[Closed] Divorce - how much maintenance is a former spouse entitled to?

It will vary a lot depending on the age of the kids, his earnings, his spouses earnings and the conditions of the divorce.

Anecdotal, but lots of it.

Enough to keep her in the manner to which she's been accustomed I think it is.

There is a calculator thing for it somewhere on the web. Can't remember where, but shouldn't be too hard to find.
I personally used the "talking method". Obviously not always viable.

Enough to keep her in the manner to which she's been accustomed I think it is.

Which is why I keep MrsS in the shed.

Enough to keep her in the manner to which she's been accustomed I think it is.

Presumably it's possible to come to some sort of agreement/settlement whereby he pays her off as it were or am I being naive?

[quote=rocketman ]
Presumably it's possible to come to some sort of agreement/settlement whereby he pays her off as it were or am I being naive?

Yup. where kids are involved it seems to be all in the mothers favour. Seen friend of a friend do this, she kept coming back for more and more until he had nothing, despite her living in excess of what he had, poor sod topped himself not long after. 🙁

poper snake with tits she was.

You need to separate spouse from kids as there are different rules for both.

Whatever he does, don't agree to anything for 'an easy life' plus the rules that apply to kids are NOT to be ignored - not ignored that is unless he works in a cash-based job.

I was reading up on this recently. Seems to be the beginnings of a trend in settlements that once the kids are old enough to not need funding, ex wives/ex husband's are expected to work rather than continue to be supported.

Think it has always been possible to get a final settlement to stop future claims, but not always been done properly by solicitors. A mate lost out on a generous redundancy package as it turned out his ex would get a big chunk due to some **** wit of a solicitor.

Well it is at least 50/50 but then add in maintenance for the kids and also the wife depending on her earning potential.

Look at

http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/

for advice and forums and telephone support.

They are a charity and the government sites will point you to there.

They offer some services that use different family solicitors, half the money you pay goes to wikivorce and half to the solicitors.

They do a financial consultation service which I think is £400 (depending on complication) where you fill in a questionaire with all your details and assets, etc, you get one phone call consultation with the solicitor, and then the solicitor provides written advice on what a fair split looks like.

[A problem comes with the pensions as it may need an actuary to sort out properly.]

He can then use this advice in his financial settlement that will form the basis for his decree absolute, and then the judge might be more likely to accept it.

They also offer solicitor services to do the divorce as well, although he could actually do that himself to save money.

The key thing here is the avoidance of actually seeing a solicitor, particularly for the wife, as he will try to turn it into a fight for money and you will end up paying a lot to the solicitor instead, when it would be better to accept a less fair arrangement and let the wife have the money to look after the kids instead.

Using an online service like this has the advantage of doing that - your mate should make sure that that everything is fuly transparent between him and the solicitors so his wife knows that he is not trying to stitch her up.

If the split does not have unreasonable behaviour or adultery reasons and he has to do the 2 year split then it is worse as the 50/50 split (or more) might be applied on what the combined assets are AFTER the 2 year separation, so all his pension contributions whilst split will be shared with the wife for example - which makes no sense to me at all and is quite a depresing thought. So he won't know what his final financial position will be, and so will be in limbo about committing to property, etc until then.

Therefore they should plump for adultery or unreasonable behaviour whatever - it doesn't matter who admits to what as it won't make any difference to the settlement nor will it be made public.

If they are argueing massively then they may need to go to a mediator but my advice is to go for the financial consultation as a first step, with full transparency, and then accept what the advice is on both sides.

Then do an online service for the divorce to keep that at arms length.

That might cost £1k in fees, but in terms of the overall cost that will be negligable.

Your mate should 'suck up' any anger and try to be reasonable as this is the most likely route to keeping costs down.

I have just sold my house and bought another and the difference is going to the wife as part of the settlement. A friend on FB said that his solicitors fees nearly came to that amount because the wife went to a solicitor and it went nuclear after that.

Blimey

So even though the kids are 19 & 17 there's still maintenance?

One of my anecdotes is a chap who has to give half of his (currently) 6 figure income to his alcoholic ex wife, for the rest of his or her life. He has had full custody of their 4 kids, who are now grown up, and paid for their upbringing, but she's still literally pissing his money away.

it's called spousal maintenance, there is no formula, any claim has to go through court, unless you can resolve in mediation.
It's not an automatic entitlement, but a mechanism to protect former spouses from hardship/poverty. Precedent has been set in similar cases - do some googling. But she will have to make some effort to support herself.
I think also spousal maintenance does not take into account new partners earnings, which is where it gets really shitty.

