to want a fair split between work and childcare responsibilities (long, sorry)?

[ellsbellls]

First ever MN post (although I am a long time lurker) so please be gentle with me... Issue as follows and I'd be really grateful for your views and advice:

The heart of the problem is money and mine and DP's differing views on its importance to our lives and happiness. As background, we've been together three yrs and are expecting our first child (imminently, I'm due next week).

DP earns very well and has what most would consider a fantastic work/life balance (think 10 weeks hol per year plus a standard 4 day working week). However, he hates his job, finds it very stressful and draining and doesn't get on with his colleagues at all. He moans about it A LOT! His negative feelings are undoubtedly compounded by the fact that he has saved/inherited a considerable amount of money and probably wouldn't have to work again at all if he didn't choose to. He occasionally admits that he has probably become a bit lazy and can't really be bothered.

I also have a very good job with good terms although not on his league. I earn less than 50% of what he does and don't have any savings. I enjoy my job (relatively speaking) and get on well with colleagues although I can have patches of high stress and long hours.

We currently live in a house which I own. I pay the whole of the mortgage and also pay all day to day living expenses. DP pays for holidays, breaks away, meals out - big one off stuff. This is a source of contention between us as I don't think it works out fairly. He saves nearly his entire salary while I am down to zero every month.

DP is constantly planning for the future when he says he will buy us a house outright so that there will be no mortgage to pay. However, in return for living in this house I will be expected to work full-time to pay for all household living expenses plus holidays etc which he doesn't want to do without.. in order that he doesn't have to dip into any of his savings (he doesn't express it in quite this way but that's what it boils down to). He is likely to go part time or give up work entirely in a few years time, if not before. He sees the purchase of this house as his contribution to our lives and the rest is down to me. The house is completely unimportant to me. I am happy where we are now and don't see the need for anything bigger/better. I have told him this.

The issue is I think that I will be incredibly jealous and resentful of him playing the main role as child carer while I have to work full-time. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to share this in a more equal way with me when it is something that I have told him is important to me. I don't want him to stay in a job he hates but I feel that if we sacrificed some of the more expensive things that we have been used to doing (holidays etc..) then we would both be able to have a more equal work/life balance. Ideally I would like to go part-time while children are pre-school and then I would return full-time. He says that he doesn't want us to struggle. But in effect he is saying that going on expensive holidays etc.. is more important than me spending time with my family (even for a few years). I find this so mean and miserly.

I know that ultimately we are both in a very fortunate position and apologies if this comes across as a bit spoilt. I would be very interested in views as I may be missing something... Thanks!

PeppaKew - I have two. We each organise 2.5 days during the week and share the weekends. DH pays for childcare, I rearranged my hours to give me time to spend with the kids and my mum does a day a week for me too. I suppose I could have paid for childcare too and worked more hours, but that wasn't what I wanted. Likewise I suppose DH could organise his workload so he was at home more if that's what he wanted. If I really, really wanted to work more, then it would be up to me to find a way financially of making it work. I'd need to get a higher paid job or put in more hours and therefore see the kids less.

Northerngirl, I thnk you need to re-read the OP.

Where has the OP said she expects to sit back and lead whatever you mean by a 'yummymummy' lifestyle?
Her DP has organised his life in such a way that he expects her to work FULL TIME to pay bills and also to pay for all holidays for all of them because he does not wish to use his money.
Why should she not be able to undertake a fair share of one part of the household responsibilities - the care of her baby - and he undertake a fair share of the financial contribution? All she is wanting is a more equal distribution of the various roles - not to be made to work f/t while he stays home and waits for her to earn the day to day and holiday expenses.

Also it is grossly unfair - even if the mortgage IS his contribution, that is money that goes into an appreciating asset - he would end up owning a house. Her household expnse would go up in a big carbon footprint - heating a huge country pile and holidays abroad, and she would end up with nothing to show.

And I am also in a household where we share all bills and costs, and childcare equally. Which is what, afaics, the OP is wanting.

'If I really, really wanted to work more, then it would be up to me to find a way financially of making it work. I'd need to get a higher paid job or put in more hours and therefore see the kids less.'

Are they not his children as well then?

I'd feel I failed my child if he/she found such an idea of a partnership acceptable, or deemed his/her spouse a 'yummy mummy' (or daddy) for wanting to do more of the childcare.

Exactly, Blu. What this OP has in not equality, and that's what she wants (fair enough if you don't).

Personally, as she is not married to the father of the child, in addition to seeing a counsellor I'd probably see a solicitor.

"yummy mummy" - sniffy or what?

