Husband has willed our home to Daughter without consulting me 😢

maman

Thanks retireinten. I agree that it's time to look at things from the husband's point of view. We only have limited information but it sounds like he's responsible for financing the family 100%, has limited free time, he's 64 and he's tired. OP carries out domestic tasks and childcare. That's fine as a temporary situation with a  new baby  but this has been going on for 8 years.  

badmemory

Well the longer he carries on putting her down the less likely the situation is to change.  Some people thrive on opposition & insults, some of us don't!  The more he tells her she is worthless the more worthless it will make her.  I know - I left one marriage unable to walk into a shop & ask for what I wanted.  I'll leave you to figure out how that left me feeling!

maman

It really would help if we had more information. This guy just arranged (and presumably paid) for OP to visit her parents in Ireland. She posted that she shouts at him and is seemingly trying hard to get the DD to side with her. There are 2 sides to this. 

AskAsk

Savvy_Sue said:

onwards&upwards said:

A depressingly high percentage of manager still admit to not wanting to employ women of childbearing age (or women at all), no matter what her CV may look like.  And if that many will openly admit to it how many think that way but deny it! 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/business/third-bosses-avoid-hiring-women-could-have-children-soon/

That's the thing I really don't understand. 'Childbearing age' - that's a rather wider range than it used to be, have they considered that? Plus has no-one ever pointed out that there's adoption leave, which is open to single and gay men, AND what used to be maternity leave can be shared with the father!

It means that ANYONE in the workplace could take an extended period of leave to care for children. 

And while it's rare for men to exercise their rights in this area, increasingly I think they will! 

i find that when i went to interview, i would be asked about my family through the background discussions, as tell us about yourself, are you married with children, .....  it doesn't sound like an unnatural question, but i am guessing they are trying to work out if i already have children or am likely to be having children some time soon.  or how likely am I going to be able to work late if I have young children and need to pick them up from school or nusery.

that is how they try to assess you.

honeyend

AskAsk said:

Savvy_Sue said:

onwards&upwards said:

A depressingly high percentage of manager still admit to not wanting to employ women of childbearing age (or women at all), no matter what her CV may look like.  And if that many will openly admit to it how many think that way but deny it! 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/business/third-bosses-avoid-hiring-women-could-have-children-soon/

That's the thing I really don't understand. 'Childbearing age' - that's a rather wider range than it used to be, have they considered that? Plus has no-one ever pointed out that there's adoption leave, which is open to single and gay men, AND what used to be maternity leave can be shared with the father!

It means that ANYONE in the workplace could take an extended period of leave to care for children. 

And while it's rare for men to exercise their rights in this area, increasingly I think they will! 

i find that when i went to interview, i would be asked about my family through the background discussions, as tell us about yourself, are you married with children, .....  it doesn't sound like an unnatural question, but i am guessing they are trying to work out if i already have children or am likely to be having children some time soon.  or how likely am I going to be able to work late if I have young children and need to pick them up from school or nusery.

that is how they try to assess you.

They are not allowed to ask that, its sexual discrimination. You might have been asked that in the 1980's, the only way they can get around it is if there is a shift pattern, and would there be any problems. In most well established companies they have a question sheet, and they have to ask the same questions of each candidate and document the answers.

honeyend

maman said:

Thanks retireinten. I agree that it's time to look at things from the husband's point of view. We only have limited information but it sounds like he's responsible for financing the family 100%, has limited free time, he's 64 and he's tired. OP carries out domestic tasks and childcare. That's fine as a temporary situation with a  new baby  but this has been going on for 8 years.  

Why do we have to look at the husbands point of view? There is a legal framework for the division of marital property, and support of a spouse and any children  from the marriage, and there is a legal framework for that negotiation. As they have been married for eighteen years and have a child together, there could also be maintenance for her as well as the child.

I find it strange that any spouse would purchase a house and not put it in joint names, I would be wondering what else he had in his name.

 I have been unfortunately on the sidelines when couple have split, friends and family, most have been together for many years, and expecting a spouse to, 'do the right thing', usually ends up with the husband hiding assets, and even in one case trying to commit a fraud  which was only stopped when the police were involved.

 If it was me I would start divorce proceedings, to get the solicitor to get all the financial information, and clear the air. You can always change your mind, part of divorce process can include counselling.

AskAsk

honeyend said:

AskAsk said:

Savvy_Sue said:

onwards&upwards said:

A depressingly high percentage of manager still admit to not wanting to employ women of childbearing age (or women at all), no matter what her CV may look like.  And if that many will openly admit to it how many think that way but deny it! 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/business/third-bosses-avoid-hiring-women-could-have-children-soon/

That's the thing I really don't understand. 'Childbearing age' - that's a rather wider range than it used to be, have they considered that? Plus has no-one ever pointed out that there's adoption leave, which is open to single and gay men, AND what used to be maternity leave can be shared with the father!