Above just based on my own research, as I have this hanging over me currently due to kids approaching age where maintenance will no longer be paid, so she's thinking of her future income.

Unless clean break order is obtained, which prevents future financial claims (I think!)

Ah yes, shoulda read it properly "how much maintenance" is a different question to "what sort of claim she has on his future earnings/pension"

Pretty complicated if they can't work these things out between them.

Try and go for an amicable clean break. Done this with my ex, now sorted, and my partner is doing the same with hers.

There is a formula for kids maintenance, but spousal maintenance is less clear. You can agree a clean break where the partner earning less/nothing gets more capital/property so that she/he can downsize when kids have moved on/can pay rent, and release money to cover the ending of spousal maintenance.

One important thing is to stop thinking of what [i]he [/i]paid for - he could only earn and buy the house because she was doing the childcare. All the money he earnt and property he bought is absolutely rightly half hers, they were a team dividing tasks. The sooner you get past any of this "its my money" rubbish, the sooner you move on.

also his pension will be taken into account, lots of top earners have found to their surprise

Reading this thread has got me thinking about the Joint/Separate accounts thread from last week.
and in particular this comment from above: "Enough to keep her in the manner to which she's been accustomed"

Now if the couple had separate accounts for personal income and a proportion gets transferred into a joint account for household costs (bills, kids etc) Would the above still count?
As the lifestyle would have been funded through their own means but the household costs were shared.

I hope I never get into any situation like this, it seems it can be a horrible minefield

How much does it cost to have a patio laid?

Isn't "Enough to keep her in the manner to which she's been accustomed" a bit of a myth?
I dont think spousal maintenance is about achieving parity in standard of living, but protecting the lesser earning spouse from hardship.

it can be a horrible minefield

One important thing is to stop thinking of what he paid for

and her contribution towards bringing up the kids was collecting them from nursery/school in the cars he bought. Nightmare

Really, thats all she did? she didn't give berth or anything and for 19 years your mate has activley been trying to get her to do more with the kids or get a job?

She had to forgo her ability to earn and to accumulate pension in order to do the stuff that allowed him to earn - things like childcare, housework etc. I think you will find if he had to buy in all these services it would have cost him a lot more.

The courts recognise that not all contributions to a families wealth comes from one earner. She must be compensated for the loss of earnings and pension she has had

so yes - your friend will have to pay for her at least until she gets back on her feet and quite possibly for the rest of their lives.

[b]rocketman[/b] that may be true, or it may be his perception of things, and if they were only together a few years then what he owned before marriage might be taken into account - but if he has been with her nearly 20 years... Arguing she hasn't been pulling her weight only after they split is a bit late...

IANAL and I thnk he may need one, but he really needs to think how far he wants to push that. Working on an equitable clean break , espescially if family circumstances would allow her to go and get a job may be his best way out of this permanently.

More than he thinks 🙁

My ex-wife was entitled to maintainence even though our youngest was 21 and she had a settlement to include a property owned outright, cash in the bank and more than half of the pension.

EDIt: my ex made it a career of avoiding going back to work, court doesn't care - we live in the about the most woman friendly place in the world for divorce

The whole "manner in which she is accustomed" gubbins is a myth. Two households are more expensive to run than one so it just isn't achievable. Nor is being a stay at home lone parent.

After 20 years, it'll be 50/50 as a starting point including pensions (based on current values). Assets can be traded (pension for house is a common one). She may need some support to get on her feet, but she'd be expected to find a job. Spousal maintenance is generally disliked by the courts but sometimes necessary to make the transition - clean breaks are much better all round. If there is an order for spousal maintenance, it can be varied at any time until it ceases.

If solicitors can be kept out of it, that is usually best all round but it requires a reasonable and open approach from both parties. Solicitors should only be used if it is a difficult split or if you jointly use one to draft agreed documents.

I dont think spousal maintenance is about achieving parity in standard of living, but protecting the lesser earning spouse from hardship.

we live in the about the most woman friendly place in the world for divorce

I was wondering about this. Is it as cut and dried as the bloke paying maintenance, or would roles be reversed if the woman was the higher earner in the relationship?

