Partner changed their mind on cohabitation agreement

OP sounds like he is terrified of sharing any of his money with anyone - even his wife! He does not believe his partner can be part of his family and doesn't trust anyone. The level of mistrust is literally at paranoia level. Money is everything, love and trust is nothing.

What a way to live.

Right? That took an abrupt turn for the coercive and controlling!

I get that - but the phrasing here is chilling.

People divorce all the time without being financially ‘incentivised’ to do so. In fact, many women make the difficult choice to face financial hardship, rather than to remain in unhappy marriages.

Something about the way he’s worded this suggests he can’t imagine she particularly wants to be with him in the first place, or that she needs to be actively disincentivised from leaving. Which sounds desperately bleak to me when they’ve hardly been together 5 minutes as it is.

I don’t think this relationship will last!

We have talked about marriage and I don't want there to be an incentive for her to divorce me
Well that is an interesting update.

I applaud the clarity and transparency of your approach.

That said, she is not taking the transactional nature of the relationship seriously and trying to move the goal posts. Even if she signed it, can she be trusted to honour it?

I don't think you can move ahead with this deal as your partner is not trustworthy enough.

I wouldn't sign that with someone I plan to have children with.

Keeping finances separate isn't so simple once kids come along.

I say this as the woman and the higher earner.

"Yes it would be a deal breaker and she is aware of that. We have talked about marriage and I don't want there to be an incentive for her to divorce me. I also have no issues contributing more finacially to our future potential home and family."

I don't think you're ready for marriage. You clearly already think she has the potential to be a gold digger in spite of the fact she is your financial equal in terms of earning capacity.

You may well have more capital to bring into the marriage but that seems to be the only difference. The way you spoke at the beginning gave the impression she was significantly worse off than you.

It's not wrong to want a pre-nup if you have significantly more assets, so I understand you wanting to protect your capital but the rest of it just sounds like you really just shouldn't get married.

Most people don't feel 'incentivised' to get a divorce. If you think she's marrying you for your money, then you need to walk away.

Over 50% of marriages end In divorce

if more people went into this contract with their eyes open, perhaps things would change for the better

For most of human history men were marrying children, raping or beating their wives and dying at 35, not exactly the best point of reference for healthy long lasting relationships- however I’m not implying you shouldn’t be proactive and protect your financial security obviously.

I think PP’s have nailed this guy, a relationship is a partnership and he doesn’t seem to view her as such.

You’re not compatible, she’s up to something and has gone back on her word.

move out.

This is an odd one. YANBU to want the agreement signed, after all, these are the boundaries you have decided you require in order to continue the relationship. Anyone is entitled to request any relationship boundary they feel is important to them.

By the same token, your GF is perfectly entitled to not sign the agreement, as it sounds like one of her boundaries includes not being disadvantaged financially in the event of pregnancy/maternity leave etc.

FWIW, I wouldn't sign either, and I agree with PP's that this really does read more like a business plan than a relationship.

🙄🙄🙄

Well this is dark. You’re going into this already assuming she’d happily divorce you if she were sufficiently ‘incentivised’?

Do you like each other at all?

Marriage is at its core a business arrangement. This man just doesn’t recognize that he isn’t holding up his end of that arrangement. She brings the ability to earn and the ability to create human life to the marriage. All he brings is money, but he wants to keep that for himself.

Maybe one question to ask yourself is what you think all that money is for, if not for supporting your family? What do you think is more important than your future children’s well-being? Because if you are planning to marry, and it sounds like also planning actively for children in the future, then your proposed agreement essentially says that you only want to use those savings for your kids as long as your partner behaves herself. Which is quite a nasty power play, isn’t it?

Assets from before the marriage would typically be considered not shared in a divorce unless they’ve become matrimonial assets in the meantime eg by buying a family home. But if you’ve bought a family home, that is for your family. Splitting up doesn’t get rid of that family or their needs, so why the fuck should your responsibility to them disappear? Are you really truly saying that you want a worse life for your children as punishment for your partner if you split? Because that could very well be the outcome of all this, and in her shoes that is what I would be seeing.