Expat - Northerngirls DP takes care of half the childcare, she takes care of the other half - so she presumably works on the days her DH looks after the cjhildren / apys f their childcare, and her half of the week with responsibility for childcare is when her Mum has them or she looks after the herself. And would need a higher paid job to engage childcare for her half of the week. That does seem a fair model to me.

I would be telling him to shape up or fuck off basically. His behaviour is OUTRAGEOUS! I can't beleive you have been putting up with this at all!

I don't usually post but found your OP a bit scary....

My DH and I have wildly disparate incomes, but ONE bank account, ( if it is important I earn a lot more....). We are lucky enough to split childcare and working between us. All morgage, bills, household bills come out of our ONE joint account. We discuss any 'proper' treats that might cost more than day to day stuff, but otherwise we trust each other. We have no separate funds ( I have separate business account - coz I'm too thick to manage without separate numbers.... - but DH is also named on this...).

I find your arrangement a bit odd. In the future how is your DP going to regard everyone's input and it's value? Is it not a partnership?

If it works for her, fair enough, Blu. We've never split things like that, DH didn't work for 4 years and then we swapped out and it all went into one pot.

Still find the 'he's funding your yummy mummy lifestyle' a bit sniffy because that's a bit 'SAHM = freeloading loafer', IMO.

Which, if anyone's freeloading, it's this OP's 'partner'.

Oh, absolutely, Expat - but different models, differnt circumstances - whatever suits each set of parents - as long as everyone feels that the partnership is mutually supportive and that it is fair for them, no-one used, no one taken for granted, no one exploited, no one freeloading or slacking!

I don't think it is that unusual for people to keep their finances separate, even when they have children - I know quite a few people who do it.

However, I do think you should consider going to see a family lawyer to talk about issues like how this future house will be owned. Just because you are not married (I presume) doesn't mean that you can't negotiate yourself any legal rights.

And is there a possibility that rather than giving up work, he might find a job that he actually likes and you could both work part time?

'But in effect he is saying that going on expensive holidays etc.. is more important than me spending time with my family (even for a few years). I find this so mean and miserly. '

There's your answer. He also admits he's lazy. I wouldn't want a lazy person in charge of my child. Would you tolerate a lazy nanny, childminder or nursery?

Again, see a counsellor to try to determine how your self-esteem got to the point where you find this is what you deserve and hang onto your job and your house until hopefully you work things out with a professional.

Because I can tell you right now, it's not acceptable because you're resenting it already.

expatinscotland - my DH does half, I do half, we both pay for half the bills. It's equal. I pointed out further up that I don't think the OP's situation is equal because he's expecting her to pay for more than him and is asking her to go into a situation she's uncomfortable with by buying a new house which would stretch her financially. So they are different situations, but a lot of people are saying that paying equal shares towards household expenses doesn't work in any scenario. I'm just saying that if it truly is equal, it can work really well.

But from what I can gather in the OP, she wants to cut her hours back and take unpaid time out to spend more time with her child. Which is not a question of childcare, since he's already said he's willing to be a full time SAHD. It's a personal preference which would impact on her income and therefore her ability to contribute financially.

Let's gender reverse: There's a man earning the lion's share of the wage whilst the woman has already rearranged her job to reduced hours so that she can be flexible. They have a child and he suddenly decides he'll quit his job and risk their home by remortgaging it because he wants to spend more time enjoying family life, without replacing that income. I don't think that's a very fair situation to put anyone in.

My point is if you want to reduce your work hours, you need to figure out a way of replacing that income, or saving that equivalent.

For example, I know of one mum who recently became a SAHM because she figured out that once she'd paid for childcare, ready made meals, travel, suits, works night out etc. that she could save the same amount as she made by being at home. That makes sense.

Northergirl, the OP might be able to reduce her hours to spend time with the family if she didn't have to fork out for all bills, food, day to day spending and holidays on top! How is that ever going to work?

The gender reversal you have suggested isn't accurate, as there will never be any chance of the OP's DP risking his home as he will have it paid for and, crucially, in his name.

This isn't about SAHPs anyway really, it's about a man who wants to do all he can to protect his assets and not put his fair share into the family pot, whether either of them are working or not.

OP, sort this out, do not let him do this to you. Above all, as others have said, don't EVER sell your home, keep it as you may need it, and for god's sake don't get a loan to pay your mortgage!!! He lives there, he pays at least something surely?