Come to that, how does it apply to same-sex divorces?

she didn't give berth

Well, there are two children by all accounts - so I imagine at least a couple of times...

I suspect a lot of the "I have a mate who ... " stories are wildly exaggerared, due to bitterness on the part of the original narrator.

When it comes to spousal maintenance courts will not let manifestly unfair deals be approved.

Generally spousal maintenance is for a maximum of 5 years.

Edit to add: child maintenance is generally 20% of take home pay for 1st child and 5% for each further child. Spousal maintenance is by arrangement usually for 5 years max and delends on the capital split.
This was my experience 8 years ago.

Cougar yes if the wife is the one with the better job and/or money the hubby makes out however in practice this is rare and even rarer that he has "given up" his career to look after the kids.

OP to follow up on @grumpy's point once the kids are older the court will want a clean break ie lump sum payment also the wife will be expected to work (maximise her income). In my ex-wife's case this meant working 4 days a week in her friends shop (day = 9 to 5 with a lunch break) and never at weekends. "Maximise" my @rse !

Parity of living ! I can share more than a few stories of men who have had to live in a 1 bedroomed flat with a 100% mortgage (or just rent it) whilst wife gets the 3/4 bedroomed house as kids live with her, maybe a mortgae on that too which he is responsible for.

EDIt: my ex made it a career of avoiding going back to work, court doesn't care - we live in the about the most woman friendly place in the world for divorce

Basically its down to how vindictive she's feeling. For what is about to happen, heed the warnings of this man

[img] ?quality=90&w=650[/img]

[url=

you ready to be.....[/url]

Parity of living ! I can share more than a few stories of men who have had to live in a 1 bedroomed flat with a 100% mortgage (or just rent it) whilst wife gets the 3/4 bedroomed house as kids live with her, maybe a mortgae on that too which he is responsible for

Another q on this topic if I may

His parents are quite well off and quite old how where does he stand in terms of wills and inheritance?

Rocket yes I know one like that too, been living back at his parents for 3 years

AFAIK Inheritance/Wills are generally ignored as wills can be changed at any time. I recall there was some discussion in my divorce but unless the inheritance is imminent or it's already in a beneficiary trust he should be ok.

r4oicketman - not that "he" bought but that "they" bought. without her efforts he would not have been able to earn as much

Ok many thanks

His parents are quite well off and quite old how where does he stand in terms of wills and inheritance?

In that case, he should go for a quick divorce. That potential inheritance will not be take into account, as it would depend upon the will being in his favour.

A female friend's husband screwed around for many years and was unwilling to collaborate in the run-up to a divorce, delaying it for years. (He claimed it was against his religion). Once he learned that he was to be the beneficiary of a sizable will, he divorced damn quick.

So what happens in the situation where both parents worked? You just pay child maintenance to the on going primary carer??

r4oicketman - not that "he" bought but that "they" bought. without her efforts he would not have been able to earn as much

that's not a completely fair argument though - if it wasn't for the effort he put in through his education and career building before he meet his wife, he wouldn't have been able to earn enough to buy the house.

He didn't suddenly become a higher earner because he met his wife, and his earning potential might actually have been depressed because he now has to put in less hours, etc.

And if she was a low earner before, she has effectively become a high earner by marrying one.

And maybe if she hadn't settled for him she could have married someone really rich 🙄

Marriage.... find someone you don't like and buy them a house

And maybe if she hadn't settled for him she could have married someone really rich

yes, maybe

but I do not agree that someone looking at home after the kids has enabled the partners massive earnings potential.

turnerguy but the unpaid work she did supported him in 20 years of his career - thats why all the assets are partly hers.
If he had had to pay for the childcare and the housework he would be a lot worse off. So yes - her unpaid work has supported him in his paid work so
she is entitled to half the wealth built up over that time.

also she has forgone her ability to earnand to build up pension in order to keep house / look after the kids. again why she is entitled to half the assets built up during the marriage including his pension

Plenty of women raise a family and work or return to work when kids are in full time school. I didn't ask my ex-wife to stop working when kids where born she insisted. In many families a mother could return to work and together with husband pay childcare especially afterschool, whilst economics may look tight in the longer term they would invariably be better off. I know a few women who are by far the main earners in their household and they stay with their careers and their husbands work too. The UK law and it's interpretation is massively biased towards women in a way which does not really exist elsewhere. Even pre-nups are not binding here.

