How to remain fair through divorce
January 25, 2012 2:06 PM Subscribe
My husband and I are getting a divorce after nearly 15 years of harmonious life together. There’s no animosity, we simply grew apart, and then fell in love each with someone else. There was no infidelity, we talked about it and at my husband’s initiative decided to move on rather than repair things.
My question is how to be fair in dividing marital assets and deciding on how much to allocate for child support.
We have two children, aged 5 and 6, and we now earn the same salary, although this wasn’t the case until recently (my husband earned about 20-30% more).
1. I don’t wish to take anything that doesn’t belong to me and neither does my husband. However, in working for a start-up for the past three years he has earned through extremely hard work a large number of shares that have now vested. The company is still private so the shares may be very valuable down the line or they may not.
I know the law (in MA) says I have the right to half of all marital assets. But I’m not the one who pulled serial all-nighters for that start-up.
How can I justify taking half of those shares? I don’t want them for myself, I consider that they belong to the children. My husband argues that he will give the children their due directly. The problem is I don’t know if or how his next partner will affect his decision-making when the time comes to cash in on the stocks. I want to ensure at least the half I am entitled to does go to the children.
What is fair in this situation?
2. When we calculated the amount of child support that would be expected of the non-custodial parent per government guidelines, it seemed exorbitantly high. It would make that parent virtually unable to support themselves after they deduct the mortgage from their paycheck.
How can we arrive at a more fair amount, especially given we earn the same salary now?
Thanks for your help!
We have two children, aged 5 and 6, and we now earn the same salary, although this wasn’t the case until recently (my husband earned about 20-30% more).
1. I don’t wish to take anything that doesn’t belong to me and neither does my husband. However, in working for a start-up for the past three years he has earned through extremely hard work a large number of shares that have now vested. The company is still private so the shares may be very valuable down the line or they may not.
I know the law (in MA) says I have the right to half of all marital assets. But I’m not the one who pulled serial all-nighters for that start-up.
How can I justify taking half of those shares? I don’t want them for myself, I consider that they belong to the children. My husband argues that he will give the children their due directly. The problem is I don’t know if or how his next partner will affect his decision-making when the time comes to cash in on the stocks. I want to ensure at least the half I am entitled to does go to the children.
What is fair in this situation?
2. When we calculated the amount of child support that would be expected of the non-custodial parent per government guidelines, it seemed exorbitantly high. It would make that parent virtually unable to support themselves after they deduct the mortgage from their paycheck.
How can we arrive at a more fair amount, especially given we earn the same salary now?
Thanks for your help!
But I’m not the one who pulled serial all-nighters for that start-up.
How can I justify taking half of those shares?
You may not have pulled the all-nighters, but didn't you provide support for your husband and your family such that those all-nighters could be pulled? Your argument seems to be that your husband was no better off work-wise being married to you - that his life and work conditions would have been exactly the same had he been single. This is rarely true, but perhaps it is in your case.
It would make that parent virtually unable to support themselves after they deduct the mortgage from their paycheck.
This is a little confusing to me. Is one person expecting to live in the 'marital house' and fully carry the mortgage, while before they had two salaries to carry the mortgage? In that case, of course it's not going to be possible for one person to carry the whole mortgage and pay their share of child support. Generally in these situations the house will be sold and each person will downsize into a living space they can afford.
posted by muddgirl at 2:17 PM on January 25, 2012 [20 favorites]
How can I justify taking half of those shares?
You may not have pulled the all-nighters, but didn't you provide support for your husband and your family such that those all-nighters could be pulled? Your argument seems to be that your husband was no better off work-wise being married to you - that his life and work conditions would have been exactly the same had he been single. This is rarely true, but perhaps it is in your case.
It would make that parent virtually unable to support themselves after they deduct the mortgage from their paycheck.
This is a little confusing to me. Is one person expecting to live in the 'marital house' and fully carry the mortgage, while before they had two salaries to carry the mortgage? In that case, of course it's not going to be possible for one person to carry the whole mortgage and pay their share of child support. Generally in these situations the house will be sold and each person will downsize into a living space they can afford.
posted by muddgirl at 2:17 PM on January 25, 2012 [20 favorites]
Strictly speaking, those shares belong to the two of you, not your children. If you want your half of the shares to go to your children you will need to take possession of those shares and make sure it happens. Either that or a lawyer might be able to suggest a trust framework or something that would allow them to be held for your children until a certain age.
posted by rocketpup at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [7 favorites]
posted by rocketpup at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [7 favorites]
I know the law (in MA) says I have the right to half of all marital assets. But I’m not the one who pulled serial all-nighters for that start-up.
