Divorce often comes with assumptions about who should keep the house, who should get more money, or who “deserves” a bigger share because of their role in the marriage. These expectations are usually shaped by stories people hear from friends, family, or the media. But when you look at how the courts actually work, the reality is far more balanced.
In this blog, Mark Studdart, a Partner in the Family Team at Gordons Partnership, unpacks some of the most common myths around divorce, shedding light on how the law really works when it comes to housing, fairness, and managing expectations.
Myth 1: Mothers always keep the family home
A widely held belief is that a mother’s housing need is far more important than a father’s because of the children. The idea is often supported by the “stability” argument, which says children should stay in the family home and keep their local links, schools, and routines intact.
The courts often take a different approach. Children are the first consideration in any financial remedy settlement, but that does not mean one parent is automatically prioritised over the other. If there are children they will spend time with both parents. Each parent therefore needs suitable accommodation for themselves and the children to live. The court recognises that children need a stable base in which to live with both parents, not just one.
Money is always a practical limit. If there are not enough assets to stretch to two homes of equal size, the court may need to consider alternatives. One option is for part of one spouse’s capital to be “lent” to the other spouse, creating a secure home for the children for a period of time before reverting to the lending parent. This arrangement is usually set up as what lawyers call a Mesher order or a Charge Back. The benefiting spouse keeps the home, while the lending spouse has a charge recorded against the property to secure their financial interest. When one of a set of trigger events occurs, such as when the children finish school or the benefiting spouse remarries, the lending spouse is repaid their share of the original assets, either by selling the property or through a remortgage.
Although this solution exists, it is rarely used. Courts generally prefer a “clean break” wherever possible, where each party walks away without financial ties to the other. Charge Backs can create ongoing disputes and unfairness later, so judges are cautious about making such orders.
Myth 2: One spouse can “take the other to the cleaners”
Another common misconception is that one party can secure everything: a mortgage-free home, ongoing spousal maintenance, pension sharing, and a larger overall share of the assets. People sometimes expect divorce to allow one spouse to walk away with the lion’s share, leaving the other stripped of financial security.
In reality, the court’s role is to achieve a fair and balanced outcome. Equality is the starting point. The court will only depart from equal division if there are strong reasons to do so – such as specific needs, special circumstances, or non-matrimonial property in “sharing” cases.
It is natural that someone who has worked and generated marital wealth may feel entitled to keep a greater portion. But the courts recognise that raising children and running a household are contributions of equal weight. The “fruits of the marriage” belong to both spouses, no matter who earned the money. The law avoids gender bias and treats domestic contributions with the same respect as financial ones.
Additionally, the Court will only take poor behaviour into account in very exceptional circumstances and usually only when there are financial consequences to that behaviour and it would be unfair to ignore it. The Family Court tends to look to the future rather than dwell on the past, which sometimes people feel is unjust.
Every case is different
The law does not follow a rigid formula. Every case turns on its own facts. The type of assets, the length of the marriage, the age of the children, and the financial positions of both parties all influence the outcome. That is why one-size-fits-all assumptions rarely hold up in practice.
For example, while housing needs are usually equal, there may be exceptional situations where one spouse requires more support because of health conditions, caring responsibilities, or the availability of housing. Similarly, while equality is the baseline, a court may order spousal maintenance if one party’s income cannot reasonably meet their needs after separation.
The key point is that outcomes are shaped by the details of the case, not by myths or broad generalisations.
The importance of early legal advice
As Mark highlighted, “Every case depends on the facts, and it’s the lawyer’s job to manage expectations and give realistic advice early so the parties don’t waste money pursuing issues that they won’t succeed on, So that’s part of what we do,in accordance with the Resolution Code of Conduct”.
This involves:
- Identifying the issues as soon as possible
- Setting out the range of possible outcomes
- Explaining what the best realistic outcome looks like
- Negotiating from that informed position
Resolution is an association of family law professionals that campaigns for improvements in family justice and which has led the way in improving and innovating family law practice for decades, setting new and higher standards for legal practice.
Why myths can be damaging
Divorce is difficult enough without misplaced expectations. When one party believes they are entitled to far more than the law allows, negotiations stall. When another assumes they have fewer rights than they really do, they may settle for less than they should. Both situations create avoidable conflict and long-term dissatisfaction.
By dispelling myths early, lawyers can guide clients toward realistic and fair outcomes. This not only saves money but also reduces the emotional toll of litigation.
A fairer perspective
The courts are not biased in favour of one parent or one role within the marriage. Their focus is on fairness, the needs of children, and providing both parties with the means to rebuild and have stable financial lives.
Yes, there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, the details of each case differ. But in the majority of divorces, the guiding principles remain consistent: equality where possible, fairness, and careful consideration of both housing and income needs.
Conclusion
Divorce myths can be persistent. Stories about mothers always keeping the home or one party “taking the other to the cleaners” continue to circulate. The reality is very different. Courts look at housing needs for both parents, make children the first consideration, and aim for balanced outcomes that reflect both financial and non-financial contributions.
The lesson is clear: do not rely on myths or hearsay. Take early legal advice, understand the range of realistic outcomes, and work toward a fair settlement. By doing so, you protect yourself from wasted costs, false expectations, and unnecessary conflict.
About the Author
Partner
Tel: 01483 451 900
Email: Mark@gordonsols.co.uk