I fully appreciate and respect couples who want the wife to remain at home and be around for the kids after school but I do think the "I gave up my career for the kids" get's stretched rather far in divorce arguments and precident.

Good job the courts don't agree with you then.

Some scary attitude in this thread.

For the women TJ yes. Courts and legal systems throughout Europe don't agree with the UK either. I married for the second time in France selecting from one of the 4 different standard contract (pre-nup) options, you can draw up any option you like. At the very least we should have the same.

My ex-wife didn't look after the kids for nothing, she had a "City of London" income at her disposal.

Yes but could she develop her own career?

and build up her own pension?

turnerguy but the unpaid work she did supported him in 20 years of his career - thats why all the assets are partly hers.

agreed, partly...

If he had had to pay for the childcare and the housework he would be a lot worse off.

also agreed.

So yes - her unpaid work has supported him in his paid work so
she is entitled to half the wealth built up over that time

not agreed - why half ?

So if someone like Bill Gates builds up a huge empire and earns sh1t loads of money because of all the groundwork that he has put in, and then marrys and has a child or two, when he divorces why should the wife be entitled to half of all the assets and all of his savings built up by his huge earning capability?

What exactly has she done to enable that huge earning capability, over and above child-care costs ?

If however they were both on an equal standing when they got together, and then she looked after the kids whilst helping him develop his career, then her 'share' does approach half, plus future maintenance possibly to compensate for his ability to earn more in the future compared to her, and a pension scaled to what she would have earnt in that period.

A blanket 50/50 default split is a pretty crude rule of thumb.

its 50 / 50 for the time they have been together. Why - because its the only fair way to do it. he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.

As nonk said - some very funny and very old fashioned attitudes on this thread. I like a partnership of equals. In a partnership of equals the assets built up during that partnership belong to both equally

In the Gates case you outline she would only be able to claim half the assets built up during the time they were married - not the stuff from before as of right

its 50 / 50 for the time they have been together. Why - because its the only fair way to do it. he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.

As nonk said - some very funny and very old fashioned attitudes on this thread. I like a partnership of equals. In a partnership of equals the assets built up during that partnership belong to both equally

In the Gates case you outline she would only be able to claim half the assets built up during the time they were married - not the stuff from before as of right

Well that's funny, because you are wrong.

In a long marriage, in this country, it is a 50/50 split of total assets, pension, savings, etc - no consideration of anything built up before the marriage being siloed (although possibly pension provisions built up before the marriage can be argued to be safe as I think there was a case about it).

In a shorter marriage then there may be some consideration and in a < 5 year marriage you get out what you came in with I believe.

And in the Gates case she shouldn't also be entitled to half his income during the marriage either really, he still could have earned those sums minus a small amount on childcare if it really came down to it and she 'withdrew' labour.

If Melania wasn't there do you think Donald Trumps earnings would halve?

he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.

For example if say Paul and linda Mccartney had divorced i think its hard to argue he only made money because she was there or that she contributed equally

in general i think it is pretty much the same as you but their ought to be a point where post divorce it is seen as a clean break from said arrangement

Its also worth noting you have to give a lot to someone you don't like, who now has your kids and controls your access, hence why many are not that keen on the 50/50 split.

In my case there was **** all to split

At one point she did ask for half my bikes and i asked for half her shoes in reply...all the left ones.

So, for some of those posting here, perhaps you should have pushed harder for your partners to work sooner after childbirth.

For some of the others who think it is unfair, firstly after 20 years it ain't your money, it is shared. This is not new, and you knew what you are getting into.

For those who know someone who lost their house, well the presumption is that the the kids, the only really innocent people in the scenario, get to live in a house as close as possible to what they used to live in.

I've lost a large chunk of capital and pension, and in a way which has screwed me on some tax things. But I don't confuse this with it being unfair. It just isn't. Don't confuse being angry and upset with being actually hard done by. Would you rather your kids were screwed over by this?

