Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to not want to be sole earner forever and consider leaving DP because of it

270 replies

Anapit · 18/07/2011 23:53

be frank.
I am 50, been with DP for 15 years. We got tog and had 3 children pretty quickly.I had known him as an acquaintance for many years. Comfortable loving relationship at outset, no lightning bolts which perversely drew me. Relationship now crap.

I had had 2 previous marriages ( 6 years each), no kids in either. good friends with both ex Hs.

for entire 15 years I have worked, he has not. He had no property/ savings when we met. In fact I paid off his 10k debts. I have financed himthro uni. He can't /won't get a job.

I am ONLY NOW deeply resentful of fact I payroll the whole damn thing . I have my own business (which took me years of hard work to establish) and share all my earnings.Never set any limits on his spending .He spends as much time on his expensive hobby (scuba diving) as I do at work. I pay for all his kit and holidays. I earn a lot and am very generous - give thousands to charities every year.

Made sense when we were a couple He technically is the stay at home parent but the youngest is now 10 and I only work 2 days a week and when at home do ALL the home stuff.

I am silently seething because he does very little at home ( house is a dirty mess) and he wont get a job because I earn so much he thinks it's not worth his while.

Please advise. The relationship is crap.

OP posts:
fedupofnamechanging · 20/07/2011 09:56

He has put himself in a difficult position. If my partner had actively not wanted to marry me, then there is no way on earth I'd have been a SAHM.

I do think that someone who loves you, wants to give you the legal protection that marriage provides if they see you putting yourself in a vulnerable position by being a SAHP. Generally that isn't a unilateral decision made by the SAHP, but something discussed and wanted by both partners.

It's not just about splitting up, it's about protecting the SAHP if the other one dies. If one partner isn't prepared to take proper care of the other by marriage or by sorting out a will, then I would think they aren't properly committed and would have made sure I didn't rely on them for my own financial wellbeing.

Being a SAHP is risky if you are not married.

ThePosieParker · 20/07/2011 10:03

What does he actually do? I mean I am A SAHM and part of the bargain whilst our children are small is to clean the house and take care of the home when DH is not here, we have four dcs and so I'm pretty busy mning.

VirtualWitch · 20/07/2011 10:06

OP - I do have some knowledge of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, which provides some rights to financial provision on cessation of cohabitation which extend to the right to share in certain household goods, the right to share in certain money saved from joint household income, or the right to an award to take into account any economic disadvantage suffered by the other party which has also been to their economic advantage.

Unfortunately, as you will find out, if you spend money on lawyers, most of them do not know how the legislation works as there had been no high level test case. There was a Sheriff Court decision which awarded a woman a small share of her ex-partner's pension rights, but it was said to be exceptional on its facts. There has not been a Court of Session decision or higher and no lawyer can be sure of how it will pan out, even top family law specialists.

Therefore you could waste thousands of pounds to be told this and much more if you have to defend an action in the Court of Session. Your partner will probably be awarded legal aid if he has no income, definately for any access issues and quite likely for a case brought on the 2006 Act as well, as it would be hard to argue that it has no merit or chance of success (however small). This is a worst case scenario.

Most likely he would be awarded a small lump sum by the courts, and I guess on this basis the most sensible approach would be to try and get him to sign a legally binding agreement and pay him a small lump sum equivalent to what a court may reasonably award him to go away quietly. Of course, if he refused such a lump sum and pursued a court action which ultimately awarded him less, he would prejudice his own interests and be liable for both sets of fees.

I agree with you on not getting lawyers involved if you can possibly avoid it. They will escalate the dispute and cost you thousands. Mediation will also cost you and in Scotland they will probably advise you to pay him money (possibly more than in any settlement!). Any action based on the 2006 Act will tie you up for years.

It is hard to believe he has been "economically disadvantaged" by the relationship ending, when you have paid off 10k of his debts, funded a university degree and provided him with free accommodation. If he is a painter and decorator, it is relatively easy to resume work at any time as they are skills that do not tend to be lost. He will of course argue that he provided care to the children but from what you say it was shared. You also had your business and home before meeting him so he would seem to have little claim on having contributed to them. I think you are in quite a strong position and I can't see a court awarding him more than £6000-10000 and if you offered him more on this basis, you weaken any case he might have still further (don't dispute access). You can also object to any legal aid application or award by him. I think taking the initiative is key here, rather than letting him build up a head of steam. I wouldn't offer him money to start off with though but simply state in writing what he has received in the past and not paid back and how his contribution to the housework and childcare has been peripatetic.

