To think that your partner steps up financially when you are on mat leave (SMP)

All ours is in one pot with proportional spending money given to our individual accounts once all joint living savings and bills are covered.

We wouldn't be able to survive with just DH wage and my SMP though, so we have scrimped and saved since that first positive test to put aside enough money every month so we will not have a shortfall once my SMP kicks in.

It will differ for each family, depending on income and the maternity package on offer for mum. Some partners are able to absorb all the costs with no issue.
For others, taking on the mortgage and all the
bills etc will be unaffordable / too much of a struggle. Especially with house prices and COL these days. So some couples will use savings. Other mums will have a decent maternity package where they can still pay half the household costs and have money for themselves. Thankfully I was able to do this and everything was cheaper back then too, so it was easier. Some couples will split the leave because mum is the higher earner or wants to return to work. In this instance, mum then takes on more of the costs whilst dad has a few months at home. I think most people will have already agreed how the finances will work beforehand. There isn’t a ‘right’ answer, it depends.

I don’t get this, he is paying for your stuff, you aren’t splitting 50/50 so he’s subbing you anyway. His 70% contribution means you get to save (I think thats perfectly reasonable by the way). But what difference does it make if it’s a joint pot or separate in your case? We have a joint pot, Dh and I are both restrained but have never said no to each other for bigger or frivolous purchases and both have a bit of a blank cheque attitude towards DD. There nothing that I have hesitated over because I trust that Dh knows I’m a reasonable person and vice versa.

We've pooled finances since we got engaged. It's all in one pot, all bills come out of there and we spend what's left as we wish (within reason, I wouldn't go and blow a grand without a discussion first). On mat leave DH did more overtime but we also spent less as we weren't going out like we used too. I went back FT after both mat leaves, childcare was a killer but my youngest is now 7 so those days are long behind us. We've always viewed our earnings as family money.

We saved during pregnancy and so he as the lower earner paid the same into the joint account as always and I used a combination of my mat pay and the baby savings pot.

I always find this topic insane.

you’ve both decided to have a baby. Someone has to look after it. So it’s either a parent stops bringing in money to do it or both parents work and you pay someone else to look after it.

your husband isn’t doing you a favour by “helping you out” with money whilst on maternity leave.

you are a family and you don’t have an income because you both created a child who needs caring for.

you pool everything or if that isn’t for you, you both keep x amount of fun money and the rest is communal. And if you haven’t had this discussion before deciding to have a baby, you need to do it ASAP.

I remember a fucking awful story here where a woman had basically ended up as a SAHM for something like 2 decades and then her partner basically decided to evict her. She had zero recourse. I just wouldn’t have children with a man who couldn’t see why it was a good idea for us to be married tbh. It wouldn’t be worth the risk to me later.

I have seen the absolute mess that a terminal illness diagnosis had on a couple who were not married (and for complicating reasons couldn't quickly get married), and the vulnerable situation this left the surviving partner despite decades of co-habiting and children etc. You really never know what life will throw at you.

I agree with a lot of previous posters about the importance of discussing it early, saving what you can for mat leave, and yes, of course the person still earning should contribute more while you are on reduced or zero pay.

Not to get on my soap box, but I Really think the state of maternity pay is disgraceful l, and women should be fully educated in the vulnerable financial position maternity leave may put them in. Unless they are independent wealthy, women will very often be dependent on their male partner agreeing to get paid into a joint account for example. The very rapid ' dependence' and lack of control over finances is quite shocking.

I think maternity pay should be much higher to compensate for the structural inequality brought about my the fact that only women have babies. I strongly disagree that the financial risk should sit so squarely on womens' shoulders.

@Teacherprebaby We definitely did not see the "plot twist" of my health which was greatly improved when I wasn't juggling working and a child even with a fantastic, hands on husband. My condition is made worse by stress but I didn't feel stressed at the time. There is a difference between a marriage and a wedding. Marriage is a legal contract, a wedding is a celebration/party for it. You can choose to do it very easily and cheaply. Women are very often shafted, I know this is MN so the vast majority of posters are women but so many walk into this partnership and have children then have issues with different surnames, money, childcare often falling to the woman. I had a friend who was a sahm whose husband suddenly decided that she had to return to work when their youngest was about to start school despite living a very comfortable life on their agreed one wage income. It came with caveats, term time only, school hours only, she also still had to do all the housework, shopping, meal planning etc and pick up the children if they were sick. Nice. So I have seen it in real life too.

