Getting divorced is My wife entitled to my mothers house?

MalMonroe

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.

That comment is just wrong. We're not living in the 1950s any more. Nor even in the 20th century. If that's what you really think, then you need to get a grip.

burlingtonfl6

pollyanna24 said:

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.

Where is the father of the child/children and why isn't he paying anything towards them?

Tokmon

pollyanna24 said:

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.

Your quite lucky to be in a career that allows you to work from home only the hours that your children are in school but pays well enough to be able to run your own household with two kids and not rely on any benefits! I don't think there are a lot of jobs like that around.

mason's_mum

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. 

You clearly have a weird idea of the jobs that the different sexes do - most men don't work as solicitors or doctors either, in fact, most people have "run of the mill" jobs.

burlingtonfl6

mason's_mum 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. 

You clearly have a weird idea of the jobs that the different sexes do - most men don't work as solicitors or doctors either, in fact, most people have "run of the mill" jobs.

 What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

mason's_mum

burlingtonfl6 said:

 What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

1: there is a wage gap, as we both know  both between men and women doing the same job and between industries!
2: we also know that if one partner in a relationship is to give up work to care for the children,  it is more likely to be the woman. which one causes which? does 1 cause 2? does 2 cause 1? is it neither?
I think the main problem is that everyone expects their quality of life to remain the same after a split and then is puzzled when they can't run 2 households with the same budget as they ran 1 previously.
The wage earner values their financial contribution as greater, the person who stayed at home (or reduced their working hours and took on more of the home jobs) values their contribution as equal to the financial contribution.
I've seen this from both sides, unreasonable demands from husbands expecting their wives to survive and look after their children with virtually no income, and wives expecting husbands to continue paying mortgages and bills in addition to child maintenance and somehow providing a home for themselves. There are no winners here - everyone feels hard done by no matter how "fair" the outcome.

Pollycat

burlingtonfl6 said:

  What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

It comes down to what you class as 'putting in'.

I'd imagine most people would acknowledge that child care doesn't come cheap and if one person within the relationship does that 'job' then although they may not be putting in from a monetary perspective, they are none the less contributing a fair amount.

After all - somebody did say that being a mother is far more rewarding and beneficial than any job they walk away from.

And the person who 'quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids' may not be able to afford a mortgage so keeping a roof over children's heads is often reflected in any divorce settlement.

Gavin83

mason's_mum said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

 What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

1: there is a wage gap, as we both know  both between men and women doing the same job and between industries!

Does this still exist? I often see overall figures being quoted but I don't really see the figures that suggest a man and a woman, in the same company, doing the same job are receiving different pay due to their gender. Maybe I'm shielded from this somewhat as two people in the same role for my employer will earn the same (slight deviation for experience) regardless of gender. Either way I'd be interested to see the figures for this.

In regards to the overall conversation the contributions of the stay at home parent should of course equal that of the parent going to work. However I'm not so comfortable on the idea of pre-marital assets being split equally given that the other party had no part in accumulating these.  

AskAsk

Gavin83 said:

mason's_mum said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

 What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

1: there is a wage gap, as we both know  both between men and women doing the same job and between industries!

Does this still exist? I often see overall figures being quoted but I don't really see the figures that suggest a man and a woman, in the same company, doing the same job are receiving different pay due to their gender. Maybe I'm shielded from this somewhat as two people in the same role for my employer will earn the same (slight deviation for experience) regardless of gender. Either way I'd be interested to see the figures for this.

In regards to the overall conversation the contributions of the stay at home parent should of course equal that of the parent going to work. However I'm not so comfortable on the idea of pre-marital assets being split equally given that the other party had no part in accumulating these.  

i don't think the pay gap between men and women doing the same exist any more, but i may be wrong.  what still exist is that men tend to be in senior roles in comparison to women, so overall, on average, men tend to earn more than women.

CookieMonster

AskAsk said:

Gavin83 said:

mason's_mum said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

 What happened to the wage gap? 
You are right though, the majority of us are just average earners leading and average life it just baffles me why either sex thinks they should walk away with more of the assets when they've not really put as much in as the other person.
Someone who gets married, has no assets, gets married, quits an average job to spend 5 years looking after the kids and then wants 80% of assets in the divorce is just pathetic.

1: there is a wage gap, as we both know  both between men and women doing the same job and between industries!

Does this still exist? I often see overall figures being quoted but I don't really see the figures that suggest a man and a woman, in the same company, doing the same job are receiving different pay due to their gender. Maybe I'm shielded from this somewhat as two people in the same role for my employer will earn the same (slight deviation for experience) regardless of gender. Either way I'd be interested to see the figures for this.

In regards to the overall conversation the contributions of the stay at home parent should of course equal that of the parent going to work. However I'm not so comfortable on the idea of pre-marital assets being split equally given that the other party had no part in accumulating these.  

 on average, men tend to earn more than women.

There is an earnings gap.
As an overall average, it's got much less to do with senior roles than many people think - as only a very small % of workers (men or women) are in "senior roles".
Men work more hours, and in riskier jobs (in general).
Time = Money; Risk = Reward.