Ok so you weren't pulling the all-nighters... but what were you doing? Were you getting up to change diapers so that he was able to pull the all-nighters? The point of dividing assets is that you both contributed in different ways to acquiring the assets you now have, and thus have equal rights to them.
As far as the shares -- I don't know the law, but I believe it would be possible to work it out in a legal document that half the shares go to the children and you remain in custody of the shares.
posted by DoubleLune at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [6 favorites]
Ok so you weren't pulling the all-nighters... but what were you doing? Were you getting up to change diapers so that he was able to pull the all-nighters? The point of dividing assets is that you both contributed in different ways to acquiring the assets you now have, and thus have equal rights to them.
As far as the shares -- I don't know the law, but I believe it would be possible to work it out in a legal document that half the shares go to the children and you remain in custody of the shares.
posted by DoubleLune at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [6 favorites]
You have lawyers, right?
posted by desjardins at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
Google "collaborative divorce". You each need lawyers that use that model.
posted by espertus at 2:25 PM on January 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by espertus at 2:25 PM on January 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
Here's the Mass Council on Family Mediation page on divorce mediation, with a link to a database of divorce mediators.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:28 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:28 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
Mod note: From the OP:
We are indeed using a divorce mediator who is very good but also does not offer answers to these questions of ethics. Her role has been simply to help us gather all the paperwork and come up with a separation agreement that covers most of the important future scenarios that may affect us or the children. She asks the questions but does not seem to offer answers.posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:39 PM on January 25, 2012
Yeah, make sure you put some kind of legal arrangement in place now to make sure half the shares go to the kids. You have no idea what's going to happen when there's a stepmother and step/half siblings in the picture.
You may need your own lawyer to figure out how best to do this -- the mediator may not have experience with that kind of property and the kind of legal arrangement you need to make.
posted by yarly at 2:47 PM on January 25, 2012
You may need your own lawyer to figure out how best to do this -- the mediator may not have experience with that kind of property and the kind of legal arrangement you need to make.
posted by yarly at 2:47 PM on January 25, 2012
I don’t wish to take anything that doesn’t belong to me and neither does my husband. However...
However you don't agree on this point, which might be a problem with a mediator. I've had parents who divorced in MA twice. The first time, mom and dad, mom got 50% of everything basically for just the reasons people are telling you here. Because she ran the home and made sure we were fed and going to school and healthy and whatever while my dad was working the 16 hour days. My dad wasn't pleased with it, but why would he be, he could have paid less. My weird parents divorced well after my sister and I were out of college [but had been separated for nearly two decades, long story] so there wasn't a child support issue but they did some sort of horrific thing where my dad paid what he felt like which was a nightmare for everyone and my sister and I got stuck in the middle of. When one of those parents divorced again, this time to someone who had not been someone they had kids with, had not even been part of an income-generating couple [they were both retired] the ex-wife still walked away with 35%.
So, the decision you make about custody does sort of matter, a lot. I have a friend doing an informal custody arrangement now and they did the worksheet that is on this page someplace [pretty sure] and it works out to about 30-35% of his gross salary, for one kid. It's a considerable amount.
Anyhow, basically the mediator is awesome if you guys agree on things. I am getting the feeling that you may not totally agree ["My husband argues that he will give the children their due directly."] which is fine and not at all unusual. You can poll your friends and people on the internet for what you might feel comfortable with, but I think the general vibe is going to be that a married couple are a team who are both earning money and supporting the family and maintaining the home, not always in equal measures. And without agreements to the contrary, the money is earned for everyone. Which means for you as well as your children. Which means that your husbands all-nighters and revenue earned at same, belong to the family and not to him. And the family at the time included you. If this is chafing, well that's what you have lawyers for. I'm sorry if I may be jumping to some conclusions [that he is balking at splitting this money for you, that he is complaining about child support payments] but there is a long and sordid history of these things being a bit of a nightmare and a headache for exactly this reason [one person being more of a wage earner than another] and I think it's worth making sure this is not just what you guys want, but is also fair.
