Partner won’t put me on deeds to the house

I’m amazed any solicitor would advise a silly strategy like the one you outlined. Family members fall out with each other all the time and in this scenario a fall out could lead to all kinds of problems. Also, the plan relies on the spouse not wanting to spend legal fees for a small portion of the property. But if that small portion ends up being huge, or the partial home owner has other assets that the spouse can go after as part of the settlement, it’s likely they’ll believe spending a lot of money on legal advice is worthwhile.

Assuming that an individual man out earns his female partner is based on sexist stereotypes.

The fact that on average a man earns more than a woman on average is a separate thing. you’re talking about averages across a population that may or may not apply to the individuals in question. You’ve also failed to take into account the fact that high earners and low earners tend to pair up.

No need to be patronising about whether or not I’ve studied statistics just because you disagree. This is a message board after all where people are free to express their views.

A friends partner was a bankrupt because he paid all his mothers debts again and again. Lovely guy otherwise. She made him her lodger, it's all very amicable and has worked for years. His mother can't touch the house because it's all in my friends name.

I am good with money, saved up, had help from my family to buy a house, and then almost lost everything due to someone else's recklessness.

So no way would I now ever put someone on the deeds of a house which was in my name alone, kids or not. And I'd say the same to my kids about any property they bought before meeting a partner.

But there is so little information here it's impossible to know what the partner's motivation is. 'Rocky' could mean arguments, or could mean one of them having an affair. Maybe OP and DP sat down and discussed her moving in and then having a child, maybe it was unplanned and DP feels he didn't have much choice. Maybe DP inherited the house. Maybe one of them is terrible with money.

There are a lot of unknowns.

You need to stop being so passive.

If you want to stay with him (and tbf why would you if he won't put you on the deeds to the house), you need to take responsibility for your own financial safety. Put your dd into childcare - millions of families do - and get a job. Your partner will need to pay 50% of the childcare costs (and if he won't, then maybe you will leave him). Pay money into a pension. Start thinking of your future. And fgs don't have another child with him.

YANBU I was homeless briefly bc DH died. This wasn't actually his fault, we lived in the flat he rented and the tenancy was an assured tenancy, which don't exist anymore, it already been passed down to him from his DM. But don't end up in the same situation. You need to be joint owner of the house.

If your boyfriend thinks your child is too young for nursery that's absolutely fine, he can quit work and look after him while you get yourself back into work ASAP.

Ask yourself why.

He doesn’t get to say whether you hi to work or not.

he can state his request but then he would have to accept that he needs to pay you to stay home.

Except you are making up a scenario to suit the point you want to make. Nothing to do with the reality of this thread.

OP has carried a baby with the risk pregnancy entails. On the insistence of her partner has given up work, to her own detriment, for the benefit of their shared child. Looks after toddler full time. She is not a "cock lodger" in any sense of the phrase.

Likewise, a man who stays at home to care for a child he shares with his partner while she works is not a cock-lodger but a SAHD providing an important contribution to the household, particularly in the early childhood years.

Yes of course all we can do is trust that the person we are choosing to share life with does not turn around and screw us over and some people can change and turn on us without warning so from that perspective being married at least does legally secure you. I guess its about having boundaries from the very beginning and making it clear that you won't be dictated to especially when it comes to the dynamics of raising a family.

No it doesn’t work for women due to the high risk of the marriage breaking down. It might feel like it works and if the man is loaded so that she would get a big settlement on divorce, it’s fine (but plenty of rich men don’t work). Where it’s not a good idea is where the man is a good earner but not enough to support two households and the assets are fairly modest, even if the family home is large and expensive.
Nearly half of marriages will end in divorce. Very few spousal maintenance orders are made these days (only in about 10% of cases will the husband pay spousal maintenance to the wife), and many of the inequalities will not manifest until old age where women will not have equal pensions to men.
I know several of my mums friends and acquaintances (now coming up for retirement) who were SAHMs with what would have been called wealthy husbands (lawyers, doctors etc) who are now financially fucked, nearly all of them divorced in their 50s, nearly all of them because the husband cheated. Invariably their husbands are very well off post-divorce with expensive cars, big houses etc. The wives generally have little to no pension/are still having to work/might have a mortgage free home but it needs work that they can’t afford (although one of them now lives in rental as she had to sell). None of them could really go back to work post divorce due to having been off so long. I’ve spoken to them and they all say they’d tell their daughters never to be a SAHM.