On top of that, the financial obligations of marriage are meant to support the woman, who takes huge physical risk by going through pregnancy and labour, and whichever parent does more childcare and so takes a hit at work. Both those things have very long term effects, and the effects are not known in advance. The point of joining your assets and having those financial obligations is to share the costs and risks that biology has placed so disproportionately on women.

Finally, even without children, relationships often mean making decisions that are good for the unit even if they’re not best for both individuals. You share the decisions, so you share the risks and the benefits. As I already said, at least in the UK, whatever you have from before marriage (or at least before cohabitation) would tend to stay separate and whatever comes in during the marriage is assumed to belong equally to both. This recognises the nature of joint decision making and planning. Add in kids and it becomes even more obvious that decisions have to be made for the family, and both costs and gains of those decisions should be shared.

I don’t think it’s crazy to consider what happens if you split but I do think your proposed agreement is too much. I’d suggest you both keep some amount of savings separate, and accept that what you put into family life is for the family, for good.

You get back what you put in. If I were the g/f I would not want to spend my life keeping a spreadsheet of every single purchase we make to ensure that every transaction is accounted for! I wouldn’t want the OP to get shafted for 20c after 30 years!

I have managed to be happily married for 25 years without a single argument about money. Everything is thrown in the pot and spent as a team. Means no arguments as no power imbalance. If you don’t start as a team you certainly won’t end as one!

For most of human history, marriage has been a business/economic arrangement, not a romantic one.

Look at all the tales of woe on here, daily, caused by people failing to think and plan prudently about the economic implications of their lifestyle and relationship choices. And ending up trapped, resentful and miserable, wasting their lives.

I salute the OP.

Jesus, she's dodging a bullet. Do you know how professionally and financially vulnerable women are when bearing your children? If she stays with you and has those kids, thats yet another woman who ends up losing because her life partner cant share his stuff.

Completely agree. The way he talks about the woman is not what I would expect from someone who is in love. She deserves better than someone wrapped up in the formalities of a relationship.

Unless there’s some drip feed coming, of course, and she’s a gambling addict or something- but even then, he would still come off as cold and harsh towards his (unlikely) future wife.

I’m hope she runs a mile
from you. You’re not a team player.

I would not sign this either.
I am a single parent and have been self-sufficient for my whole adult life. So it’s not about the money for me. But this contract does not indicate any kind of partnership. You cannot adjust the contract for every change in your life. A contract cannot account for the gendered differences in the impact of having children. I just would not go into this.
She’s not signed in 1.5 years; she would be wise not to and to find someone who wants a partnership. Otherwise what is the point of ‘for better or for worse’? Just don’t do it.

That is not remotely a loving caring relationship. It sounds like a bussiness transaction. I hope she finds someone worthy to treat her as an equal partner.

Nah. I agree with @ph3 - I wouldn't bother with you, as this involves potentially creating a family.

That being said, she hasn't been honest with you and is now hoping you'll forget your carefully laid terms; so I'd drop her.

This relationship has disaster written all over it.

You sound very clinical in your approach to your relationship OP which of course its your right to be.

However I'd have been quite upset if when I met my partner he'd felt the need to 'protect' himself from me.

He happened to be more financially secure than me, largely because he was a few years older so basically a bit further along the career ladder than me. But ultimately we both worked full time and we were building a life together so he shared what he had with me. I have to admit I would have felt quite demeaned if he had wanted the sort of legal contracts you have asked for as ultimately the implication would have been i was a gold digger.

Your posts do make me wonder whether fundamentally there is a part of you questions whether your partner is with you for your money otherwise I don't think you would feel this strongly.

If your marriage is for life it matters not how much each party brought in at the start.