posted by jessamyn at 3:14 PM on January 25, 2012 [9 favorites]
However you don't agree on this point, which might be a problem with a mediator. I've had parents who divorced in MA twice. The first time, mom and dad, mom got 50% of everything basically for just the reasons people are telling you here. Because she ran the home and made sure we were fed and going to school and healthy and whatever while my dad was working the 16 hour days. My dad wasn't pleased with it, but why would he be, he could have paid less. My weird parents divorced well after my sister and I were out of college [but had been separated for nearly two decades, long story] so there wasn't a child support issue but they did some sort of horrific thing where my dad paid what he felt like which was a nightmare for everyone and my sister and I got stuck in the middle of. When one of those parents divorced again, this time to someone who had not been someone they had kids with, had not even been part of an income-generating couple [they were both retired] the ex-wife still walked away with 35%.
So, the decision you make about custody does sort of matter, a lot. I have a friend doing an informal custody arrangement now and they did the worksheet that is on this page someplace [pretty sure] and it works out to about 30-35% of his gross salary, for one kid. It's a considerable amount.
Anyhow, basically the mediator is awesome if you guys agree on things. I am getting the feeling that you may not totally agree ["My husband argues that he will give the children their due directly."] which is fine and not at all unusual. You can poll your friends and people on the internet for what you might feel comfortable with, but I think the general vibe is going to be that a married couple are a team who are both earning money and supporting the family and maintaining the home, not always in equal measures. And without agreements to the contrary, the money is earned for everyone. Which means for you as well as your children. Which means that your husbands all-nighters and revenue earned at same, belong to the family and not to him. And the family at the time included you. If this is chafing, well that's what you have lawyers for. I'm sorry if I may be jumping to some conclusions [that he is balking at splitting this money for you, that he is complaining about child support payments] but there is a long and sordid history of these things being a bit of a nightmare and a headache for exactly this reason [one person being more of a wage earner than another] and I think it's worth making sure this is not just what you guys want, but is also fair.
posted by jessamyn at 3:14 PM on January 25, 2012 [9 favorites]
Lawyer up. Many divorces start out amicably. Few end up that way.
posted by imjustsaying at 3:44 PM on January 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by imjustsaying at 3:44 PM on January 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
If you can avoid a lawyer and courts then do. The only one that benefits from getting a lawyer is the lawyer.
If you and your child's father are getting along now then do everything you can to preserve that relationship. You will be co-parenting for a long time.
I agree that he may be swayed by the next woman he sleeps with. Many men are. Decide now, just the two of you, how you want the next 13 years to go. Put it in writing. Give that to the lawyer to write up something legally binding. Have ex pay for it.
Even if you are doing the 50/50 thing with the kids, as mom, you are most likely to be the one to take off from work when the kids are sick. This will cost you professionally. Get as much child support as he is willing to give. There is no fair in this. Life is hard for a single working mom. You will need any and all support you can get.
If you truly don't want any of his profits, set up a college fund for the children. Have a lawyer draw up papers stating that Dad has to put a certain amount in the fund by the time the children are 18. He can do it all at once or over time- his choice. Decide on all of this before you contact the lawyer. Do not use a lawyer to negotiate anything, if at all possible.
Use a lawyer to legalize decisions that you and your children's father have already made. Be prepared that the lawyer will present you with the worst case scenarios for everything. Don't listen. They can't actually protect you from any of the worst case scenarios anyway. Stick to your decisions and do not let lawyer sway you.
posted by myselfasme at 4:54 PM on January 25, 2012
If you and your child's father are getting along now then do everything you can to preserve that relationship. You will be co-parenting for a long time.
I agree that he may be swayed by the next woman he sleeps with. Many men are. Decide now, just the two of you, how you want the next 13 years to go. Put it in writing. Give that to the lawyer to write up something legally binding. Have ex pay for it.
Even if you are doing the 50/50 thing with the kids, as mom, you are most likely to be the one to take off from work when the kids are sick. This will cost you professionally. Get as much child support as he is willing to give. There is no fair in this. Life is hard for a single working mom. You will need any and all support you can get.
If you truly don't want any of his profits, set up a college fund for the children. Have a lawyer draw up papers stating that Dad has to put a certain amount in the fund by the time the children are 18. He can do it all at once or over time- his choice. Decide on all of this before you contact the lawyer. Do not use a lawyer to negotiate anything, if at all possible.