For those who know someone who lost their house, well the presumption is that the the kids, the only really innocent people in the scenario, get to live in a house as close to what they used to live in with their mother, that you pay for and see them the least

It's One of those objectively post divorce men fair the worst in terms of access and that is all that really matters

its hard to ignore the mother is still living in the house you provide for your kids*

Its complicated and i agree with 50/50 but it has to be everything rather than, IME, the father pays to have the lesser home and the least access. It was honestly not what I was "getting into "

* she once asked for the maintenance a week early so I took it round in cash, She said and I kid not, "oh great I have just bought an aga of ebay and I need to pay for it"
Most men who get divorced will feel bitter as its generally unfair. Not everything is 50/50 and i suspect that is what grates.

When I split from my ex, I didn't have to pay my ex spousal maintenance because her earnings were on parity with mine once my outgoings and maintenance for the kids was paid. I did however sign over the greater percentage of a decent house. Fortunately I didn't have to sign over my pension.
Every case is different, but i strongly reccomend the excellent wikivorce site which was invaluable to me when I went through this.

Kids change the situation but it is 50/50 after any long marriage (15 years) anyway, so if one partner had a lot more assets before the marriage they are looking at losing half of them (minus half of anything the other partner had) if the marriage breaks down.

Certainly makes you think more about future commitments as you get older.

In my experience solicitors advice is to agree as much as possible so if one side is willing to threaten putting children through a legal process to establish custody then they essentially have the upper hand over the more reasonable other party. Assets acquired prior to getting together are often just bundled and shared despite being significantly unequal. It's complicated and both sides need a legal system that protects them; we need the system to carry on improving by greater recognition of fathers as equal parents and ensuring absent parents meet their responsibilities. Sadly sh#t parents have been able to play the system all too easily, without genuinely putting any children first, at both ends of the spectrum so that decent reasonable parents lose out.

I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.

I'm sure I said something like "and all that I have I share with you".

Perhaps I should have been a little more specific and given a %

indeed...

At work I do get to see some blokes who are genuinely hard done by, but probably more women who get left in the lurch. Relatively few of the blokes getting divorced seem to be eager to become the major providers of child care in this situation, and it is easy to underestimate how much is involved in looking after the kids even if they are heading towards 18-20.

I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.

Almost certainly. I promised that I was never going to give her up, never going to let her down, never going to run around and desert her.

ktaylor - Member
I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.

Wedding vows are a complex contract of mutual promises/undertakings and fail for a multitude of reasons. If only they didn't!

[i]I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.

I'm sure I said something like "and all that I have I share with you".[/i]

That's the joining together vows. We're talking about the separation realities.

I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.

there's also the bit that says

till death us do part

which makes consideration of the future implications of sharing everything now seem like a moot point.

I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.

tjagain - Member
I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.

[i]Pray, don't find fault with the man that limps,
Or stumbles along the road.
Unless you have worn the moccasins he wears,
Or stumbled beneath the same load.

There may be tears in his soles that hurt
Though hidden away from view.
The burden he bears placed on your back
May cause you to stumble and fall, too.

Don't sneer at the man who is down today
Unless you have felt the same blow
That caused his fall or felt the shame
That only the fallen know.

You may be strong, but still the blows
That were his, unknown to you in the same way,
May cause you to stagger and fall, too.

Don't be too harsh with the man that sins.
Or pelt him with words, or stone, or disdain.
Unless you are sure you have no sins of your own,
And it's only wisdom and love that your heart contains.

For you know if the tempter's voice
Should whisper as soft to you,
As it did to him when he went astray,
It might cause you to falter, too.

Just walk a mile in his moccasins
Before you abuse, criticize and accuse.
If just for one hour, you could find a way
To see through his eyes, instead of your own muse.

I believe you'd be surprised to see
That you've been blind and narrow minded, even unkind.
There are people on reservations and in the ghettos
Who have so little hope, and too much worry on their minds.

Brother, there but for the grace of God go you and I.
Just for a moment, slip into his mind and traditions
And see the world through his spirit and eyes
Before you cast a stone or falsely judge his conditions.

Remember to walk a mile in his moccasins
And remember the lessons of humanity taught to you by your elders.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave
In other people's lives, our kindnesses and generosity.

Take the time to walk a mile in his moccasins.[/i]

Just saying...

I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.

whereas I just think you are naive 🙂

Why do think people take out prenuptual agreements then ?

What if you had worked hard all your life, bought a decent house, saved up a good pension, etc, then met someone and married when aged 45, and when aged 60 you divorced because you found out she had started shagging someone else?

