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.The numbers
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.
Read more from Money:
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."
*Names have been changed to hide the identity of some interviewees.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain to allocate $116 billion to R&D in spending plan
LONDON (Reuters) -British finance minister Rachel Reeves will allocate 86 billion pounds ($116 billion) in this week's spending review to fund research and development, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said on Sunday. It said the package, funding everything from new drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries to artificial intelligence breakthroughs, would be worth over 22.5 billion pounds a year by 2029/30, driving new jobs and economic growth. Reeves will divide more than 2 trillion pounds ($2.7 trillion) of public money between her ministerial colleagues on Wednesday, making choices that will define what the year-old Labour government can achieve in the next four years. The DSIT said the announcement on R&D follows Reeves' commitment last week to 15.6 billion pounds of government investment in local transport in city regions in the Northern England, Midlands and the South West. ($1 = 0.7398 pounds)
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves to announce £86bn for science and technology in spending review
Research into drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries will receive new funding as part of an £86 billion package for science and technology set to be announced in next week's spending review. Regions will be handed up to £500 million with local leaders given powers to decide how investment is targeted in their communities, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said. The overall package, which will be announced as Chancellor Rachel Reeves sets out departmental spending plans on June 11, is expected to be worth more than £22.5 billion-a-year by the end of the decade. DSIT said 'every corner of the country' would benefit as local leaders are given a say on how the money is spent on leveraging expertise specific to their communities. In Liverpool, which has a long history in biotech, funding will be used to speed up drug discovery and in South Wales, which has Britain's largest semiconductor cluster, on designing the microchips used to power mobile phones and electric cars. The Chancellor said: 'Britain is the home of science and technology. Through the Plan for Change, we are investing in Britain's renewal to create jobs, protect our security against foreign threats and make working families better off.' Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: 'Incredible and ambitious research goes on in every corner of our country, from Liverpool to Inverness, Swansea to Belfast, which is why empowering regions to harness local expertise and skills for all of our benefit is at the heart of this new funding – helping to deliver the economic growth at the centre of our Plan for Change.' Local leaders including North East Mayor Kim McGuiness and West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker welcomed the package, but research backers warned more is needed to secure Britain's reputation for Rottingen, chief executive of Wellcome, Britain's biggest non-governmental research funder, said: 'The Government rightly acknowledges that investing in science and technology is a key way to boost the economy. 'But while it's positive under the financial circumstances, a flat real-terms science budget, along with continuing barriers such as high visa costs for talented scientists and the university funding crisis, won't be enough for the UK to make the advances it needs to secure its reputation for science in an increasingly competitive world. 'The UK should be aiming to lead the G7 in research intensity, to bring about economic growth and the advances in health, science and technology that benefit us all. We look forward to seeing the full details at the spending review.' Meanwhile, the Institute of Physics called for a longer-term strategy for science, including a plan for teachers and other members of the skilled workforce needed to deliver advances. Tony McBride, director of policy and public affairs at the institute, said: 'It's good to see the Government recognise the power of science and innovation to transform lives and grow prosperity in every part of the UK. 'But to fully harness the transformational potential of research and innovation – wherever it takes place – we need a decade-long strategic plan for science. This must include a plan for the skilled workforce we need to deliver this vision, starting with teachers and addressing every educational stage, to underpin the industrial strategy. 'We hope that the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday will set out such a vision.' Universities UK said the Government had made a 'smart investment' and academia would put its 'shoulder to the wheel' behind the plans. Vivienne Stern, chief executive of the group representing 142 higher education providers in Britain, said: 'The UK has a real opportunity to sow the seeds of long-term growth, benefiting all parts of the UK – with universities spread right across the country working with industry and public sector bodies to turn discoveries into economic success. 'They stand ready to double down with government, building stronger links with sectors of the economy where we have real room to grow. 'This creates good jobs and attracts investment everywhere from Swansea to Aberdeen, from Barrow to Plymouth.'

Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio