Getting divorced is My wife entitled to my mothers house?

burlingtonfl6

Pollycat said:

74jax said:

Maybe you have heard some horror stories, but courts are for EITHER party. 

sassyblue said:

The courts are NOT against men. The starting point for ALL settlements is 50/50 but Women usually end up with a bit more than men because if children are involved their housing needs are a priory and as they usually reside with the mother she may get a larger split to keep a roof over their heads.

if there are no children or the children have left education the split should be 50/50.

TBagpuss said:

Courts are not 'against men'. The relevant laws are all gender neutral and research has shown that men typically end up better off then women following divorce.

burlingtonfl6 said:

The divorce courts are currently there to benefit women. 

The posts above indicate otherwise.

Maybe you personally had a bad experience with divorce courts.

I'm not stupid enough to get married but I guess if I met the right woman, she wined and dined me, got down on one knee, slipped a Rolex on my wrist and ask me to marry her knowing I could take over half of everything she had....who knows

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.
Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

Pollycat

burlingtonfl6 said:

I'm not stupid enough to get married but I guess if I met the right woman, she wined and dined me, got down on one knee, slipped a Rolex on my wrist and ask me to marry her knowing I could take over half of everything she had....who knows

I wouldn't hold your breath...

burlingtonfl6 said:

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.

Did I say "'' she gave up her career to look after the children''?

I don't believe I did.

Pollycat said:

It may be that one partner has sacrificed a good career to support the other partner.

The women may "leave leave a booth in an office or retail work" to make it easier for their partner to work in a booth in an office or do retail work.

burlingtonfl6 said:

Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

Then maybe the courts should be there to benefit those women.

I've never looked down my nose at anybody who chose to be a stay at home Mum. It's none of my business what decisions other people make.

Sky_

burlingtonfl6 said:

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.
Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

Why ''mother' why not stay at home ''parent''.  Have we somehow gone back to 1950? 

Fathers are just as capable of looking after children as mothers are and many couples choose for the man to stay at home or to do do a less demanding/aspirational job, so that he can be the main carer, rather than the mother.  Not to mention same-sex couples...

AskAsk

Pollycat said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

I'm not stupid enough to get married but I guess if I met the right woman, she wined and dined me, got down on one knee, slipped a Rolex on my wrist and ask me to marry her knowing I could take over half of everything she had....who knows

I wouldn't hold your breath...

lol.  yes, i think burlingtonfl6 would have a better chance if he was a pretty young woman 

CookieMonster

Sky_ said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.
Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

Why ''mother' why not stay at home ''parent''.  Have we somehow gone back to 1950? 

Source: https://masandpas.com/stay-at-home-dad-rates-in-sharp-decline-in-the-uk-whats-holding-us-back/#:~:text=The latest data from the,father as the primary caregiver.

The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that there are 19 million families in the UK and there are currently 232,000 men who are a stay at home dad. That is just 1.2% of all families that have the father as the primary caregiver.

That's why "mother" is appropriate in this instance. 98.8% of them.

burlingtonfl6

Sky_ said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.
Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

Why ''mother' why not stay at home ''parent''.  Have we somehow gone back to 1950? 

Fathers are just as capable of looking after children as mothers are and many couples choose for the man to stay at home or to do do a less demanding/aspirational job, so that he can be the main carer, rather than the mother.  Not to mention same-sex couples...

Because when we discuss things like this we can't address every single scenario so we have to go with the average. Your argument is the exception, not the norm, and is rare enough that it doesn't really have an impact on the statistics.

You may think being women being at home is something from the 1950's but if you look at the actual facts, it's still the same in 2021......and facts don't care about your feelings or opinions.

strawb_shortcake

My Husband has been a stay at home Dad for the last 11 years, if we were to divorce I fully expect and agree that he would have some right to my pension and a greater share of our assets. 
Surely it's a case of the courts ensuring adequate support to the partner that's most financially vulnerable and gender is irrelevant? 

TBagpuss

AskAsk said:

zpargo said:

The legal aspects of marriage in regard to claims on assets where one individual has considerably more assets than the other inevitably creates a conflict situation. This happens where one individual has worked hard to build up these assets if they realise these need to be split off 50-50 with the spouse. Marriage is a nice little earner for family lawyers and for those in relationships who are able to manipulate the law in which case stay with someone wealthy and then divorce them.

