Partner A and Partner B, plus 2 children. Money is tight. Partner A works full time and Partner B stays at home, 1 child is in school, the other is a baby.
Partner A receives wages and tax credits into their account as B has no bank account. On payday, A pays all the bills (all in A's name), buys food shopping, groceries, clothing and wverything needed for the children etc. B receives a weekly sum of money which is spent solely on B. A also spends money on them self but probably half or a little more than the amount that B spends.
Is A abusive as they hold the purse strings or is B abusive as they refuse to take any financial responsibility?
That depends on a few things which are not clear from the bare bones of this scenario. For example, what are B's needs? Does the fact that A spends less on his/her self necessarily imply that B is doing better out of it? A is not missing out if they choose to spend less, but do they spend less because B will be very difficult if they don't get more than 50%? If B runs a car which they use to get child to school etc, does A call it a bill or does it come out of B's spending money? All sorts of possibilities here.
Well neither, if that's what they've agreed and what works for them. I'm a SAHP and probably spend more on myself than DH (who earns the money) does, but that's fine for us. He just doesn't spend money whereas I sometimes spend on make up/clothes etc.
A very realistic conversation needs to be had between A and B. Not sure about abusive but most certainly unfair. A bad pattern of behaviour has set in between the two. A for giving B money despite the inequality of spending. B not taking any responsibility. B may not do this unless A addresses the issue. B may resist any change, however they may like to also be more involved financially.
B needs to sort I.d out and bank account out (easily solvable..generally) for themselves if anything.....in my humblest of opinions
Solely, or more specifically on the same things that are just for themself,,every week without fail.
As a child carer and housekeeper, they don't go out anywhere apart from school run. Little housework gets done but A considers this ok as B is looking after the children. A does most of the housework when they are not at work and the children are sleeping.
How can b spend no money on the children. Doesn't a take the baby out to groups? Go out for coffee? Go to the farm? Etc What is a giving b money for, if it is not for the family? Presumably b cannot get ID therefore b cannot work also? Can't see the situation changing. Are both happy with the situation? I bet you are a and the other person is b ?