Use a lawyer to legalize decisions that you and your children's father have already made. Be prepared that the lawyer will present you with the worst case scenarios for everything. Don't listen. They can't actually protect you from any of the worst case scenarios anyway. Stick to your decisions and do not let lawyer sway you.
posted by myselfasme at 4:54 PM on January 25, 2012
The only one that benefits from getting a lawyer is the lawyer.
This is horrendous advice.
Lawyers serve to help people eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty from formal relationships. If you "Decide now, just the two of you, how you want to the next 13 years to go," and then "Put it in writing" without the assistance of counsel, I guarantee you will have forgotten something, either necessary to comply with your state's laws on divorces or which you actually care about, you just don't know it yet. If it's the former, the judge won't sign off, and you'll need to hire a lawyer anyway. If it's the latter, either or both of you is going to wind up screwed, and maybe in a way that you can't get out of very easily.
Hire a lawyer. Do a collaborative divorce if you can, as those are increasingly common and work very well when they work at all. But do not, whatever you do, try to do this without the assistance of counsel. There are both money and children involved. For their sake, do this right.
posted by valkyryn at 4:57 PM on January 25, 2012 [16 favorites]
This is horrendous advice.
Lawyers serve to help people eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty from formal relationships. If you "Decide now, just the two of you, how you want to the next 13 years to go," and then "Put it in writing" without the assistance of counsel, I guarantee you will have forgotten something, either necessary to comply with your state's laws on divorces or which you actually care about, you just don't know it yet. If it's the former, the judge won't sign off, and you'll need to hire a lawyer anyway. If it's the latter, either or both of you is going to wind up screwed, and maybe in a way that you can't get out of very easily.
Hire a lawyer. Do a collaborative divorce if you can, as those are increasingly common and work very well when they work at all. But do not, whatever you do, try to do this without the assistance of counsel. There are both money and children involved. For their sake, do this right.
posted by valkyryn at 4:57 PM on January 25, 2012 [16 favorites]
I'm a family lawyer, and my favorite (and rarest) cases are the amicable ones, where I help the parties come up with something fair.
Chat with a lawyer. Won't hurt, will probably help a lot.
Research collaborative law -- lawyers with collaborative training put more emphasis on working together.
posted by freshwater at 5:07 PM on January 25, 2012
Chat with a lawyer. Won't hurt, will probably help a lot.
Research collaborative law -- lawyers with collaborative training put more emphasis on working together.
posted by freshwater at 5:07 PM on January 25, 2012
Oh god, please please please get a lawyer. A compassionate one who understands your situation and wants to help you get a fair and amicable division/arrangement. He should also have one.
Re the shares, he could easily change his mind, and his new partner may have influence there. You didn't do what he did, but you both contributed to things and both sacrificed. If you want your portion of the shares to go to your kids, you need to make sure you get that portion of the shares -- now, before things are final.
Child support guidelines are the state's determination of what is presumptively fair. You need to sell your marital home and divide that. Both parties, because shared expenses are less than separate expenses, will have to reduce their standards of living.
Please don't do something stupid like give him everything you are entitled to, thinking it will be fair and work out well, only later to learn that you can't actually support yourself and the kids (or vice versa) without the child support, etc.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:11 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
Re the shares, he could easily change his mind, and his new partner may have influence there. You didn't do what he did, but you both contributed to things and both sacrificed. If you want your portion of the shares to go to your kids, you need to make sure you get that portion of the shares -- now, before things are final.
Child support guidelines are the state's determination of what is presumptively fair. You need to sell your marital home and divide that. Both parties, because shared expenses are less than separate expenses, will have to reduce their standards of living.
Please don't do something stupid like give him everything you are entitled to, thinking it will be fair and work out well, only later to learn that you can't actually support yourself and the kids (or vice versa) without the child support, etc.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:11 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh, god yes, get a lawyer. As anyone who's been through it can tell you, the outcome of your divorce will affect you and your children for the rest of your lives. You owe it to your kids to get a lawyer. They will know about things that it never even occurred to you to think about.
posted by MexicanYenta at 5:21 PM on January 25, 2012
posted by MexicanYenta at 5:21 PM on January 25, 2012
Are you sure you are doing the child support correctly? I just did it for a spouse earning $50,000 and $100,000 and neither was very high, and that wasn't even including the deductions for the custodial parent. The child support is for the children, they need financial security, as do you. Running two households on less money then you are used to will definitely be an adjustment. You absolutely need the shares transferred over, everything is amicable now, but in fifteen years when you have no leverage and his new family and children are just as important to him his definition of "fair" WILL change.