Velvetunderground · 20/07/2011 10:19

I dont think its about what other people find acceptable but what the OP feels is the deal between the both of them. Every couple is different and has different expectations of each other.

I do feel sorry for the DP but he can drive, he has a degree and he can get a job to pay bills, so he is not in a bad position just not as good as he is having it right now. I would think it would be fair to give him some money to get a house or rent a flat, but thats it. He is an adult and has to take responibility for taking care of himself.

Anapit · 20/07/2011 10:30

cinabar, I will answer your points one at a time

OP wouldn't marry him for financial reasons (it's clear he wanted to marry, from the tone of the OP's posts) no, he never expressed a desire to marry. It only came up as a complaint in recent years that the lack of being married made him feel insecure

She doesn't value the contribution he made to the household in the past, which allowed her to run her business very successfully. I have no idea why you conclude this. I valued his contribution very much. THe business was well in place before he came along

He might not have much practical childcare to do now, but sure as eggs is eggs he will have been very busy until fairly recently. Not true. I do most of the domestic / child stuff 5 days a week , he does it on two

She doesn't think he has a right to have a hobby. again, you have not read this thread. I have never ever sias he has no right to have a hobby. His hobby was mentioned to point out that he has a very relaxed life with lots of down time for him. I have never once asked him to curtail either either time or money spent on his hobby. It's a healthy pursuit, he loves doing it , but he does not appreciate how fortunate he is to be able to do it.

She criticises his housework (and it may be dreadful, but equally she may have higher or different standards from him - we see that coming up in thread after thread). No I don't ever criticise his housework. I have stated on here that I am unhappy that he does so little. I have ONCE in our entire time together sat him down and very gently asked if he could keep the place cleaner. ( his response was to get angry and stomp off ) My standards are extremely low!

She doesn't see her possessions as their possessions, only hers. Correct - but only IF WE SPLIT UP. I share EVERYTHING with him. All income in a joint account . He spends far more of it than I do.

I hope this clarifies

OP posts:
VirtualWitch · 20/07/2011 10:31

Adding that I don't think that simply because he is a man, he should be treated with kid gloves for choosing to be a SAHD and the OP forced to continue an unsatisfactory relationship so his way of life is not disrupted.

Neither is it fair to comment that because the OP is a woman with a successful business, that this has contributed to the relationship failing. This accusation would never be made of man running a business. Many relationships fail, for multiple reasons. I also don't buy the notion that he has contributed to her success - his contribution to childcare has been part time and the OP had her successful business and own home before meeting him.

It sounds more like his choice to become a SAHD dad, rather than a joint one. There is no reason now why he should not go back to working as a painter and decorator, even if his degree has been a waste of time. I can understand why the OP feels she is being used, rather than being supported by him. If he is interested in scuba diving, with all this time on his hands, why couldn't he have qualified as an instructor?

OP - I have seen so many of these men who live off their successful partners (is it any coincidence I am in Scotland too...). You actually remind me of a former neighbour of mine - own large house in the country, long term financially non-contributing partner (although at least he had occasional bouts of working in low paid jobs) and he was a right sneaky git (found out he was trying to stir up trouble with another neighbour). I felt so sorry for her as it sometimes easier for an outsider to see the faults of a man like this than the one who lives with him every day) but when I moved away, she did seem to be getting fed up with him. She had never married him either...

fastweb · 20/07/2011 10:33

VirtualWitch

I'm shocked. How can CAB be giving such inaccurate advice about Scotland if in fact a settlement is the norm ?

It might be an idea if some Scottish lawyers dropped them a line and told them to amend their website. Or the advice they give face to face if it follows a similar line.

Neither you or your partner has a duty to maintain the other at the end of a relationship if you were not married or in a civil partnership

from theScotland specific section of their site

ShoutyHamster · 20/07/2011 10:52

It sounds very much to me as if this man is now finally being asked to lie in the bed which he has made.

