Getting divorced is My wife entitled to my mothers house?

burlingtonfl6

Spendless said:

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. 

My point is you office job wasn't a high flying career. If you gave up being a solicitor or doctor I could understand but women, in general, give up run of the mill jobs. Nothing wrong with that....I think they make the right decision because being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

Pollycat

burlingtonfl6 said:

My point is you office job wasn't a high flying career. If you gave up being a solicitor or doctor I could understand but women, in general, give up run of the mill jobs. Nothing wrong with that....I think they make the right decision because being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

For most women.

Not all.

I didn't see being a Mother as more rewarding than the job I was doing.

FTR, I was working in an office at the time I would have been getting broody if I had the tiniest wish to become a Mother (I didn't).

That office job turned into a well paid job in IT which I found very rewarding.

I'm not sure where 'beneficial' comes into it.

Stenwold

CookieMonster said:

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.

You're missing a lot of data here to make a relevant point - families don't always consist of a stay at home parent (childcare, family, wrap-around schoolcare etc.).

Just because 1.2% of dads are stay at home parents, doesn't mean 98.8% of mums are.

Spendless

burlingtonfl6 said:

Spendless said:

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. 

My point is you office job wasn't a high flying career. If you gave up being a solicitor or doctor I could understand but women, in general, give up run of the mill jobs. Nothing wrong with that....I think they make the right decision because being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

They give up 'run of the mill' jobs because the childcare bill is too high. In my case (nearly 21 years ago) the full time childcare bill (my employer didn't employ part timers) was equivalent to my net pay. Before I'd put petrol in the car to get there, or caught a bus or bought myself some work clothes. That's why I gave it up. If I'd been a high flying doctor or solicitor I'd have expected the childcare costs to only be a % of what I was earning, not the full whack. 

BabyStepper

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 entirity 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.

Thankfully the law does protect both partners from the blatant financial abuse that can happen in marriage, and particularly in divorce, when a complete lack of respect for unpaid work prevails. The UK law does not allow anyone to flee their responsibilities, including those who find the prospect of continuing to provide for their children after divorce 'unattractive'. 

@AskAsk, if your 'friend' holds the same attitudes as you do about his wife's contribution in the marriage, no wonder she divorced him. In fact, why not advise your 'friend' to remarry, have some more kids, get divorced again, whine about how he still has to finance a situation he created, and get shafted with an 'unjust' divorce settlement again! That'd be hilarious! Maybe at some point he'd learn to respect his wife (or rather, ex wives) but until then, the law forces him to do so. 

Retireinten

AskAsk said:
 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.

This is essentially our set up. Two kids, husband has always worked full time (not ambitious, he has every intention of retiring from the company he joined in his teens), I have worked mainly 4 days or full time (probably 50/50 split) since starting a family 16 years ago, but I'm in a professional role so my part time salary is the equivalent of my husbands full time salary.  I've have been full time for the past three years. 

When the kids were small we didn't want them in paid for childcare more than 3 days a week despite me working 30 - 40 hours a week.  Guess who took on the responsibility of sorting that one out? Husband has no flexibility at work (and obviously wouldn't consider a job change) so muggins here negotiated flexible working, working from home one day a week to do the school run, starting work at 4 in the morning before the kids woke up to hit my deadlines, moving jobs to maintain the flexibility I needed.  

I was and still am the taxi service (ignoring covid) and I also manage to fit in the vast majority of the cooking, cleaning and shopping etc. We have a traditional set up essentially but I manage to fit in a professional job too.  Husband just rolls out of bed and goes to work, not a care in the world. Oh what a life!  

Now don't get me wrong, my husband is great and we're not divorcing. I have found the person I want to annoy for the rest of my life  . And this situation is just as much my fault as his because I let it happen. This wasn't the original plan, that was to go job share and stick with it....but job share doesn't always work in professional or managerial roles.  And obviously we would have been much poorer. 


My point is that one person can't earn a good living in a 'breadwinners' role  - any role for that matter - AND take full responsibility for the childcare and the household. So your idea of both partners contributing equally financially is lovely BUT that should also mean splitting all the duties around the children and the home fairly too. The practical side of raising a family and running a home should never be under estimated or undervalued.  

burlingtonfl6

Pollycat said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

My point is you office job wasn't a high flying career. If you gave up being a solicitor or doctor I could understand but women, in general, give up run of the mill jobs. Nothing wrong with that....I think they make the right decision because being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

For most women.