Maybe this means nothing but through the post you refer to him as your "husband". He's not, you aren't on the same team now and whereas before you may have been willing to "take one for the team" the reality is his new team has different needs to you team or the children. Is the decision to divorce relatively recent? Sometimes it is better to let things settle down a bit emotionally and let a bit of time pass before making final financial decisions (in which case interim child support orders are needed).
posted by saucysault at 5:42 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
Maybe this means nothing but through the post you refer to him as your "husband". He's not, you aren't on the same team now and whereas before you may have been willing to "take one for the team" the reality is his new team has different needs to you team or the children. Is the decision to divorce relatively recent? Sometimes it is better to let things settle down a bit emotionally and let a bit of time pass before making final financial decisions (in which case interim child support orders are needed).
posted by saucysault at 5:42 PM on January 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
When my ex and I did mediation we had two mediators, one to represent each of us. They had worked together before and now having seen how smooth everything was I have to wonder how a single mediator could be anything other than a process advisor. You may want to consider the same.
A note on start-up shares: I had 50,000 start-up shares at 10 cents a piece when we divorced. After some haggling (she wanted to keep full access to them) I paid her $2500 for her half of the shares.
A little later I paid $5000 to purchase the shares from the company. Not too long after that the company was sold for $120,000,000 with the price of common shares set at: $0.00 . Yup, I spent $7500 bucks for a piece of paper.
The moral here is not to get too attached to start-up shares. You have better chances with them than the lottery, but don't give up anything important expecting them to pay off.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:09 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
A note on start-up shares: I had 50,000 start-up shares at 10 cents a piece when we divorced. After some haggling (she wanted to keep full access to them) I paid her $2500 for her half of the shares.
A little later I paid $5000 to purchase the shares from the company. Not too long after that the company was sold for $120,000,000 with the price of common shares set at: $0.00 . Yup, I spent $7500 bucks for a piece of paper.
The moral here is not to get too attached to start-up shares. You have better chances with them than the lottery, but don't give up anything important expecting them to pay off.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:09 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
If you can avoid a lawyer and courts then do. The only one that benefits from getting a lawyer is the lawyer.
Just chiming in to agree that that is horrendous advice. I know more than a couple of people utterly fucked over by divorce because they *thought* they had an amicable relationship with their ex, and thus were too generous and too willing to rely on the decency of the ex and their verbal statements rather than a cold hard legal written document.
posted by parrot_person at 8:31 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
Just chiming in to agree that that is horrendous advice. I know more than a couple of people utterly fucked over by divorce because they *thought* they had an amicable relationship with their ex, and thus were too generous and too willing to rely on the decency of the ex and their verbal statements rather than a cold hard legal written document.
posted by parrot_person at 8:31 PM on January 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
First off, child support is for the children. In Louisiana, a parent can not "give away the rights of the child to support from the other parent." Louisiana is a community property state.
I thought I had an amicable relationship with the father of my child. After I signed the agreement, he nailed me to the wall. It took 5 years and over $25,000.00 in my legal fees alone to straighten out the mess.
There are guidelines that the court follows. The formula is something like this; gross monthly income of both parents are added together. This sum is located on the chart, number of children are at the top of the column. This sum is what the children are entitled to from both of the parents. Then the judge will look at that sum and determine the percentage each parent needs to contribute to achieve that sum. Whomever is the main custodial parent will receive that portion from the other parent.
Who claims the kids on the tax returns?
Who pays for health insurance?
What about medical bills over $100.00 per occurrence?
I've been there! You do not want to go there! GET AN ATTORNEY.
posted by JujuB at 10:50 PM on January 25, 2012
I thought I had an amicable relationship with the father of my child. After I signed the agreement, he nailed me to the wall. It took 5 years and over $25,000.00 in my legal fees alone to straighten out the mess.
There are guidelines that the court follows. The formula is something like this; gross monthly income of both parents are added together. This sum is located on the chart, number of children are at the top of the column. This sum is what the children are entitled to from both of the parents. Then the judge will look at that sum and determine the percentage each parent needs to contribute to achieve that sum. Whomever is the main custodial parent will receive that portion from the other parent.
