
The 'ludicrous' divorce settlements leaving many women 'devastated'
Abandoning her career to look after their two daughters was what Isobel's* ex-husband wanted.
Six years after their divorce, she earns a quarter of his salary while caring for the children six out of seven days.
Despite having two university degrees, she is "trapped" on universal credit and frustrated with a "ludicrous" divorce system that didn't account for years of unpaid work to support her ex and raise their family.
"I feel hugely let down and I feel cheated by a system that feels so orchestrated towards women being on the back foot," said Isobel, 44, from Berkshire.
Data suggests she is not alone.
Divorce slashes women's household incomes far more than men's, new research by Legal and General has revealed.
Wives can expect their income to be halved on average in the year after ending the relationship, compared with a 30% drop for husbands.
A closer look at Isobel's divorce settlement - and why half didn't seem anywhere near fair
Isobel was earning £19,500 working for a pharmaceutical company in 2007 when she married her ex-husband.
She took voluntary redundancy while on maternity leave in 2008 and over the next nine years only briefly worked part-time.
"It [the jobs] didn't last very long because he didn't manage very well with me being at work," she said.
When they divorced in 2019, she had been back in work for two years. But her care assistant salary was just £17,000 - much less than her likely salary if she hadn't given up her career to be a mum. As for her husband - he was now taking home approximately £52,000.
In a roughly even settlement, she was awarded the car, one buy-to-let flat with £50,000 equity, and £55,000 of £200,000 equity from the family home, plus child maintenance. He was awarded the remainder of the equity and a separate buy-to-let flat.
She spent £20,000 on solicitors' fees and, given her low wages, much of the rest of her capital was used to pay off debt accumulated after separating and renting from 2018 onwards, she said.
"Why on earth would it [the settlement] be a 50-50 split when my earning capability is a quarter of what he earns?" said Isobel, who is now a nurse on £25,000 a year while her ex-husband earns six figures.
"I've had six years out of work, I'm the primary carer for the children, I'm never going to be able to get a job that gives me £100,000, am I? That's ludicrous. And why is that not taken into account?"
Some more data
Double the number of divorced women (14%) have cut their hours to manage caring responsibilities compared with men (7%), Legal and General (L&G) found.
"Women still pick up the majority share of caring responsibilities, both for children as part of the family unit, but also elderly relatives," said Lorna Shah, managing director of retail retirement at the pension provider.
Shah sees a lot of cases where married women prioritise the family unit over their own financial well-being and long-term earning potential.
Emma Hitchings, professor of family law at the University of Bristol, agrees: "Wives, and particularly mothers, are in a precarious financial position at the point of divorce."
Her wide-ranging 2023 study, Fair Shares on Divorce, found married women were more likely to be employed part-time, with 28% taking home under £1,000 a month compared with 10% of men.
One key asset that's often overlooked - pensions
Pensions are one of the three main assets divvied up in any divorce settlement, alongside capital and housing.
Yet Hitchings said her study found there is a "lack of awareness, understanding and interest in pensions" on divorce.
"Women are far more likely to surrender any rights over pensions," said Shah, adding they often prioritised the family home.
Legal and General found 28% of women waived their rights to access their partner's pot, compared with 17% of men.
This is despite women having smaller pensions for the same reasons their wages are lower post-divorce: the gender pay gap (which stands at 7%), longer parental leave and more career breaks for childcare.
"There's a reticence for some women to call on their partners' pensions," said Shah.
"I think it feels like it's not theirs, but obviously if they've had joint finances as part of a marriage, then actually they've contributed to that in other ways and therefore it should all be considered."
Grace's divorce and her husband's 'hidden' pay rises
Among the women waiving that right is Grace*, 48, from the Midlands, who feels "forced to take the bare minimum" in her ongoing divorce proceedings.
Her husband has offered her £70,000 if she doesn't make a claim to his pension or future earnings, she said, and she feels she has to agree so she can leave their home as quickly as possible with a deposit for another house.
"I'm devastated if I'm being honest with you because all I ever worked for was just to have a solid home and a family."
In 2005, she gave up her £26,000 job at an energy company and the £160,000 home she owned in Greater London to move in with her husband-to-be and his children.
Grace said she invested £30,000 in renovating their home in the Midlands and, while still working full-time, took on the role of "homemaker".
"I would be the one looking after the house, the general running, the washing, the cleaning and all the typical wifey things."
Her husband took control of all the finances - to the point she was "shocked" to find out he had not disclosed pay rises from £50,000 to £80,000. Grace earns £26,000.
"I feel incredibly ripped off - manipulated. I feel hopeless," she said, adding the house she once owned in Greater London is now worth approximately £400,000.
"The worst thing is that I feel it's really hard to wrap my head around everything after having let go for so many years to let him control everything - and then trying to make the right decisions when you're emotionally distraught all the time."
Knowledge is power
Lack of understanding is common in divorce proceedings, Professor Hitchings' study found.
Again, the division of pensions provides a perfect illustration.