Not all.

I didn't see being a Mother as more rewarding than the job I was doing.

FTR, I was working in an office at the time I would have been getting broody if I had the tiniest wish to become a Mother (I didn't).

That office job turned into a well paid job in IT which I found very rewarding.

I'm not sure where 'beneficial' comes into it.

Sorry, I missed you reply.
I'm not going to aim my posts at all individual cases. Yes, there are some women but in a general discussion we should discuss the general rule or example.
The odd exception does not change the average. Yes they exist but aren't the majority.

Pollycat

burlingtonfl6 said:

Pollycat said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

My point is you office job wasn't a high flying career. If you gave up being a solicitor or doctor I could understand but women, in general, give up run of the mill jobs. Nothing wrong with that....I think they make the right decision because being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

For most women.

Not all.

I didn't see being a Mother as more rewarding than the job I was doing.

FTR, I was working in an office at the time I would have been getting broody if I had the tiniest wish to become a Mother (I didn't).

That office job turned into a well paid job in IT which I found very rewarding.

I'm not sure where 'beneficial' comes into it.

Sorry, I missed you reply.
I'm not going to aim my posts at all individual cases. Yes, there are some women but in a general discussion we should discuss the general rule or example.
The odd exception does not change the average. Yes they exist but aren't the majority.

No need to apologise.

Of course there is a majority and a minority in almost everything.

Maybe use 'majority' in your replies to show that you are not referring to all women when you say things like "being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from."

It would read better - and elicit less comment - if you had simply posted "for the majority of women,
being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from."

AskAsk

BabyStepper said:

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 entirity 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.

Thankfully the law does protect both partners from the blatant financial abuse that can happen in marriage, and particularly in divorce, when a complete lack of respect for unpaid work prevails. The UK law does not allow anyone to flee their responsibilities, including those who find the prospect of continuing to provide for their children after divorce 'unattractive'. 

@AskAsk, if your 'friend' holds the same attitudes as you do about his wife's contribution in the marriage, no wonder she divorced him. In fact, why not advise your 'friend' to remarry, have some more kids, get divorced again, whine about how he still has to finance a situation he created, and get shafted with an 'unjust' divorce settlement again! That'd be hilarious! Maybe at some point he'd learn to respect his wife (or rather, ex wives) but until then, the law forces him to do so. 

actually he divorced her!  you can not speak for all when you don't know the individual circumstance of everyone.

he really got shafted.  he had been very unhappy in the marriage but he stayed for the kids.  he was the only one that worked and when she could work, she didn't do so.  he had paid for the house and when he moved out, he continued to pay the mortgage and all the bills.  she had money as her dad gave her money but she put the money in her sister's name and it could not be proved that she did this, however she did it alright.

he asked her for a divorce but she wouldn't agree to it and this meant he had to wait for 5 years before he could get a divorce as you are stuck with your spouse if they won't let you go.  during the 5 years of separation, she continually asked him to come back but he said that he would have been crazy to get back, now that he had managed to escape.  yes, that was the word he used, 'escape'.

i am sure he has embellished and presented the situation to his favour as most people would tend to do when they tell other people of their situation.  who ever admits they are the baddie right?  but nonetheless, reading between the lines, he got shafted because she was manipulative and had hidden away money, whilst using his money.

and she made sure he could not get a divorce by refusing to agree to it to make things as difficult for him as possible.

trust me, there are poeple like this out there.

pollyanna24

My point is that one person can't earn a good living in a 'breadwinners' role  - any role for that matter - AND take full responsibility for the childcare and the household. So your idea of both partners contributing equally financially is lovely BUT that should also mean splitting all the duties around the children and the home fairly too. The practical side of raising a family and running a home should never be under estimated or undervalued.  

I do the above.  I am a single mum.  So I am the breadwinner and take full responsibility for childcare.  Before covid when I was working in London, my mum looked after them.  I paid her as my nanny, but it was still me taking responsibility for everything that happens in my household as the breadwinner and making sure my children were looked after for the hours I wasn't there. 

Now in this age, I am doing everything related to the household as I work from home and as of tomorrow will be working the hours my children are at school and caring for them when they are not.