Who claims the kids on the tax returns?
Who pays for health insurance?
What about medical bills over $100.00 per occurrence?
I've been there! You do not want to go there! GET AN ATTORNEY.
posted by JujuB at 10:50 PM on January 25, 2012
How about you take 1/3 of the shares?
posted by vitabellosi at 3:47 AM on January 26, 2012
posted by vitabellosi at 3:47 AM on January 26, 2012
It's really tempting to be nice and good and accommodating, particularly for the sake of the kids, but if the settlement is not fair, at some point down the road it will create resentment. We went through a mediator and she was simply a process facilitator, so the dynamics of my relationship with my ex meant that I really didn't stand up for myself or my relationship with my kids. It's important for them that both of you are in a good place.
Going to a lawyer feels like a "bad" thing to do, but pick a non-contentious one and they should help you be straight with the state guidelines.
posted by idb at 7:29 AM on January 26, 2012
Going to a lawyer feels like a "bad" thing to do, but pick a non-contentious one and they should help you be straight with the state guidelines.
posted by idb at 7:29 AM on January 26, 2012
Mod note: From the OP:
Extremely helpful comments, thank you. I had a talk with my husband last night (yes, he’s still my husband, we still live in the same house and sit down at dinner together), and it turns out he feels the divorce mediator – an attorney herself, btw - is biased towards the mother because she pointed out all the ways in which our preliminary agreements with which we originally came to the table could hurt me down the line. He says she didn’t remark on any risks that he was taking with the concessions he made.posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:15 AM on January 26, 2012
We are certainly entering contentious territory here so I take to heart everything you say about the fact that by wanting to work out lower child support I would be giving up money that doesn’t belong to me but our children. I am currently comfortable financially but that’s not to say I will be in future. It’s easy to overlook worst case scenarios when I am so eager to remain amicable and understanding towards my future ex-husband.
Was the mediator biased towards the mother or was she biased towards the person who would have primary custody of the kids? I think that's a big difference, and I wonder if both you and your spouse are overlooking that difference, in different ways.
Perhaps I'm reading this situation wrong - perhaps he is the one who would haveprimary custody, or y'all are planning on joint custody? But this is what it sounds like to me.
posted by muddgirl at 8:26 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Perhaps I'm reading this situation wrong - perhaps he is the one who would haveprimary custody, or y'all are planning on joint custody? But this is what it sounds like to me.
posted by muddgirl at 8:26 AM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Have you both gotten independent legal advice? I still feel this is a little rushed. It is possible to have an amicable divorce, but usually once children and or money enter into negotiations both sides feel differently and the divorce becomes acrimonious. It is good that you are trying to work together though and keep that as your well-informed goal.
Just from what you have written this process seems to be driven by your husband: "at my husband’s initiative decided to move on" "he feels the divorce mediator – an attorney herself, btw - is biased" and his concerns are revolve around him not sharing marital assets, feeling the child support is too high, and his concessions not being valued (are these financial or access related?) whereas you are motivated by wanting to keep a relationship past your marriage: "I am so eager to remain amicable and understanding". Your husband seems a lot further along in the emotional side of dissolving this relationship and has moved onto practicalities while being emotionally supported by the other person but he should respect that you might need a little more time to get to that place. There is a huge amount of baggage (both your own and society's) that comes with dissolving a 15 year partnership and you need to take care of yourself so you can be the healthiest mom and ex-wife you can be. You DON"T need to have this all signed, sealed and delievered in the next few months. Having a period of six months or a year of actually living apart may bring up issues (both good and bad) that neither of you had thought of and can compromise on with the evolving agreements rather than having to re-open your signed agreement in the courts.
Sorry to be cynical, but like your attorney probably has experience with, I have seen a lot of women who are still emotionally processing the end of their marriage compromise "for the sake of the relationship" and then spend the next two or more years destroying that post-divorce relationship by legal wrangling to get what is rightfully their and their children's share of the assets through expensive lawyers. I think it is something to do with the way women are socialised to "make nice" and the fear of being viewed as the vengeful ex-wife that cleaned out her ex-husband.
