To buy house on my own-sorry long

[tomverlaine]

I live with my partner and DS. I have always earned a lot more than DP and am more career focused. DP had been travelling when we met and after a couple of years retrained and was freelancing when DS was born - but not working full time. DP had savings from selling a house and the income from this provided additional income
DS is in nursery a couple of days a week and DP looks after him the other three. DP works a couple of evenings a week and could work the days DS is in nursery or weekend. we have a cleaner and other tasks are split ( i would say 80/20 to me!)
We have been renting since we moved intogether - before DS was born we both paid towards the rent/joint account (unevenly) and I paid all extras. Now I pay all household expenses/rents/food/childcare plus pay DP £400 a month for childcare.
We are now buying a house together - I am paying for all of it- deposit/mortgage in my name/renovations/expenses etc. mainly from savings built up over several years.

DP has suddenly raised the issue of whose names go on the deeds/ownership of house. I was really surprised how I reacted as the idea just horrified me (we haven't talked about it yet) - it feels like its my house as I have worked my butt off for it. I don't think DP is worse off financially through having DS than before- although I prefer DS not to be in nursery full time its not a huge preference and I am happy for DP to go to work. Am i being unreasonable?

In terms of our current finances- how do SAHM's get money to spend on themselves

Joint credit cards and total access to all finances - any other way and I'd tell dh to eff off!

Are you for real? Of course YABU. If my DH said to me I'm not letting you have your name on the deeds because you only look after the children, I would seriously divorce him.

Pay, allowance, housekeeping, whatever you want to call it.

I don't work, but we have complete joint finances, in fact I have more access to/manage the money that DH earns!

What squeakytoy said. If the genders were reversed, and freelance/SAHP were a woman, people would be outraged by the idea that the OP didn't want to put the SAHP on the deeds. Again and again on MN you see 'SAHP is a full-time job, you are working, if the one who's earning doesn't get this they need to change their attitude.' So I'm going to say that here.

MN would defend to the hilt a woman's right to joint assets while being a SAHM. If your DP was a woman and posting here about how you didn't want to put his name on the deeds there would be uproar, you would be described as a selfish pig, and your DP would be advised to either marry you or get some kind of legal protection in the relationship. The difference in reactions here is striking, and actually pretty sexist: if childcare done by a woman is a full-time job, and women in that situation deserve an equal share of the family assets, then the same should work both ways.

To sum up: YABVVVU. SAHP is a full-time job, your DP is working.

Do you actually like your DP? You want them to work on the weekends???

You shared bills according to your earnings pre DC. You were happy for them to use up all their savings. Now they work 2 days a week and are a SAHP for 3 days a week.

If you feel that you want to change the financial arrangements, which do sound odd, then talk to them. It sounds like you want them to work full time (5 days a week.) I wonder if they actually want to be working the two days a week or if this is a concession to you. It doesn't sound like you need them to bring in an income as you appear to have paid the bills and saved up for a house.

They're obviously not as career driven as you and it sounds like the house thing has just brought out your feelings about the financial imbalance. SAHP only works in a relationship if the other partner agrees that the benefits to the child outweigh the loss of earnings. It seems you don't see the benefit.

Most posters have disagreed with the op and pointed out the discrepancy, just waiting for the op to get it is all!

Does the OP actually mention gender?

I would not feel comfortable if I was working FT, paying for everything, and Mr VP was spending two of his days of the working week neither working nor looking after DC. I think that's the biggest issue here. What does he do on those days, OP?

I think you are in the wrong relationship. I wouldn't buy a house at present until you resolve all this.

lol heaven forbid you do anything financial, but its ok to bring kids into a crappy relationship??

All those declaring YABVU all missed the point that two working days of the week, DP is neither working nor looking after DC.

I do think he should be with the sahp and not in nursery, unless the dp is actively trying to build a business or self employment. My opinion on not allowing him 'in on' the house in some form hasn't changed though. That said, there are many SAHMs on here who have children at school or nursery yet don't work and are still seen as entitled to own house etc.

I am a SAHM and all the money in our household goes into our joint account. Way back when we first started living together, I was working and he was not and our money still went into that joint account. We share everything.