There's a lot of talk here about how the OP created this situation in a way, not wanting to marry him, in return he has never had real security, that there has been an issue from the start.

Yet I would think that if over the years, he had brought as much to the relationship as he was being given - childcare, domestic tasks, actually earning some cash now and again - just even making the attempt to pull his weight emotionally - then the OP would quite probably have actually married him a long time ago. Or even if not, this issue would not exist because she would not want to be without him.

It seems that the OP, after two failed marriages, was suspicious about putting herself in a weak financial position. Her suspicions have turned out to be justified. Can't see ANYTHING wrong with that.

And him? He is by all accounts a complete cocklodger - but when confronted with this, he whines that 'you shouldn't forget that he's actually in a very weak insecure position and who else would put up with it.'

What a lot this says about him, eh? He doesn't even deny that he's lazy and selfish. He knows he is. His best, and very misogynistic defence is that in the circumstances he's the best you could get and you should be grateful!

What a self-pitying, weak, useless way to live. The real question is, why hasn't he, over the years, striven to make his life and the way he lives it something to be proud of? Why has he contributed so little? Nothing's actually stopped him doing so! He can't even argue 'why should I help out when I get nothing, even security, in return' - because he gets PLENTY in return, including an expensive hobby and time to spend on it. A pretty lovely, debt-free, stress-free, work-free life complete with family which OP has handed him on a plate. No, I couldn't stay in a partnership with a man like this because by now I would simply have no respect left for him.

The gender reverse would be a woman who thought she didn't have to work, yet left childcare/cleaning etc. entirely to her partner whilst enjoying expensive hobbies with the proceeds of his employment. I think that that woman would receive a slating too. It's just about not contributing anything. In fact, the only relevant point re gender is that, given the unchangeable biological fact that OP would have been the one undergoing pregnancy, birth, feeding, maternity leave and potential issues with damage to career afterwards, you can't even raise the argument that at least the non-contributing partner took on that particular burden. What did he do when you were on maternity leave - watch you changing nappies? Grin

I think that VirtualWitch's advice above sounds very useful, and I'd be taking legal advice before offering him a payout that any decent lawyer would advise him very strongly to accept. And make it very clear to him that you have researched this and that you know what you are doing, which also makes him less likely to contest.

Good luck OP.

PenguinPatter · 20/07/2011 11:07

Op I'd not waste time arguing or justifying yourself to a bunch of strangers on the internet.

You clearly want to leave the relationship - and if its making you unhappy and ill why would you want to stay- spend your time figuring out how best to do that.

Even if you are not oblige by law to do a lump sum or give accesses to the DC - probably best to figure something out.

If not so he leaves quietly so your DC - who at 10 and above will presumably have some say who they live with and see and will have/ form opinions of their parents behaviour - see you treating their father fairly.

ThePosieParker · 20/07/2011 11:15

I suspect OP his lack of effort to make your lives a happy one is far more reaching than his financial contribution or lack of. Being taken advantage of is good enough to either ask for change or move on.....

You only have one life.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 20/07/2011 11:16

Your previous two husbands must have been right horrors, Anapit. If they hadn't been, you would probably have been able to detect that the 'calm, steady, friendly decent man' was a lazy cocklodging parasite a bit quicker.
I'm not putting you down in the least, it's just depressingly frequent that a woman who gets rid of an awful partner (violent, druggy, verbally abusive, blatantly unfaithful) often ends up with another one who is crap but in a different way.
But I agree with the people who have said: do a little research, offer him a decent settlement (not more than you can afford obviously) and plenty of access to DC, and get rid. Once he's gone you will feel like a weight has lifted, and hopefully you will be able to maintain a civil co-parenting relationship with him once he's not round the house all the time (sulking and belittling your feelings).

Laquitar · 20/07/2011 11:19

Anapit, it was you who said that your dp was the 'main carer'. This and the fact that you were running a successful business made us to assume that he was looking after the 3 dcs for many hours a week and that you have only reduced your hours recently.

Now you are saying that he only did 2 days and you did 5 days straight from the start? Confused. This changes things a lot. It is not very usual to be semi-retired at the age of 35 with your own house and a very good income, so you must understand how people got confused re the childcare and contribution.