Yes that's what we did.

You get funded hours before 3 from September, my daughter had 15hrs last year from being 2 as working parents

If I owned a home previously I'd be the same in protecting what I'd financially paid for

He doesn't consider you wife material. Doesn't consider you a life partner. He can't be any clearer. He's free to walk away and marry someone else tomorrow.

Unfortunately the only rights you have are for your child if it's on the birth certificate.

Puts nothing in?? She had savings, because she worked. She’s used up all of her savings because he wants her at home looking after baby and him but he won’t fund her to do that. She’s unpaid live in help on duty 24/7 and has run her savings dry for the privilege. I call that putting a hell of a lot in.

It’s a tricky one because afaik with a few exceptions most studies do suggest that children ARE better off at home with their caregivers until they are 3, IF parents can afford to do so. So he’s right in that respect (though why couldn’t he be the one to stay home?). The problem is you can’t really afford to do so - because he has given you no financial security to do it (and therefore indirectly your DC no security either, as you are their primary caregiver).

Tell him he either marries you, puts you on the deeds or you will not be having any more children with him - he’s currently treating you more like an employee than a partner (but as an employee elsewhere you’d have more job security!).

Men don’t give birth. You’re welcome

Actually I think the traditional set up of one parent being sah and the other earning all the money CAN work well, for the benefit of everyone in the family. However it requires the understanding from both parents that both are contributing (one financially, the other in unpaid labour - running the house, child rearing etc) and that they’re a team working together for the same joint goal - a successful family life, which includes the family finances. Everything should be shared equally. Clearly this is not happening in many cases including the op’s, though.
(I say this as the higher earner and a mum who has never been a sahm, nor has my husband been a sahd, so no bias but I can see how it’s a viable option if done in the right way.)

He is emotionally controlling and financially abusing you. I’m sorry.

You’re looking after his child full time, so there is no way on earth that’s it’s fair for you to be burning through your own savings to do this. He needs to immediately start paying you an allowance so you have a fair amount of spending money for yourself. If he earns too much to qualify for child benefit he can totally afford to do this. But I suspect if you raise it he will find a reason why he won’t do it.

Creating an atmosphere to prevent you from working is very abusive and means he wants to keep you penniless and dependent on him. It also sounds from your description of him like he has zero intention of marrying you.

I think you are in a very unequal and worrying relationship and should start to plan for a future without him.

Absolutely being unreasonable... I bought my own house outright and never put my DH on the deeds/title.

@housethatbuiltme That’s different because you’re married, so in the event of a divorce your ex could claim up to half of your house, amongst other things, as it could be treated as a matrimonial asset.

No im pretty sure the advice would be similar if the man gave up work at the woman’s suggestion to care full time for their child and the woman was opposed to the man returning to work. Thats the whole point here. She has been told by him not to work until the child is three years old.

OP get yourself back to work asap. Do not have another child with him. It’s deeply worrying that just as your child is approaching a point where you can start to access the state nursery and school system he wants to have another child.

He wants to control you and make you stay at home.

Please start making plans to regain control of your financial independence, buy a property for you, get your pension contributions back up etc

Yes you can apply amd get it - he would be paying it back to them via tax. But it would be money in your pocket which sounds like you might need.

Absolutely being unreasonable... I bought my own house outright and never put my DH on the deeds/title.

Feels golddiggery when a woman moves into a mans home, pops out a kid, puts nothing in but then demands half of everything.

That's not how it works, if a man did this (moved in your house, then quit his job and put nothing financially into the home but claimed you owed him half ownership because he stay home and watches his OWN child) he would be called a cock lodger.