As great as children are, people do find parenting difficult because a lot of the time it is. Have a read on MN about it so you can talk to your partner and agree on how you intend to parent. There are lots of posts about not coping, worrying about every decision you make, not wanting to return to work and leave their baby in a nursery (literal post on here) etc and this can put a huge strain on what are great relationships. Just remember you are a team, that may seem obvious but it needs repeating once you are in the trenches.

In case OP or others reading this aren't aware - getting married is cheap and easy when you do it at the registry office on a weekday and take 2 people as witnesses. No need to use money as an excuse to avoid legal protection for yourself and your children.

Had joint finances for years before having children. Some years I was paid way more than him, now it's the other way around. Doesn't matter, it all goes into one place and is spent equally.

Honestly post kids a joint pot is the easiest way to do it, perhaps a set personal spemd budget for each of you. People contribute in different ways to a family, not all of it can be easily accounted for. I would also get married.

Hi OP.

I've had one baby and we (married) pooled our finances into a joint account for mat leave as I was SMP only (🙄).
It looks like I'm the outlier here but I hated that. I'm in my late 30s and I've always earned my own money and been fiercely independent.
I like to spend my money on things like Botox, nice clothes, holidays with my friends etc. I just can't understand how I would/should expect my husband to pay for all that?
He never once commented on my spending ever, however I never felt free to spend something because I knew it was different to before.
We've since separated out again - I'm paid into my own and he's still paid into the joint (lack of organising on his part tbh) but it's actually working well as he's the higher earner and I have access to his money if I needed to buy some stuff for our baby or every second weekly shop, but generally speaking I don't touch it. Pregnant again now and I think we might keep it like this. We currently split bills 70/30 according to difference in income. This allows for individual saving too for things we want to do - me a trip for my 40th with friends and him other things

I'm pretty sure that most women who have their first baby don't do it with a man they think is financially abusing them. They think that everything will be fine.

Realising you're being abused comes much much later. That's why it's so prevalent. If the man said upfront "btw, you'll be begging me for money for shoes for the kid in 5 years while yours literally wear through" it would be easy to avoid.

A lot of it is boiled frog syndrome. It escalates gradually.

Abusers don't wear a helpful sign round their necks..

We had joint finances after we got married so it didn’t make much difference, I just used the joint card for anything.

That’s not your “independence” getting the better of you , it’s capitalism doing a number on society by convincing everyone that you need to be earning money to be of value.

I’m the higher earner by over 2x in our house - but still pushed to get married. Because what I am earning now is in the family pot, and I want my husband (who I love) to have that security and have legal recognition that I see him as a partner.

If I’d started a company with a business associate I would have a similar agreement with that person, so why wouldn’t I for the most important relationship in my life.

I advocate for marriage on all of these threads, not to protect “women”, but because if you love and trust someone enough to build a life with them then it is sensible for all parties to have a legal framework around that so they know their rights and responsibilities.

It's not old fashioned, it's sensible, but as long as you know what protections you're giving up by not being married and it wont come as a shock later, that's your choice.

Funny though how it's called old fashioned when it comes to protecting the woman, but the part where the man gets his last name given to the baby, isn't called old fashioned, and is often so important it happens even without marriage.

We had a conversation- we jointly decided to have a child and we jointly need to be fair.

I was made redundant just before I was due to go on maternity leave (the company was sold) We then discussed again - my husband said no pressure let’s see when your ready to go back to work or if you want to be a SAHP. We discussed how financially it would be. Initially I was the higher earner in the relationship only with my second when i changed my job did he become the higher earner.

Money was pooled and bills paid then split fairly.

I think so OP. That said, me and my DH didn't. Somehow my ML was always paid for out do my savings as were an awful lot of child and house related expenses. Fast forward 18 years and he has much better pension provision and savings than me. I was very naive. That said, if we ever divorce I'm going straight after his pension!

Not married (no intention to and don't need the financial protection, I hate how everyone on these threads assume that the woman does). Wills up to date etc.

We carried on putting money towards bills 50/50 as we've always done (I didn't really struggle with my share until the unpaid part of mat leave, at which point partner obviously put more in). But I didn't have anything left over for spends, so everything I or baby needed went on a joint credit card which he paid off each month.

I have to say that having the baby has made us a bit more joint with our money. Now I'm back at work we're going to review how we want to do it going forwards, but it will definitely involve separate accounts.