I have read about men who upon a divorce have to move out of the house they are paying a mortgage on, who would then also pay rent and also have to pay the child support. Not sure if anyone can confirm this but this seems a very unattractive position to be in.

i can confirm this.  my friend paid for the house as he was the one who worked.  his wife never worked.  when they separated, he moved out of the house and continued to pay the mortgage and bills.  he bought another house with his brother, but he had to pay his brother rent for the other half as his brother bought the house with him because he could not afford to buy the new house by himself.  he is still paying rent now.

in the final divorce proceedings, his wife was given the family home in its entirety so he lost that house and is now paying rent in the new house.  he also has to pay child maintenance.  the judge said that if he wanted any share of the matrimonial home, he would have to give half of his pension to his wife, so she got to keep the house in exchange for not having a share of his pension fund.

it can be a great financial loss for the person who has been earning all the money in the relationship.  it becomes fairer when both partners earn similar salaries, but when one partner is the bread winner in the relationship, the resulting financial settlement looks very unjust.

So, your friend didn't 'lose' the house.
He made a choice that he would rather keep a valuable pension than have money from the house.
His wife 'lost' the pension in the same way that he 'lost' the house.
And he had to help support his own children by paying child support? 
If he later regretted the choice he made that is sad for him, but he was hardly hard done by. 

Reference you final comment that "when one partner is the bread winner in the relationship, the resulting financial settlement looks very unjust."   is only true if you chose to ignore the value of non-financial contributions such as caring for children,  looking after a home (research shows, very consistently, that women in heterosexual couples still do far more than their fair share of child care and housework, even in families where both parties work full time and when the figures are adjusted to take into account one person working part time.)

The law explicitly states that among the other things that the court must take into account when deciding on a fair settlement is "the contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;" which reflects the fact that in order for one party (more commonly the husband) to go out and be the 'main breadwinner' you generally need someone else (typically the wife) to be making that possible by staying home, caring for small children or working part time round the needs of children's as they get older etc. The alternative, of course, if for both parents to continue to work full time and to use some of their earnings to pay for a nanny or other full time child care, however that often doesn't make financial sense. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that women who take time out to care for children are often then disadvantaged long term as they may well have missed out on career advancement options, so even once they are able to return full time to work they are doing so at a lower level than if they had not been out of the workplace, and that also has a knock-on effect on pensions etc.

TBagpuss

annabanana82 said:

My Husband has been a stay at home Dad for the last 11 years, if we were to divorce I fully expect and agree that he would have some right to my pension and a greater share of our assets. 
Surely it's a case of the courts ensuring adequate support to the partner that's most financially vulnerable and gender is irrelevant? 

Yes, spot on. 

Spendless

burlingtonfl6 said:

Pollycat said:

74jax said:

Maybe you have heard some horror stories, but courts are for EITHER party. 

sassyblue said:

The courts are NOT against men. The starting point for ALL settlements is 50/50 but Women usually end up with a bit more than men because if children are involved their housing needs are a priory and as they usually reside with the mother she may get a larger split to keep a roof over their heads.

if there are no children or the children have left education the split should be 50/50.

TBagpuss said:

Courts are not 'against men'. The relevant laws are all gender neutral and research has shown that men typically end up better off then women following divorce.

burlingtonfl6 said:

The divorce courts are currently there to benefit women. 

The posts above indicate otherwise.

Maybe you personally had a bad experience with divorce courts.

I'm not stupid enough to get married but I guess if I met the right woman, she wined and dined me, got down on one knee, slipped a Rolex on my wrist and ask me to marry her knowing I could take over half of everything she had....who knows

One comment I do laugh at is the '' she gave up her career to look after the children'' 
1) They were her children too
2) The majority of women who do this don't give up some high flying job. They leave a booth in an office or retail work.
Just to add, I think being a stay at home mother is far more valuable to society than 99% of jobs out there and those women on here who are all about their jobs and look down their noses at stay at home mothers need a reality check.

I certainly fall into the 'gave up an office job to look after the children'. The childcare bill was equivalent to my net pay and that was for just one child. It's been to my husband's advantage too though. He has been able to seek several promotions and come to the attention of directors/senior staff and business owners by putting the hours in at both ends of the day, working away from home and going on business trips abroad. Consequently he has been rewarded by both job and wages. If I hadn't been there or unable or unwilling to provide 24/7 childcare, he couldn't have done it, because the only option he would have had was a live in nanny - which he couldn't afford to pay. I would certainly have expected that to be taken into consideration in the event of any split.