It means that ANYONE in the workplace could take an extended period of leave to care for children. 

And while it's rare for men to exercise their rights in this area, increasingly I think they will! 

i find that when i went to interview, i would be asked about my family through the background discussions, as tell us about yourself, are you married with children, .....  it doesn't sound like an unnatural question, but i am guessing they are trying to work out if i already have children or am likely to be having children some time soon.  or how likely am I going to be able to work late if I have young children and need to pick them up from school or nusery.

that is how they try to assess you.

They are not allowed to ask that, its sexual discrimination. You might have been asked that in the 1980's, the only way they can get around it is if there is a shift pattern, and would there be any problems. In most well established companies they have a question sheet, and they have to ask the same questions of each candidate and document the answers.

there's a lot of things they are not supposed to ask, but that don't mean they won't ask them.  i used to work in an industry where you work long hours and so it was important for them to work out if you could work late.  in a way it may help women as they wouldn't then automatically choose a man over a woman if they could establish that the woman can work late.

it was pretty crazy.  a lot of people work until 7.30pm at night and sometimes you would have to work to midnight.  it is not paid hours but part of the job expectation.  this is why women don't tend to be big earners, as to do so, this is the sacrifice you have to make.

maman

honeyend said:

maman said:

Thanks retireinten. I agree that it's time to look at things from the husband's point of view. We only have limited information but it sounds like he's responsible for financing the family 100%, has limited free time, he's 64 and he's tired. OP carries out domestic tasks and childcare. That's fine as a temporary situation with a  new baby  but this has been going on for 8 years.  

Why do we have to look at the husbands point of view? There is a legal framework for the division of marital property, and support of a spouse and any children  from the marriage, and there is a legal framework for that negotiation. As they have been married for eighteen years and have a child together, there could also be maintenance for her as well as the child.

I find it strange that any spouse would purchase a house and not put it in joint names, I would be wondering what else he had in his name.

 I have been unfortunately on the sidelines when couple have split, friends and family, most have been together for many years, and expecting a spouse to, 'do the right thing', usually ends up with the husband hiding assets, and even in one case trying to commit a fraud  which was only stopped when the police were involved.

 If it was me I would start divorce proceedings, to get the solicitor to get all the financial information, and clear the air. You can always change your mind, part of divorce process can include counselling.

There are always 2 sides and the husband's reasons have been sidelined for most of the thread. A thread where everyone just agrees with the OP regardless isn't very helpful IMO. Of course, divorce is an option. OP has talked about that. Perhaps as she thinks her husband is rude so she shouts at him they'd both be happier apart. 

-taff

AskAsk said:

 a lot of people work until 7.30pm at night and sometimes you would have to work to midnight.  it is not paid hours but part of the job expectation.  this is why women don't tend to be big earners, as to do so, this is the sacrifice you have to make.

I have a female friend who does a minimum of 40 hours unpaid overtime a month. It's the expectation.

That to me is just stupid. If a company won't pay you for your work, that company is not worth working for whether you're a man, a woman or a donkey called Clyde.

AskAsk

-taff said:

AskAsk said:

 a lot of people work until 7.30pm at night and sometimes you would have to work to midnight.  it is not paid hours but part of the job expectation.  this is why women don't tend to be big earners, as to do so, this is the sacrifice you have to make.

I have a female friend who does a minimum of 40 hours unpaid overtime a month. It's the expectation.

That to me is just stupid. If a company won't pay you for your work, that company is not worth working for whether you're a man, a woman or a donkey called Clyde.

i had to sign a waiver to the maximum 48 hours a week working directive as that was the minimum number of hours that we had to work a week, not maximum!

the contract states 9 to 5, but no one ever does 9 to 5.  the pay is high so it is not an hourly paid job.  i remember one day i had to work until midnight and i was so tired, it was hard to keep awake.  i got home at just after 1 in the morning, and i was expected back in the office at 9am the next morning.  i couldn't even turn up late even though i had worked pretty much 2 days the day before.

in another job, i remember being in the office at 8.30pm still working.  a female colleague was there with me, also working late.  she started crying and i asked her what was wrong, and she said that she feels although she is working hard, the boss is not giving her any credit and she feels that her hard work is not being recognised at all.

in some industry this is the normal working pattern and so unless you leave and go into another area, you have to do it.  the idea is that the long hours will turn into promotion and bonus.  a lot of people do work very long hours in the UK and not all jobs are paid by the hour.