Northerngirl and OP, two key points to make:

1. My marriage vows included me and my DH saying 'All that I have, I share with you'. This is my model for worthwhile partnership, whether two people are legally married or not, and whether they have separate bank accounts or not. You share the benefits you have with one another, and if one of you is disadvantaged, the other helps out; if one had good fortune, the other shares in that. The relationship discussed here has none of that. One person is paying out significantly more here, doing much more work and taking far more risks. The other is sharing the benefits of their partner's efforts and refusing to contribute their own assets and efforts in return. What kind of partnership is that? None worth having, IMO.

2. Pesonally, if we're talking fair, I don't even think a 50/50 split is that fair when one person earns significantly more than the other - as northerngirl has said is the case. For a while myDH earned nearly twice what I did, and then he put proportionally more towards paying the household expenses. Still left him with more 'pocket money' than me, righly, but he suggested doing the split that way as he thought it was the fairest way. OP - note, not all men have the sense of entitlement your partner is displaying. It's not right and you don't have to settle for it.

There are different ways of splitting the finances in a relationship . DP and I have a similar arrangement to Northerngirl - initially we earned similar amounts (we had very similar jobs in the same sector) and split everything 50/50 (mortgage, bills, holidays etc). About a year ago I decided to quit and do something more fun/interesting but for much lower pay. But I made sure I could still cover my half of our joint expenses, and it was important to me that I did so - I didn't feel it was right to let him subsidise my lifestyle choice.

Things will change if/when we have a child though, as I won't be able to cover half of nursery or nanny fees - so he has the choice, either he pays for that, or we don't have a child (which would be ok with me tbh, he's the one feeling broody ) - and he's chosen to pay. Again I guess it's fair. I don't want to feel 'kept', but as he sees it, he'd be paying for the child, not for me. I'd still pay my own way personally.

I know this is not how many couples choose to do it, but we don't all want to have the traditional marriage setup. The important thing, though, is that everything is talked through and agreed and both partners feel happy with it, and feel that it's fair. Clearly the OP is not happy with her situation, and it really doesn't sound very fair or sensible to me.

I know the 50/50 split on expenses works for some people, but it certainly wouldn't work for me. What about maternity leave? Redundancy? Ill health? Working part time, or not at all, due to childcare or other family commitments? I just can't see how throughout a relationship together you can hold to each paying your half - and let's see, since women take maternity leave, women are most likely to be SAHM or to work part-time once they have kids, women are most likely to look after elderly parents, who's going to lose out? And that's without even starting on the little fact that men still, on average, earn more than women.

What does he do with all his money?

Call me cynical but I am imagining a scenario where you split up, have a very obvious asset (your house) and he, having quit his job with all his savings and inheritance squirreled away ends up paying no child support.

Is he really not intending to support you when you are on maternity leave?

Is he intending to make any financial contribution toward the care of your DC or are you expected to fund that too in due course?

There are a myriad of ways of dividing up the cost, work and responsibilities of running a home and keeping a family. Every good partnership finds their own way to be able to do this.

What astounds me about the OP's OH is that this man is about to have his first child with the OP and he is contributing nothing financially to their current situation and has done nothing (save for have a pipedream about a big house in his name) about their future. It's as if he's viewing the situation from the perspective of "what can I get out of this?" - the answer being an excuse to quit his job. Most dads (and mums) I know would go to the end of the earth and back for their children, more than willing to spend their money on their kids future (in whatever form that may take). He appears to just want to take from the situation.

[Disclaimer: admittedly it could just be that we haven't seen all the facts!]

I don't even think the division of money is the worst thing. It's that you told him you wanted to spend more time with your child and work part-time and he just said 'no' even though he has the money to make that happen. I could never forgive my partner if he did this to me, effectively making me work to fund his emotional desires (to give up work and stay home) but not helping me fulfil mine (to stay home part-time and see more of my child).

I'm sorry, this sounds like an awful situation, if anyone 'told' me to work (rather than asked me what I would like and discussed what made better financial/emotional sense) I would tell them where to go. I say this as someone who works fulltime out of choice/needing money, if my husband had the money for me to stop, then he would absolutely support my choice if I wanted to quit/work less.

He simply doesn't prioritize your emotional needs, that cannot be a 'good relationship'

Sorry, have read the first two pages only.

He's not prepared to share his money with you. But stays rent-free and bills-free in YOUR home. That's what this boils down to. What's his is his, and what's yours is for you both. What utter bollocks.

herethereandeverywhere - that's what it looked like to me

OH is seeing it as an opportunity to quit his job (he has had the choice to quit, and get a more enjoyable job, well before now but is too lazy), rather than a positive choice to be the primary carer.

My point is if you want to reduce your work hours, you need to figure out a way of replacing that income, or saving that equivalent.

northerngirl. That's the whole point. She has no opportunity to save because she forks out for everything.