As the old adage goes, Fast, Good and Cheap - choose two. You don't want a fast, cheap divorce agreement.
posted by saucysault at 11:45 AM on January 26, 2012
Just from what you have written this process seems to be driven by your husband: "at my husband’s initiative decided to move on" "he feels the divorce mediator – an attorney herself, btw - is biased" and his concerns are revolve around him not sharing marital assets, feeling the child support is too high, and his concessions not being valued (are these financial or access related?) whereas you are motivated by wanting to keep a relationship past your marriage: "I am so eager to remain amicable and understanding". Your husband seems a lot further along in the emotional side of dissolving this relationship and has moved onto practicalities while being emotionally supported by the other person but he should respect that you might need a little more time to get to that place. There is a huge amount of baggage (both your own and society's) that comes with dissolving a 15 year partnership and you need to take care of yourself so you can be the healthiest mom and ex-wife you can be. You DON"T need to have this all signed, sealed and delievered in the next few months. Having a period of six months or a year of actually living apart may bring up issues (both good and bad) that neither of you had thought of and can compromise on with the evolving agreements rather than having to re-open your signed agreement in the courts.
Sorry to be cynical, but like your attorney probably has experience with, I have seen a lot of women who are still emotionally processing the end of their marriage compromise "for the sake of the relationship" and then spend the next two or more years destroying that post-divorce relationship by legal wrangling to get what is rightfully their and their children's share of the assets through expensive lawyers. I think it is something to do with the way women are socialised to "make nice" and the fear of being viewed as the vengeful ex-wife that cleaned out her ex-husband.
As the old adage goes, Fast, Good and Cheap - choose two. You don't want a fast, cheap divorce agreement.
posted by saucysault at 11:45 AM on January 26, 2012
I just want to really commend you for trying so hard to keep things cordial and cooperative; if that works out, it really will be easier, I think, for everybody. Kids especially.
Agree with everybody who has said make sure to look after yourself. But I don't think that's because anything you've said indicates that your husband isn't just as good a person as you're saying he is. There's nothing wrong with your husband feeling like the mediator is biased; some mediators are biased, or not the right person to put both parties at ease. Just as you have to look out for your own interests (and would be within your rights to object that a particular mediator seems biased toward him), he has to look out for his own interests as well and shouldn't agree to use a mediator he doesn't trust. If he feels uncomfortable with the mediator, there's nothing wrong with finding another one. There's also nothing that particularly offends me about his saying the kids will eventually get the shares anyway if he just keeps them. (That doesn't make it the right answer! I'm just saying it doesn't strike me as an unfair idea, especially if he genuinely cannot imagine not eventually giving them to the kids because he really is honest and fair.)
I'm just saying -- I think you can take all this advice to make sure that you secure yourself, without in any way taking it to mean that the reason to do that is that your husband is untrustworthy. People can be very trustworthy and still want and need different things. I think in some ways that this is the hardest thing about doing this cooperatively, is to protect yourself assertively without adopting the position that absent your assertiveness, your spouse would cheat you. I think that "trust but verify" thing is one of the things that's really hard for couples in these situations. Good advocacy helps people manage, not amplify, the level of emotion.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 1:04 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Agree with everybody who has said make sure to look after yourself. But I don't think that's because anything you've said indicates that your husband isn't just as good a person as you're saying he is. There's nothing wrong with your husband feeling like the mediator is biased; some mediators are biased, or not the right person to put both parties at ease. Just as you have to look out for your own interests (and would be within your rights to object that a particular mediator seems biased toward him), he has to look out for his own interests as well and shouldn't agree to use a mediator he doesn't trust. If he feels uncomfortable with the mediator, there's nothing wrong with finding another one. There's also nothing that particularly offends me about his saying the kids will eventually get the shares anyway if he just keeps them. (That doesn't make it the right answer! I'm just saying it doesn't strike me as an unfair idea, especially if he genuinely cannot imagine not eventually giving them to the kids because he really is honest and fair.)
I'm just saying -- I think you can take all this advice to make sure that you secure yourself, without in any way taking it to mean that the reason to do that is that your husband is untrustworthy. People can be very trustworthy and still want and need different things. I think in some ways that this is the hardest thing about doing this cooperatively, is to protect yourself assertively without adopting the position that absent your assertiveness, your spouse would cheat you. I think that "trust but verify" thing is one of the things that's really hard for couples in these situations. Good advocacy helps people manage, not amplify, the level of emotion.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 1:04 PM on January 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Oktober at 2:17 PM on January 25, 2012 [5 favorites]