Son, DIL, money (mine)

[OhdratNC]

I think I might just need to suck this up but would appreciate advice.
DS was made redundant from nightmare corporate job a year ago and is now self-employed so a big drop in income but also a big drop in stress levels. Two DCs aged 11 & 7. DIL is devoted to DCs, has never had a job and doesn't want to work. I'm retired but have a good pension & some savings. I offered to subsidise the household while DS builds up his business but also asked if DIL might get a P/T job so that she could contribute to the shortfall. Suggestion didn't go down well (their relationship isn't great). Some occasional small contributions have been forthcoming but essentially I am transferring 50% of my income each month. I can manage this but it means that I either delay work needed on my house or use my savings. DS is anxious about it too but doesn't know how to get DIL to see that this is unfair. She finds change distressing and tends to be very stubborn and self-centred when she feels cornered, as she probably does in this situation.

Conveniently OP never clarified anything about the DIL, her pre children career, her contributions, her views on this arrangement, her income potential, just painted her as the bad guy.

I was a SAHM and now back in a corporate career. There is no way I would have taken a TA, dinner lady job as that would have been utterly unsuitable and inappropriate to my skillset not to mention it wouldn't have made a dent in the finances or compensate for the disruption to everyone's routines. Finding a part time job around school hours in my industry at that time was impossible. Equally it wouldn't go down well in a corporate interview to say I spent X years being a dinner lady! Good luck with that

We lived within our means. We would never have accepted money from a parent. We made decisions together and did not discuss private matters with in laws.

This is a problem created by OP and her son. She is far too involved and I'm laughing at someone's suggestion that OP should employ the DIL herself. Wow. If it were me I would want this whole setup to implode so I could put some distance between me and the interfering MIL. Not be at her beck and call FFS.

For all we know she could be getting her ducks in a row. The son sounds feckless and shameless. Nevermind your wife how do you justify your own mum supporting your family for a year?! He could have prevented this situation from the beginning by not accepting a penny in the first place!

Starting up a new business is a massive luxery and not the move of someone who can't keep a roof over his children's heads.

Most start ups fail.

All I see is op indulging her poor son who had a stressful job and making decisions for him and his wife without the wife's consent then bitching when dil won't fall into line with their plans!

If their backs are at the wall you don't start up new business. You take any jobs you can!

But what you definalty don't do is give money you don't want to give without simply giving it freely or with proper legal contract in place... Or reach into someone else's marriage and start to make descion for them.

Panty in my profession you can easily do 9.30 -2.30 for 5 days per week and earn £30 - £40k. You send your DC to a holiday club and juggle annual leave for school holidays. However, I doubt if the DIL in question is qualified to do such a role.

The son not taking a salaried job is the same as the DIL not taking a part time job. It's the same thing. He isn't a saint.

Maybe op should discuss dils dreams then and fund those and dh can be a sahd

OP

I think you need to stop paying for them. They both need a reality check- one of them needs to bring in more income. I think it's reasonable to say "you've had a year to get the business off the ground and DIL has opted not to get a job to increase your income, so I think it's time for you to stand on your own feet now". It's up to them whether they do that by making the business work, by DIL going back to work or DS getting another job- or perhaps a combination of the two.

FWIW I don't think it's OPs DS's sole responsibility to financially support the family, it's a combined responsibility. OPs DS (according to OP) feels that his wife should at least try to get a job to help financially support their family. She is free to refuse- but surely he is then also free to decline returning to a higher paid corporate job which he found very stressful? If neither of them will compromise, perhaps they need to sell the house etc.

I don't agree with those saying that because this couple agreed that DIL should be a stay at home mum 11+ years ago that this can never be changed and so her husband must find a higher paid job if his new business venture isn't providing a sufficient income whilst she carries on as before. Whilst that scenario is one option, I think it is also reasonable for the DH to ask his wife to look at restarting in employment because they, as a family, would find this beneficial- and may give time for his business to grow and provide an income. It sounds like time and money has been spent on this venture, so maybe it would be advisable to give it the best chance so that money hasn't been wasted?

I know that I wouldn't want my husband to go back to a job he hated and found stressful (to the point where his health was being impacted, which OP implies in her posts) so that I could not work. If we both needed to work to make basic ends meet, then that would be different- we'd both have to do whatever it took to enable us to put a roof over our heads and food on the table/meet basic needs.

Or reach into someone else's marriage and start to make descion for them.

We don't need to know anything else because it's all tangential. The fact is, the woman refuses to work to support herself and her children

Guys, guys, I’ve found the solution! DIL should also start her own vanity business. Maybe Instagram Influencer, or selling aloe vera on FB. Something low-stress, like her DH’s job. Neither of them will be bringing in any income, but apparently that is a secondary consideration when running a business.

Sashkin

Look, you can attempt to justify the sexist and morally inferior position of this person until you're blue in the face. The facts remain the same; she refuses to keep herself and her children because she believes being female means she shouldn't have to.

I’m not justifying it. I’m saying her DH is just as bad, choosing to play at running a business and pissing away his redundancy money and his mum’s pension when he could just get a job. But no he’s a Heroic Entrepreneur.

I never said he was a heroic entrepreneur, I said at least he's doing something, which is more than her. He doesn't have more of a responsibility to provide for his children because he's male, both parents are equally responsible, particularly in times of need, which this is.

@Bluelady

So, because you don't have a partner, any SAHM who has school age children is a lazy bitch? Nobody gets to make that choice because you don't have it?

@DeltaG When are you going to understand there are two parents, and until he decided working for someone was just too damned hard, it was his job to make the money. That was what they had agreed. Now he wants an easier life and she has to change her way of life to fund it? Can you actually hear yourself?

