Chapter 6 - The Brokerage Losses
Colin had lost $24,680 in six months.
Not all marital money.
Not all child money.
The brokerage account existed before marriage.
But during marriage, he funded it repeatedly from:
His paycheck.
Our joint savings.
Then, after the twins were born, from transfers passing through our joint checking that originated in Ruby and Owen’s accounts.
Lydia reconstructed carefully.
“You need to understand the distinction.”
“I’m listening.”
“Losses are not automatically misconduct.”
“I know.”
“People make bad investments.”
“Yes.”
“The issue is source of funds and concealment.”
Then she mapped.
$7,200 directly traceable from children’s accounts into brokerage.
Another $4,100 came from joint account within forty eight hours of child withdrawals, but tracing was mixed because paychecks and expenses also flowed through.
Could they claim all $4,100 was child money?
No.
Accounting needed methodology.
Then total improper child account withdrawals:
$18,740.62.
Of that:
Approximately $6,300 clearly spent on direct child related goods or medical expenses.
Roughly $5,240 used for general household expenses.
At least $7,200 directly transferred to Colin’s brokerage.
The rest required tracing.
Martin said:
“Even the child related expenses may violate the account restrictions and authority requirements. But they are economically different from transferring to personal investments.”
Good.
No lump everything as stolen.
Then the spreadsheet.
Colin had been using child withdrawals to “reimburse” the household.
His theory:
The twins had dedicated funds.
Therefore their costs could be charged against those funds.
Then because I stayed home, my domestic labor generated “credits.”
Then those credits were offset by:
Housing.
Food.
Insurance.
My own medical costs.
The final model showed that I supposedly contributed less than Colin by $46,880 over nine months.
Nine months that had not even finished.
He was planning a future argument:
He carried the family.
I consumed.
The twins consumed.
Therefore a larger share of marital savings should stay with him.
Rachel looked almost offended professionally.
“Courts do not use his spreadsheet formula.”
“Could he still argue I contributed less?”
“He can argue whatever he wants. Illinois property division considers relevant statutory factors. Homemaker contributions count. Childcare is not legally worthless because your spouse says so.”
Then:
“Also, you both agreed you would temporarily stay home.”
Yes.
Family decision.
Then Colin’s response.
Through counsel, he admitted spreadsheet.
Denied fraud.
Claimed:
I had verbally authorized him to manage all household and child accounts.
The signature upload was “administrative convenience.”
I had allowed him to use my phone before.
The transfers benefited family.
Brokerage transfers were temporary liquidity management intended to restore funds after gains.
Except there were no gains.
Then his lawyer offered:
Colin would restore $18,740.62 to accounts immediately from his separate brokerage assets if we agreed not to characterize conduct as intentional theft in civil pleadings.
Martin said:
“No.”
Not because we wanted more.
Because criminal investigators and bank were already reviewing.
We could not sell language around facts.
But could we accept restoration?
Yes, potentially.
Rachel said:
“If he restores money voluntarily, that is good for the children. It does not erase how it left.”
So Colin transferred $18,740.62 into attorney escrow pending bank instructions.
Not directly into accounts while frozen.
That mattered.
Then bank.
After reviewing authorization, the institution concluded Colin had been added through a fraudulent credential process.
They removed his authority.
Restored control to me.
But did they reimburse?
Because the funds were partly restored by Colin, bank and trust counsel coordinated to avoid double payment.
The bank credited certain fees and market losses caused by withdrawals.
Colin’s escrow restored principal.
Total accounts restored to what they would approximately have held absent withdrawals, including documented lost investment gains, around $19,620.
No windfall.
No double recovery.
Then criminal referral.
Bank sent findings to police.
Prosecutor opened financial case.
Possible:
Forgery/use of false authorization.
Unauthorized computer/account access.
Misapplication of custodial property.
No identity theft against twins? Could be, but prosecutors chose narrower provable counts.
Good.
Then Colin called Beth.
He was not supposed to use her as conduit under temporary agreement.
She did not answer.
He left voicemail:
“Tell Natalie I fixed the accounts. This is over.”
Beth forwarded to Rachel.
Violation of communication agreement, not criminal order yet.
Then another:
“She is destroying our family because she likes being rescued.”
That word.
Rescued.
Beth looked at me.
“You want me to call him back?”
“No.”
Then:
“Do you still want divorce?”
I looked toward Ruby and Owen asleep in twin bassinets.
The question no longer hurt.
“Yes.”
That afternoon Rachel filed.
Not revenge.
Not because spreadsheet alone.
Because a marriage where one person secretly billed the other for existing, used her signature, moved the children’s money, physically grabbed her injured arm, and then called accountability betrayal was already broken.
Then temporary financial disclosures came back.
Joint savings balance:
$41,300.
Lower than I expected by almost $30,000.
The brokerage losses explained most.
But not all.
There was another account.
A checking account at Prairie State Bank in Colin’s name only.
Balance:
$12,480.
Opened six weeks after the twins were born.
Deposits:
Odd amounts.
Many matched the spreadsheet’s “Natalie deductions.”
May you like
Colin had not just been calculating a theoretical debt.
He had been paying himself from our household money whenever his spreadsheet said I fell short.