VirtualWitch · 20/07/2011 11:22

FastWeb did I really give the impression that a settlement following cohabitation is the norm? Surely what I said was obviously specific to the OP's situation and not general advice?!

Tactically, it might be a good idea to think about making a settlement offer from the outset, rather than wasting money being embroiled in a legal dispute.

As for CAB, while you may occasionally get a qualified solicitor working for them, generally what they do is read advice from a manual and make clients aware that they are not giving professional legal advice backed up by professional indemnity insurance.

"Neither you or your partner has a duty to maintain the other at the end of a relationship if you were not married or in a civil partnership"

I think they may need to revise that in order to take into account the possibilities raised by the 2006 Act. However it is correct in a sense as there is not a duty to maintain, but there may occasionally be a right to request financial compensation.

Blame the Scottish Parliament, which has too much time on its hands for all these "good ideas" but not so much time for working out the consequences!

Anapit · 20/07/2011 11:39

virtualwitch thank you very much for your informed advice. I really do appreciate it . It concurs exactly with what the family law specialist I consulted told me, in particular that the 2006 act has not really been tested. THe solicitor considered the 2006 act to be a complete mess. She also advised me to leave him !

Odd that you know other women in my position. I too know others in very similar circumstances to me . Is it a Scottish thing?

For most of the past few years I have put about 3k in an ISA (is that still what it's called?) for each of us.( It did not seem fair for me to stash away savings just for myself). So even at the moment he has several thousand in savings so I don't think he would qualify for legal aid

OP posts:
Anapit · 20/07/2011 11:40

SGB that made me smile, thank you. Actually the problem with the previous two was I was an immature romantic idiot when I was young

OP posts:
Anapit · 20/07/2011 11:50

The real question is, why hasn't he, over the years, striven to make his life and the way he lives it something to be proud of? Why has he contributed so little? Nothing's actually stopped him doing so!

Thank you, Shouty, for expressing so eloquently what I think. He really thinks life has dealt him a bad deal. I just don't get it.

I have been completely supportive in suggesting various ways to retrain (which I would happily pay for) , business start up ideas ( ditto) but he is just so reluctant and unmotivated. He would never ever try to make money from the hobby (I have suggested this too!) . I have wondered it he is depressed but he says he isn't.

OP posts:
fastweb · 20/07/2011 12:06

FastWeb did I really give the impression that a settlement following cohabitation is the norm? Surely what I said was obviously specific to the OP's situation and not general advice?

I read it as being that where the partner who had been primary carer of the couple's children for a number of years, they could hope some kind of settlement if the union were to dissolve when the other partner has assets and income, and they do not.

Which would be fairly usual for a good number of couples living together with kids, with the SAH parent not necessarily having an income or equity in a home of their own at the point of separation.

I really DO think CAB should make that clearer, given that huge swathes of people separating could well be in that situation and reading their website before deciding what to do. Then deciding to not risk spending what little money they have on a solicitor, because according to "first port of call" advice they have no real rights.

I think they need some model verbs at the very least in that bald statement on their website.

Anapit · 20/07/2011 12:12

laquitar, sorry for "main carer" confusion. I think if it got nasty he would argue that was the case. But the reality is because I am able to be at home most of the time I do at least as much as he does. And his hobby takes him out of the home for about the same amount of time my job does.

I wd rather not say what the business is as is incredibly obscure and would identify me immediately.

OP posts:
Anapit · 20/07/2011 12:23

oh, and virtualwitch, the family law specialist I saw seemed very keen to take me on , I think as a sort of test case, because of the unusual circumstances and the fact this is all a bit uncharted territory.

That is understandible, but I was clear from the outset that I just needed advice to clarify my understanding of the 2006 act.

OP posts:
izzywhizzyletsgetbusy · 20/07/2011 13:10

It's clear that your relationship with your dp has run its course and your number one priority should be cutting your emotional losses and extricating yourself from an untenable situation. You are a capable, can-do, individual in your business life and you now need to direct your considerable acumen to your personal life.

As you know, the legal cards are stacked in your favour and I doubt that you need any advice on protecting your assets/reducing your disposable income in the event of any challenge to your status quo.

I would suggest that you rent a modest 2-bed flat adequate for your dc to stay over occasionally but not suitable for them to stay permanently for your dp and pay the rent and give him an allowance for a period of not longer than two months which will give him time to consider his work options/apply for benefits etc.