I find it interesting the discussion has turned into a he v she one. Surely it’s a given then both parents are jointlu responsible for their family?
Similar to how they probably jointly decided it was best she be a sahm, now they need to decide what needs to be done so they can provide for themselves and their own kids??? And the long term plan should not involve using mummy’s money till she’s dead? They are both adults, right???
And yes dil can choose to do what she wants but then life is life and she should also have to live with the consequences of her own choices, not have someone else pay for them..
Same goes for the son.. starting a business is risky and hard work at the start, but his choice ( jointly with his wife) and they shouldn’t expect his mother to fund all 4 of them forever.
Think the posters who suggested reduced payments and an agreed timeline before free money stops make the most sense.

I think that anyone who becomes involved in another person's finances, even close family, runs the risk of fuelling resentment.

OP, you have been very generous and acting from good motives, but I would recommend that you step back gently and enable them to sort out their own financial affairs. You have given them a helping hand, more than, you have done enough.

Wow what a bunfight this has been. There is nothing wrong with being a SAHM. If you can afford it. This couple clearly can't. That's all there is to it. All this bollocks about wrap around care you'd still have some benefit cash wise and assuming the 11 year old is NT you only need one lot of after school care.
I've been cleaning for years as a lone parent which is way beneath me but doing so is now enabling me to retrain for a better paying career.

It is both of their responsibility to bring money into the house and just because she has been a stay at home mum before doesn’t mean it should continue indefinitely. What is she actually doing when the kids are at school anyway? The OP says she doesn’t do housework, finds change stressful and is stubborn. Well don’t most people find change stressful? She is lazy by what the OP has said. She doesn’t do anything round the house and she’s surely not creating a pension so she has also put herself into a bad position for her future. The son has been foolish to start a business without the backup and relying on his mum. That doesn’t excuse the DIL from doing something- anything to help but she won’t. If that’s not lazy then I don’t know what is.
Also, brassbrass why can’t professionals take on any job that fits IF the need arose. Fair enough if they were living in their means or had planned accordingly but when the tough gets going you do what you need to do.

But you still have the fact that no part time job the DIL will get will remotely make up the short fall
The OP herself implies it’s simply there for show. You still have a mother indulging her son in an enterprise he cannot afford

This is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks the future is set in stone.
Redundancy, bereavement, illness, marriage break-up - all these trigger a review on circumstances which means the average SAHP will most likely need to work again.

None are anyone's fault but this talk of him "moving the goal posts" is just denying the life events that happen, particularly aged 50+.

Definitely agree the Op should consider the future and be careful what she wishes for. The DiL may well decide to get a minimum wage job and then divorce her DH. She would then be in line for the family home, maintenance from her STBXH, tax credits and 3/4 days free childcare from her STBXH / MIL.

She would then likely be financially better off with more work flexibility and freedom. Tax credits would even subsidise any paid for childcare costs. No wonder so many single mothers on this thread are so dismissive of SAHM.

That is not necessarily true.
A court decides what will happen to the family home based on the share of custody, family assets etc. Any maintenance (if custody is not 50/50) is for the children, not the spouse who is fit enough to work but there is usually none of custody is shared. Yes there may be tax credits, but the taxpayer pays those. As for the MIL/exH providing childcare, well this is pretty obvious when custody is shared.
If you're trying to scare the OP, then at least stick to some facts.

Yes life happens but why did they go down this route when they knew the DIL wasn't on board in the first place? Did they think they would just gang up on her and she would comply in the end? I can't imagine my family operating like this when making life changing decisions. When you resort to using a parent to coerce your spouse into doing something they don't want to do your marriage is in deep trouble. Nothing suggests the DIL is lazy. What sounds lazy is starting an unplanned business venture as a reaction to a redundancy. Smacks of throwing your toys out of the pram. Did he look for other roles? Just because it was stressful with one employer doesn't mean it would have been elsewhere. Instead of dusting himself off and trying again he opted out hiding behind mum's purse. Why not get a business loan? What a loser.

The OP states in about page two or three that the dil does no housework, they share cooking, shopping and childcare but the son also works so if they’re sharing all the other stuff and she still does no housework she does bugger all when he’s at work and the kids are at school. She sounds like hard work with her stubbornness and inability to tolerate change,. So yes she does sound lazy to me.
Sounds like he’s the one who has all of the stress of work and then of his moody wife on top. OP states she thinks he’s scared of her too.

worried the scenario I outlined is based on loads and loads of real life examples. Default is for the family home to stay with the primary caregiver which would almost inevitably be a SAHM of 10 years +. Ten hours or so of childcare spread over weekend / evening which facilitates DM working does not amount to shared custody. In addition to this the DM would also be able to access professional childcare 70% at least paid for by TC/UC as her DP's income and any maintenance is ignored.

You are right in saying the maintenance is for the DC not the ex-spouse but the basis in setting it is that the DC are able to keep as close as possible to the standard of living they would have if their other parent lived with them, based on that parent's income not the ex's earning potential. This inevitably involves subsidising the ex-spouse.

The biggest risk to the Op is that she ends up with her DS back living with her while she continues to subsidise her DGC elsewhere. I also know several instances of this.

@ljlsmum

But that is the OP narrative - the does no housework could be neither of them do housework or that the DIL doesnt do it to her standards which is more likely

Then with being scared of her - given the decisions that he made is that he is not more than likely worried about her reaction of him going to Mum to solve the problems rather than discussing it

The children and her parenting are scarely mentioned - why?