Active discussions
My feed Premium
Please or to access all these features

Dadsnet

Speak to new fathers on our Dads forum.

Maternity.. Childcare..Finance..Equity

12 replies

UtterlyClueless96 · 04/06/2024 11:34

Hi There, 

We are new to all this “Grown up” stuff, so looking for advice/opinions from others (mums & dads) to help! 

(Hypothetical) Scenario: 

Prior to Children, financials were split proportional to wages (55% boyfriend contributions / 45% girlfriend)

Married, 2 kids, Mother provides childcare/maintains household when kids old enough slowly starts to increase work hours whilst still primary caregiver/maintain household, 
Father covers most of the financial side during this time. 

Both parents back to full time. Childcare 50/50. 

Sadly things don’t work, divorce proceedings start.. child custody would be 50/50.

How should house equity be split fairly?

I believe, prior to marriage the equity accrued then should be split to what percentage we contributed. After marriage and children, I believe we would be a household/team/all as one.. so everything from then on should be split 50/50 especially as going forward after separation childcare would be 50/50. 

OH believes split should stay relative to our wage prior to children (55% to him/ 45% to me) as fair as he took the “financial brunt” of maternity/stay at home and I’d be then making it back in equity to ensure I’m not “disproportionately disadvantaged”. 

We are interested to know how each party is also advantaged/disadvantaged and why it’s not just financials that should be considered.

Thank you for any advice given ☺️

OP posts:
Report
nootropiccoffee · 04/06/2024 11:35

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

nootropiccoffee · 04/06/2024 11:36

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

heldinadream · 04/06/2024 11:41

You've hypothetically had two children and a marriage breakdown and he thinks he should get more because he took the 'financial brunt' of parenthood?
Don't have children with him. He's already telling you that he doesn't see you as equal and that you having the children (and taking all the brunts that come with that, including financial as it interrupts your paid working life) makes you even less.
Just don't.

Report
SonicTheHodgeheg · 04/06/2024 11:49

He’s not considered the financial brunt of maternity on you- you won’t have made pension contributions during that time, may have missed out on promotions while he could do both because you were a SAHP. If you both had a job that involved travel for progression then he could do that without any cost while you would have to depend on him pulling his weight.

50:50 is fair. How much equity does 5% equal anyway? Considering that the majority parent may be paying a premium for the right schools and most dads don’t do 50/50 care so can live anywhere, arguing over 5% seems petty when that could be eaten up by legal fees so dad can feel that he “won”

Also depends on the length of marriage and how long much was a SAHM. The longer she has off, the less likely she is to get a job at the same grade as pre maternity, especially if she plans to work part time.

Report
nootropiccoffee · 04/06/2024 11:51

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

DryRiser · 06/06/2024 17:32

My wife and I are going through this and in fact discussing it this evening. I think we're going 50/50 on assets, and 50/50 child custody. I've earnt all the money for the past 10 years, paid for literally everything, and we'll both walk away with about £350k each. I know i'll have to pay maintenance, even though it's 50/50, as I earn far more than she does.

Separating is her idea, so giving her anymore than half could make this quite bitter. I want us to be fair with each other for the sake of the children.

Report
BlackPanther75 · 07/06/2024 20:12

A 50/50 split is the farest way all day long

I’m a bloke, but i can’t help but feel that this guy arriving shot getting more than half is sounding problematic.

You’re a family and a team. To argue that the primary earner should get more at the end suggests that he doesn’t understand or appreciate the job the primary carer is doing for your young Family. I think it’s genuinely troubling.

Report
Livelaughlurgy · 07/06/2024 20:20

I actually think you could argue the mother took the financial brunt of having kids because her wage presumably didn't grow in all that time, and she has a gap in her cv and then had to get some magical part time job building up to part time (which employers LOVE) so her career probably took a wollop. She also will be trying to progress her career whilst sharing sick days and all the other things that come from working whilst having kids. As a pp said earlier you're a team, and if he doesn't consider staying at home equal to being at work that it's simply not feasible to have a parent at home.

Report
MuggleMe · 07/06/2024 20:26

'taken the financial hit' ha. The wife has a gap in her career, no pension contributions. Women are paid less than men for a reason. That time being at home/PT will forever have an impact on her earnings.

Report
Greatmate · 07/06/2024 20:27

The mother provided childcare which allowed the father to progress his career without worrying about who was caring for his children, paying childcare or doing household tasks.. While the mother was doing that the father potentially progressed his career, got pay rises and paid into his pension. The mother however de-skilled, didnt pay into her pension, sacrificed her career ect. She becomes financially disadvantaged.

Personally, I think both people have added to the relationship in different ways. It's easy to disregard the unpaid labour but without it the family would have functioned very differently. It has /had value and come at a cost to the mother.

I would want to make things as easy and civil as possible in event of separation. Ultimately, she's the mother of your children and the children will benefit or suffer based on both of your actions both financially and emotionally. I wouldn't be quibbling over 5%. Id actually consider giving her more if she agrees to leave your pension alone.

Report
Nocturna · 10/06/2024 20:14

The mother should get a lot more, as due to raising children and then working part time, her earning potential has been massively reduced

Report
FrazzledQuoka · 11/06/2024 17:32

My understanding is that if it's been more than a brief marriage / relationship then the starting point would be all assets are jointly owned.

Mine was 3 or 4 years but we'd been together a decade or so before that, so our assets we're assumed to be joint as a starting point.

You can then argue over needs and future earning potential.

One issue is that if you have children then the idea of a clean-break divorce is a bad joke. One party can always come after the other for child maintenance, even if you start out 50-50 the mother can sometimes move away with the children and then claim.

It may be possible to agree to indemnify the other parent against unfair CMS demands as part of the settlement - you'd need to ask a lawyer.
(one example of unfair CMS would be where the higher earning parent demands the child an extra night a month and then claims 10% of the other parents salary to cover this after a settlement had already been agreed).

Good luck to both adults and the "hypothetical" children - it's not easy.

Report
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.