That's because pension sharing requires a court order, and there is less understanding of the process since legal aid for private family proceedings in England and Wales was cut in 2015, she said.
In 2023, only 11% of divorcees with a pension yet to be drawn had made an arrangement for pension sharing.
Some 37% did not know the value of their own (let alone their ex-spouse's) pension.
Around 10% of homeowners with a mortgage did not know what the equity in their home was at the point of divorce.
Karen Stainton, 55, found her background in finance invaluable during a protracted and painful divorce 10 years ago.
She offered to pay her ex-husband a £135,000 lump sum out of the proceeds of the house, in return for him waiving access to her pension.
"And why should he, after he'd not given me any child benefit or helped me look after the kids after the split," she said.
She took on three jobs and worked seven days a week to earn the £45,000 she needed to look after their children, Joe, John and Peter, aged 18, 15 and eight, at the time of the divorce.
"I was completely running on adrenaline. It wasn't good," she said.
But a decade later, her pension is valued at £450,000 - far more than the lump sum.
Law 'definitely needs reform'
Professor Hitchings added that there are areas of the law that "definitely need reform".
It gives couples too much discretion at the expense of having a full account of all of their assets and their future prospects, particularly pensions.
In December, the Law Commission published a scoping report on whether the existing law - the more than 50-year-old Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 - needs reform.
The government was given six months to respond to the report and decide whether the commission should investigate further and suggest options for reform.
"We are grateful to the Law Commission for reviewing the current laws governing finances in divorce, including in relation to pensions," said a Ministry of Justice spokesperson.
"The government is carefully considering the findings of the report and will provide a response in due course."
What divorcees can do
Whether a divorcee should prioritise pension sharing, capital, or the family home depends on their circumstances, said Shah.
"Gather as much information as you can up front; try to get some financial advice if you can afford it or guidance otherwise," she added, pointing to a financial health checking service Legal and General provide online.
"Divorce is a really emotional time for everybody involved. But being able to take that step back and actually look at it from a logical perspective on really what is the best for both parties, both at the time and in the longer term, is really important."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour spends £35k on pub beer mats to boast about minimum wage rise
Labour spent more than £35,000 of taxpayer cash on beer mats in pubs advertising the increase to the national minimum wage, a minister has admitted. The Government sent out promotional material to pubs across the country to tell workers that the minimum wage and national living wage were going up. Justin Madders, the employment minister, rationalised the £35,580 expense as he said the beer mats offered a 'unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur'. The red and pale blue beer mats were government-branded and said: 'Millions got a pay rise.' 'National minimum and living wages went up on 1st April', it added, and displayed a barcode for customers to scan for details on how to 'make sure you're getting paid correctly'. The employment minister responded to a written question by Richard Holden, the shadow paymaster general, about the cost of the drink mats. He said: 'The cost to advertise in pubs using beer mats was £35,580, which was approved at official level.' He confirmed that the advertising push was approved by the Cabinet Office, and came out of the 2025 National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage campaign budget of £650,000. He added: 'The 2024 campaign saw an increase in reach to eligible workers. However, recognition remained low, reinforcing the need for bolder, more engaging formats for the 2025 campaign, which expected to deliver an estimated 3.2 million impressions. 'It offered a unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur. 'This setting encourages discussion and word-of-mouth sharing about rate changes and offers an effective nudge for audiences to 'check their pay'.' 'We will be ruthless' Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both pledged a war on waste in Whitehall, with the Government having taken such moves as freezing government credit cards and abolishing NHS England. The Prime Minister said in October: 'We will also be ruthless in clamping down on government waste, just as we will be ruthless on clamping down on tax avoidance ', emphasising the intention to show so the British people that 'every penny counts'. He added: 'Every single person in this country had to do that during the cost-of-living crisis and government must be no different.' The national living wage for those aged 21 and over rose from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 per hour, an increase of 6.7 per cent. The national minimum wage for those between 18 and 20 went up from £8.60 to £10 per hour, a 16.3 per cent boost. The Government has also begun to name and shame firms that do not pay their workers the appropriate wages, demanding they pay back what they owe and in some instances a further financial penalty.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘Spiteful' boss cut pregnant accountant's hours after she told him she had morning sickness
