Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it. If I earn a lot more than my husband and we have agreed joint custody of the children - am I right in saying that he will receive a greater proportion of our assetts even though I have contributed more over the last 10 years?
Please forgive me for what I am about to say but it always amazes me how when a woman posts on here that she earns more than her husband and has put more in over the years that she is expecting us to come back with that answer that she so obviously is wanting to hear which would be "of course not dear, you are the woman for heavens sake, you can still take him to the cleaners ha ha ha!!!
Well actually it would work the same way for you being a woman as it works for men in divorce when they are the higher earner.
You would have to post us more information for someone to be able to calculate
length of marriage
How many children
given the above information I am sure someone on here will be able to tell you exactly how it all works but I think you will find if it has been a marriage of reasonable length everything will be put into the pot and divided equally according to the situation regardless of who was rhe higher earner.
You have obviously had a bad experience, but for the record I don't have any opinion on women automatically getting the lion's share - I just want what is fair. You should really temper your responses this is obviously a very difficult time for everyone
The key points here is that in seeking to achieve a fair outcome in sharing assets there is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective contributions and there is an unequal division of assets only when there is good reason. Leaving both parties on a similar (not necessariliy equal) financial footing is a good reason.
In the UK both parents have equal responsibility for their children, but there is no particular arrangement which suits all so in most cases divorcing couples agree something which works for everyone concerned themselves. In fact even when there is disagreement and the matter goes to court there is a policy of no order unless it's absolutely necessary.