When did I get a choice?

I'm confused by an argument that I often hear thrown around in Family law, which is the claim that men who became single earners in their household are presumed to have done so through agreement. I'm not sure whether it makes much difference to the final settlement these days but I think this argument is rubbish. I, like a lot of men, ended up as the sole earner because my ex-wife chose to stop working and ended up working more and more hours to keep the family out of debts from her reckless spending.

What was I supposed to do when she decided, 6 months after our child was born, that she was going to stop work? What choice did I really have?

Was I meant to start divorce proceedings back then, at risk of hardly seeing my child until they were a little older? And abandoning my family? Was I meant to be irresponsible like my ex-wife and quit my job too, and wait for the eviction notice?

Of course, this argument has just been trotted out in mediation too. We're divorcing because - having spent years working every hour I can to keep up with her spending - apparently I don't pull my weight around the house. But of course, although this deeply unhealthy arrangement led us to divorce, she's rather keen on the idea that she can continue to squat on my mortgage capacity for over a decade and get spousal maintenance, presumably so she can carry on pretending to be some kind of martyr whilst I have to flog myself to death and don't get enough time with my child.

Is there any way to refute this obviously ridiculous argument? I've never actually come across a man who was actually happy when their partner quit work to stay at home, I think these men are rarer than unicorns except in the minds of Family law solicitors.

Depending on the age of the child/ren not maximising your income through working is really not an option these days unless there are health grounds.

It is expected that work and a benefits claim if appropriate, would be the first recourse. If spousal maintenance is needed it may be only for a limited period while she re-establishes herself in the workplace. Bear in mind that spousal maintenance is based on needs (hers) and ability to pay (yours after living costs are met). Also any SM counts as unearned income and is deducted £ for £ from Universal Credit.


As a general rule a Clean Break (no SM) is preferred although it may mean she retains more equity in order to rehouse.
It sounds like the strict need for each of you is a 2 bed property. How that can be achieved will depend on the level of equity and your respective mortgage capacities.
If you have all the relevant financial disclosure, it may be worth you booking a legal financial consultation (fixed price available via this site) so you are on surer ground with your arguments.
Alternatively you can post more information here - ages, incomes, length of marriage, age of child, equity in house and size of property, cost of 2 bed in your area, details of other assets and liabilities.

Hadenoughnow