A 'spiteful' boss cut his pregnant employee's work hours after she told him she had morning sickness, and then fired her when her maternity leave was due to start, a tribunal has heard. Sadia Shakil had worked as an accountant and bookkeeper at the property development firm Samsons in Bedford since October 2020, and became pregnant early the following year. But after Ms Shakil phoned her boss Mohammed Saleem on 30 March 2021 to inform him that she was experiencing morning sickness due to her pregnancy, he then proceeded to tell her in an email the following day that he was cutting her working hours. In the email seen by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote: 'Considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for 2 days per week.' The tribunal ruled that this was a 'fundamental' breach of Ms Shakil's employment contract, which caused her to experience 'stress, anxiety and panic' while questioning how she and her husband would be able to afford essential items for their baby now that their main source of income had been unilaterally reduced. During this period, Ms Shakil suffered sleepless nights and panic attacks while being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts', including 'doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable'. After informing her boss that she needed to resign, Ms Shakil managed to secure a second full-time job in May, but she continued to work at Samsons in her spare time in the hope she would be able to resume her full-time role at the firm after her maternity leave. In the months that followed, Mr Saleem ignored multiple emails from Ms Shakil about her upcoming maternity leave, 'which caused her further stress and worry', at a time when she also suffered complications, being admitted to hospital on two occasions. By the end of September, blood tests had revealed a potentially serious condition which Ms Shakil was told put her baby at risk of still birth, resulting in the hospital booking her in to have her baby induced on 17 October. Two days after Ms Shakil's final email on 27 September, informing Mr Saleem that her leave would now commence on 1 October, he finally responded – referring to a letter she had not received 'putting her role at risk of redundancy '. Ms Shakil was dismissed with effect from 1 October 2021, when she began maternity leave, the tribunal noted. After her son was born on 18 October, the family were forced to move back in with Ms Shakil's parents 'due to the financial pressure that [her] loss of employment and lack of maternity pay had created'. Ms Shakil's subsequent claim to the Department for Work and Pensions for maternity allowance was then rejected on the grounds that her employer was responsible for paying it. 'The claimant's early weeks and months with her new baby were marred by the need to devote time to trying to resolve her financial predicament and bringing the employment tribunal proceedings,' the tribunal found. After an initial tribunal in Birmingham in April 2023, Ms Shakil was awarded £5,000 in damages for maternity discrimination and Samsons ordered to pay her for income lost while on reduced hours. In an email sent in June 2023 in which he asked Ms Shakil to provide her bank details so that he could pay her the sum awarded by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote 'I hope that you have a wonderful time utilising the monies gained from me', adding that the loss of money 'will make no difference to me'. A further appeal hearing in March 2025 found that Ms Shakil 'was horrified' by the email – which she described as 'disturbing and 'nasty' – and 'was shocked that Mr Saleem could be so spiteful to her'. Ms Shakil's appeal that the sum awarded to her had been too low was accepted, and the judge ordered Samsons to pay her a total of £31,860. Finding it to be a 'serious case of discrimination', the tribunal found: 'The discrimination took place at a time in the claimant's life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy – the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child. 'Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. There was evidence that the claimant's confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination. 'These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of the claimants' ongoing financial struggles.' It added: 'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because the claimant is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
MrQ Casino Bonus: 200 Cash Spins on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold
GET READY to make a splash with MrQ casino bonus! New UK players over 18 years can dive into a four-day spin extravaganza on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold. Just deposit £10 each day with bonus code POTS200 and watch up to 200 thrilling cash spins land in your account. Sounds juicy! Let's show you how. What is MrQ's welcome offer? MrQ Casino brings in something special for new players. Imagine this: every day for four days, you deposit and spend a tenner (£10) and instantly unlock 50 electric cash spins on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold. Each spin is valued at 10p per spin, so you receive £20 as extra rewards. The best part? There are no wagering requirements on free spins and associated winnings. So, you can withdraw them anytime or use them to enjoy more games. However, there's a catch! If you miss a day within the first four days, you may not claim the full 200 free spins. You also have 12 hours after each deposit to wager at least £10 and trigger 50 free spins. Once they land in your account, they must be used within 48 hours. It's vital to note that MrQ Casinos has provided a list of games you shouldn't wager your £10 on, as they make you ineligible for this offer. You can bet on other available games, especially slots, to earn free spins. How to claim MrQ casino offer Visit MrQ's official website and create an account using your email address and a password. Once in your profile, click the ' Claim Offer' button. This takes you to a deposit window. Deposit at least £10 and stake it on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold (or another eligible slot) within 12 hours. Watch 50 cash spins pop into your account instantly. Repeat steps 3 and 4 on days two, three, and four to reel in all 200 spins. What happens next? As soon as you hit that £10 spend each day, your spins will splash into 'My Rewards'. Afterwards, load up Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold and spin its reels for free. Remember, your spins vanish after 48 hours, so use them quickly. What about potential wins? They drop straight into your cash balance with no hoops to jump through, ready for withdrawal or more play. If you have leftover spins after the 48-hour expiry window, they'll sail off quietly. Terms and conditions of the MrQ casino bonus offer This casino bonus has its own terms and conditions. Let's review them This offer is available to new UK customers aged 18 years or above. Deposit and spend £10 per day within 12 hours for 50 spins daily (200 total). Spins expire 48 hours after credit; unused spins are removed. No wagering requirement on spin winnings; large wins may undergo security checks. We recommend that you wager responsibly and adhere to any applicable terms and conditions, as failure to do so may result in disqualification from any available offer. Remember to gamble responsibly A responsible gambler is someone who: For help with a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133 or go to to be excluded from all UK-regulated gambling websites.