Would you really want to lose half of everything you had worked for for to someone who had cheated on you ? Live out your retirement in a flat on half what you thought you were going to have? Whilst she has the other half whilst still shagging that other bloke ?

You would probably change from the righteous stance you have now.

(That's not my story...)

Just saying that a 50/50 split off the bat is unfair in a lot of instances. You may have said "and all that I have I share with you" to start with but there were other bits in that vow, and one of the parties has 'broken' that contract.

Nicely put deepreddave.l I understand the bitterness from some folk - a good pal went thru a bitter contested divorce and I saw what it did to him.

However the idea that the assets all belong to the breadwinner is deeply abhorrent to me. I was brought up to have a strong moral compass and to believe in equality

tjagain - I'm with you,

Turnerguy - how about if you gave up your career to create a family and to support your partner in his work. You are married for 40 years then at retirement age he kicks you out and you are left with no house, no prospect of buying one, no chance of social housing and no pension. While he has all the assets. Nice eh?

Turnerguy - how about if you gave up your career to create a family and to support your partner in his work. You are married for 40 years then at retirement age he kicks you out and you are left with no house, no prospect of buying one, no chance of social housing and no pension. While he has all the assets. Nice eh?

well if you actually read what I said then I didn't suggest that at all.

I said that there is a fair split, based on her lost earnings, her lost earnings capacity, her share of the work raising the family, the need to support the children, etc.

But that is not necessarily 50% and it may even be more in some circumstances.

And the roles of he/she can easily be switched in all my discussions here, not implying any gender differences.

I take it you are not married then ?

Nope - not married. Don't believe in such an outdated practice. Been with the same woman for best part of 40 years and if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50

Problem is turner guy that what you suggest is impossible. How do you know what the lost earnings are? How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?

Edit - I get the "no gender bias" point

Problem is turner guy that what you suggest is impossible. How do you know what the lost earnings are? How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?

you come up with something reasonable - maybe get a 3rd party to.

what I am saying is a blanket 50/50 split is not necessarily fair - like Melania getting 50% of Trumps empire(/debt) if they split, does that sound right ?

For my split I did some research first and then worked out what 50/50 looked like, made some slight modificatons to swap some pensions stuff for equity and support, and then did a wikivorce financial consultation to 'double check' what I thought, and also provide that 'transparency' I mentioned earlier.

The (female) solicitor in the consultation congratulated me on the thoughtful provisions I was making for the wife, and gave me advice on ensuring things were made 'final' and that I didn't leave an ongoing financial liability.

I was just lucky that the wife had a flat to partly offset the fact I had a house before we met, otherwise I would be in a flat and my two cats wouldn't be happy having to share the living room with the bikes.

Haven't quite reached the final bit yet so there is always the chance that the judge will override something, but if he does it might well end up trashing the reasonably amiable relationship I still have with the wife when she is not seeing that t8sser who is still married and has 2 kids, one of which was 8 months old when he hit on my wife...).

tjagain - Member

..... if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50

Which end of the Tandem do you get?

if we ever split then the assets go 50/50

It's a good job you agree with what the courts are going to demand anyway.

Any kids ?

Nope - don't like them except with a side of chips 🙂

BTW - its not always 50/50 is it - thats just the assumed starting point

How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?

It ain't 7 days a week for 40 years though is it?! It's 7 days a week for 4 years until the little blighters start school and tapers down from there until they are 18.

Even then a lot of dads do a fair amount of the childcare bit when not at work also (I know I do!).

Nope - not married. Don't believe in such an outdated practice. Been with the same woman for best part of 40 years and if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50

Except there is no way to enforce a split for any assets that aren't jointly owned (cars, pensions, bank accounts, bikes).

Marriage has sod all to do with love and stuff (but you can add that on should you wish). It is a binding legal and financial arrangement that includes protections that simply can't be achieved by any other means.

Some Dad's have equal custody, their ex's earn more than they do and they still got less then 50% of the joint assets despite having substantially more prior to meeting. With a challenging ex and a legal system biased on gender that's where reasonable gets you if you wish to avoid family court.
Don't confuse bitterness with a disappointed acceptance of reality; the system is a very blunt tool for an infinite set of circumstances.

Don't get married and get a pre-nup