Community of accrued gains in construction

That is what many men don't want to understand. If you waive €800, he theoretically would have to pay you that for the upbringing, net of course.

In that case, he would in turn be disadvantaged by €400. After all, they are the joint children, for whose care she would consequently also have to cover half.

I find this consideration with a fictitious income difficult, though. Who says it was €800? Couldn't it have been €950 or only €650? And shouldn't 50% of the costs of external care also be deducted? What about salary increases or losses due to job changes, what about unemployment that could have affected one? Or how is it with partner-"financed" further education or training? With such "agreements," the dispute is, in my opinion, preprogrammed.
I find the solution of the girlfriend with the ongoing accrual of gains during the relationship already more sympathetic.

I recently talked to a friend, they do it differently. First pooling the money, paying for everything "shared" and the rest is split fifty-fifty between both partners for spending, saving or whatever.

Sounds great for the one who blows everything and goes bankrupt in debt. The partner has hopefully saved nicely...

Well, that’s what happens when you don’t go to the land register. At least you did contribute a muscle mortgage

The house already belonged to my ex-boyfriend. I didn’t want to complain, just point out the imbalance that developed during the relationship.

: the number came from me, net difference between full-time and child-related part-time. I agree, this should by no means be fully compensated, otherwise he is disadvantaged. But to claim that the partner contributed nothing, that is just too much in the other direction.

I don't know what the fair solution is now. Maybe each couple has to work that out for themselves.

I already understood it that way. The fundamental question always is, "How would your income have developed if you hadn’t had children?" The answer, in my opinion, is not exhausted by the conversion "part-time to full-time" because without children you very likely would never have ended up where you are today.

But of course under the premise that raising the children actually represented only the second choice for you. To put it bluntly, it would also be quite unfair to attribute and compensate an ideal career in the end to a “full-blooded mommy” who consciously and weighing all disadvantages has made this decision out of conviction.

What would be fair? I don’t think there is a generally valid formula for that. You say your ex put his money into the house and now owns assets that you were not able to build up. Based on what you described one would have to critically ask:

- Did you really pay a fair and appropriate share of the maintenance and use of a single-family house by continuing to pay half the rent of your apartment or later the 400€ income difference?
- Who paid for things that do not fall under “daily needs”? For example, who financed and maintained the stolen car, who paid for the furniture (apart from the kitchen)?
- Is it really your ex’s fault that he ultimately accumulated greater assets from his higher income (also compared to your full-time net income)?
- You didn’t want anything to do with the house during the relationship, but now you want to participate in the appreciation. Would you have wanted that as well in the case of a loss in value and possibly resulting debts?

Don’t get me wrong, I view the behavior of many (married) men in this regard very critically and I am currently experiencing this in my circle of acquaintances. A pension scheme is concealed by the man, the house is portrayed as over-indebted and the cash assets are concealed. On the other hand, I have also witnessed for many years how SHE (a trained florist) spent her life as a “wife” with TV and long telephone calls while sonny was in kindergarten 40 hours a week or later at school. At present SHE is sitting in a nice rental apartment with 2k maintenance (the child is with her 3 days a week) and telling everyone who wants to hear how badly she is being deceived.

But how are you supposed to, for example, get on the land register if the property belonged solely to the partner before the relationship began? If he doesn't want to, you can't force him!

well then I would demand from him that child-rearing is shared, meaning each goes for 75% and not 100 / 50

and also that all other living expenses except for the construction financing are shared