I demand half of the state given maternity money
"I demand half of the maternity capital - after all, it's the only thing we've earned together!" The story of 41-year-old Nina. When he came with this demand, I initially didn't believe it. I thought, "He made a bad joke, it happens." I had already gotten used to his pettiness, his constant whining that 'everything is on me, I do it all myself,' his reproaches that I spend too much on the child, and his regular complaints of 'I'm tired, I can't keep up, I'm stressed.' But to demand half of the maternity capital - I certainly didn't expect that from him. He wasn't there with me when I had an episiotomy. He didn't run to the baby at night, didn’t warm the bottle at three in the morning, didn’t cancel his meetings for chickenpox and sleepless nights. He didn't carry the stroller, didn’t soak in the bath with diapers, didn’t go for ultrasounds, didn’t frantically look for a kindergarten.
He just 'lived in the marriage,' as he put it. And now, according to his logic, since the government provided something for the birth of the child - that’s his 'half.'We were married for 9 years. I gave birth two years after our wedding. I immediately went on maternity leave, in labor. I hadn’t returned to work for almost 4 years — because first I had one child, then another. He earned an average salary, but every chance he got, he reminded me that 'staying with the kids isn’t work, it’s happiness.' And also that he 'was doing everything.' However, I was the one looking for discounts on porridge, purees, and diapers to save money. I was the one studying online courses at night to somehow get into freelancing and not be dependent on him.
When we divorced, he was outraged for a long time about why I didn’t appreciate such a man.' And now he even stated: 'Let’s be fair — we divide everything in half, even the maternity capital. That’s also property.' I just sat down. And stared. Because I didn’t know whether to laugh or yell, does he think that government assistance for children is his investment? The maternity capital is not a reward for shared life, but rather help for the mother and child. Legally speaking, it’s simple: the maternity capital is not jointly acquired property of the spouses; it is specifically provided to the woman after the birth of the second child. The child (and now, already the first one). It can only be used for limited purposes: housing, children’s education, a cumulative pension, and sometimes treatment. But men, like my ex, don’t care. They see it not as assistance, but as a 'piece of the pie' that they were denied. And that means they need to 'sue for it,' 'restore justice,' 'divide it as it should be.' They don’t read, don’t understand, don’t delve into anything. They simply believe — if a woman receives something, she must share, even if it's a subsidy from the state, even if it is meant for the children.
Who are these men demanding 'their share' in children? These are the same men who: do not pay alimony because 'I'd rather buy a chocolate bar once a month'; are not interested in school and activities because 'I have a job, I earn'; do not call their children because 'they don’t respect me, their mother has turned them against me.' However, when it comes to money, apartments, capital, benefits, and subsidies, they suddenly feel a sense of fatherhood. They remember how they 'helped those..." You with the stroller just once," like "I didn't abandon, I left when they grew up," like "I didn't interfere all this time." These are men for whom a child is not a responsibility but a legal reason to demand something from their ex. Why is this not depression or a mistake, but rather immaturity? Many women, after a divorce, think: maybe he just got confused, maybe he's hurt, perhaps it's emotions. But no. It's not emotions. It's a strategy. These men live with the belief that they are owed: the ex should be grateful, the children should be respectful, the state should be fair. They don't see themselves as fathers or partners; they behave like deprived children who had their toy taken away. Only the "toy" has become maternal capital, alimony, an apartment, and benefits.
They don't want to invest, but they want to take. They are not interested in being around, helping, building - but they know how much a square meter bought in marriage costs. The social outcome: This is not love for the children. This is an attempt to regain power. When a man demands half of the mother...Maternal capital is not about money. It's about control. It's about a desire to put a woman in her place, to humiliate her, to declare: "Without me, you are nobody, even your capital is not yours." This is a harrowing but widespread story. It involves thousands of women who cannot use their maternal capital for housing because their ex-husband refuses to sign the consent. He wants nothing, but does not allow her anything either. This is a psychological form of revenge. He left but continued to control her life.
The conclusion: if a man demands half of the maternal capital, he is not a father, he is an inspector. If he wasn't at the hospital bed, didn't take the children to kindergarten, didn't help with activities and homework, wasn't there during difficult months, he has no moral right to a penny of what is intended for the children. Even if "there was a marriage," even if "I also participated in the conception." Fatherhood is not a fact of biology; it is a fact of involvement. And if a man demands not communication, not meetings, not dialogue with the children, but money — that is not love. It is a commodity-money relationship. Only in them does he not have goods. Let him claim as he wishes. But remember: capital is maternal because the capital is invested precisely by her.