It is entirely up to you to determine how generous you wish to be in terms of the amount of the proposed temporary stipend, what sweeteners you are willing to add to the deal car running costs etc that will not affect any claim he may make for benefits, and whether you wish to dangle the carrrot of a lump sum payoff settlement at some future date to minimise any initial or residual unpleasantness.

This may come as an unwelcome shock to your dp particularly when you tell him that within two months of moving out he will need to be self-funding but, whatever or how extreme his reaction, you need to focus on the end goal which is your equilibrium and well-being.

I would also suggest that, as an additional precaution, you consider employing a full or part-time live-in or live-out housekeeper to keep your home in order and be there when your dc return from school should you be pre-occupied with work matters.

With regard to your dc, I suspect that they cannot be unaware that all is not well between their parents but, handled properly and with consideration given to their wishes with regard to seeing their df on a regular basis, I see no reason why their lives should be unduly disrupted or that they should suffer any unnecessary trauma.

With regard to your wider family, friends, the local community etc, your changed circumstances may be a five-minute wonder but dust settles quickly.

The loss of your mother has undoubtedly taken an adverse toll on your physical health and grief can manifest as overwhelming exhaustion and despair (as I've not read any other thread you've posted I am unaware of what impact your dp's behaviour during that time may have had on you). As you've observed, the old adage has it that we should make no big alteration to our lifestyle for at a least a year after the death of a loved one.

However, it occurs to me that as much as you are grieving for your dm and the security that comes from having an older loved one in your life that 'knew you when' and all of the things she meant to you, you are also grieving for the loss of a meaningful relationship with your dp - albeit that any meaningfulness you once shared may have revolved around your dc, or that it may have been a somewhat pedestrian muddling along rather than a great love or meeting of minds.

On this basis I see no reason why you should not divest yourself of the millstone around your neck asap as you will float to the surface and inhale the welcome relief of less complex air.

The same may not be said of your dp who may be in need of his scuba diving gear if he cannot adapt to the dry land of reality. Should your dp appear to be in danger of drowning you are best advised to resist the temptation to dive in and rescue him.

Anapit · 20/07/2011 17:24

izzywhizzy If I was Lord Sugar I'd hire you!

Thansk you so much for taking the time to post . I am quite overwhelmed that you and many others have taken the time not only to read the saga but to put thought into a logical solution and then take time to write it here.
You have come up with some quite excellent ideas.

You are right, I can be logical and proactive at work, but i seem so be so wobbly at home. I just fear the upset to the kids and all the usual stuff, but you are right, the situation is untenable as it is

Thanks again

OP posts:
Anapit · 20/07/2011 17:25

and your last paragraph is comic genius Smile

OP posts:
Al0uiseG · 20/07/2011 18:08

IzzyWhizzy! That is the best post i've ever read on here!

Sound, knowledgeable advice and a sense of humour too. :o

VirtualWitch · 20/07/2011 18:14

"oh, and virtualwitch, the family law specialist I saw seemed very keen to take me on , I think as a sort of test case, because of the unusual circumstances and the fact this is all a bit uncharted territory. "

Oh I bet they were! You could pay for them gaining the knowledge to become experts in the field and testing the waters! (wasn't a firm beginning with the second letter of the alphabet, was it?)

I don't think the 2006 Act is that much to worry about. I can't imagine a huge settlement being awarded under it, or indeed any settlement beyond what economic disadvantage he can prove (and again, I cannot see how he can prove that he has been caused any). Furthermore, once you announce the separation to him, he will be under a duty to mitigate his losses ie search for paid employment.

Different case if he had financially contributed to the house deposit, mortgage, or worked in building up the business, but you wouldn't necessarily need the 2006 Act for any of that.

Anapit · 20/07/2011 18:22

Thanks again , VW.
Not the firm you have in mind. Lawyer was aged about 50, family law specialist, partner in firm, does mediation. was champing at the bit!!

She was highly recommended.

VW I am really not that worried about the family law act, as I honestly think I am reasonable and would give him what I could afford. He would still come out better than the majority of my friends and family who have NO savings whatsoever, and often negative equities on their homes

OP posts: