ‘friend’ never had to take them to a single appointment, get up in the night or get called out of work for them either. 

I really thought these attitudes that caring for the children is women’s work of no financial value we’re dying out.  Depressing to see some still believe that only financial contributions to the family count. 

my friend worked as a live in nanny and she got free board and lodgings, she was from france, so she only got paid £100 a week to look after the children.  people who employ live in nanny tend to employ them from abroad as they count board and lodgings as part of the benefit.
i also know of a day time nanny and she only gets paid £420 a week.
so for someone who earns £150k, that is nearly £3k a week, paying the nanny will be cheaper than staying at home and looking after the children.

But certainly not cheaper or easier than having the children’s mother doing the bulk of the care while also bringing in a part time wage.  

How many of these men who complain that the mothers of their children are freeloaders would actually be willing to do what they do every day?  I sure as hell wouldn’t even for a 6 figure salary!

in families where the man earns more than enough for his family, women will not work part time.  even when their children are grown up and gone to primary school.  they only do so when they feel like it, as their income is not needed.

Oh hey, thanks for the mansplain about how women think and feel!  Always great to be told how my own mind works!