I don't see it as being paid to look after my own dc. I view it as division of labour - money needs to be earned, kids need to be looked after etc, so dh does what he is best at and I do what I am best at. We decided together on how we were going to divvy up the responsibilities.

I also think that if I wasn't at home, dh wouldn't be able to do the kind of hours and job that he does. I don't know if that is true for you. Also, as a sahm, I do the majority of the housework. I don't expect him to work really long hours and then come home and do lots of housework, while I sit on my arse.

Maybe you and your dp have different priorities when it comes to housework, but there are some basics that need to be done (for me that is clean bathroom and kitchen, food cooked and clean sheets). You need to agree on what the most important tasks are.

I would not feel comfortable if I was working FT, paying for everything, and Mr VP was spending two of his days of the working week neither working nor looking after DC. I think that's the biggest issue here. What does he do on those days, OP?

I refer you to one of the countless threads about SAHMs with school-aged children for a few ideas from SAHMs in exactly this situation.

Is it really so inconceivable still, in this day and age, that the genders could be reversed and the woman could be main provider while the man could be in charge of domestic stuff? Or are we all still so invested - despite 100 years of feminism - in the stereotype of man-as-provider that we react to a man who takes the traditionally 'female' role with bafflement or even contempt?

Nelly the child has already been born. OP can hardly send him back! There is no point in lecturing the OP on this as it's a done deal. The house hasn't yet been purchased, so OP is in a position to change what happens here.

OTHW, that's fine if the sah partner is actually doing something to contribute during those 2 days. As it stands the OP says she is doing 80% of the house stuff.

YABU totally totally totally. You are happy to leave the raising of your children to your dp, but not to put dp on the deeds. How do you know what position your dp would have been in if he hadn't stayed home to look after your child?

Dh treated me like this (without giving me the pocket money). It was utterly demoralising and degrading. He was horrified at the idea of putting my name on the deeds. If I hadn't been so I'll and downtrodden I'd have taken dd and dumped him.

When we moved it never even occurred to the sol that I wouldn't be on the deeds and dh was far too embarrassed to tell him not to, so now I am. Funnily enough, I am now bringing in more money than he is too.

I don't treat him the way he treated me though, which is why we're more or less OK now.

Your attitude sucks.

It's basically about what you want from a relationship. You 'have always earned a lot more than DP.' You now have a child with them. Do you love them? Do you want them to always be a part of your life?

Some couples go through their whole lives together keeping finances seperate. Some treat all money as joint money. People make it work, but only if there's agreement over the way things should be done.

You sound like you can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't as work focused as you. From what you said this was the case pre DC, so it's not like you didn't know! You also don't seem to be very bothered about them being a SAHP when, presumably, they value that. You need to talk to them.

Is he a sahp though in the sense that the baby is in nursery for 2 days per week. They have a cleaner and of the remaining tasks the op says she does 80%. I'm at a loss to know what her partner is actually doing, because it's not full time childcare and housework.

Essentially DP is a SAHP and DS is at nursery for 15 or so hours a week. Plus he works in paid employment in the evenings. OP works full time. In terms of "work" these are not so far off equal.

The main problem to me seems to be the imbalance in the housework, perhaps if DP did more housework, OP would feel more that he pulled his weight? If DP did more hours in paid employment is sounds like OP would be happier. Seems like the balance just needs to tip very slightly.

Actually I think it depends on what you DP thinks of the arrangement.

You will have plenty of people that will tell you that as a SAHP your partner should have full access to the finances and everything should be in joint names. From seriously disastrous marriage I know that, contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't always offer a great deal of protection financial.

My relationship now works in many ways as yours does and and works well like this. It's not ideal but it's expedient for anyone who doesn't want a joint account. I'd be happy as the SAHP in your relationship up to this point.

Until you got to the point about shared ownership of the house. I don't know what I would do in this situation, but i does sound like you're seriously undervaluing your DP role.

Both that and the ownership thing needs to be discussed with your DP. Written contracts needs to be made as a result of these discussions.

DP hasn't used up any of his savings; He had income on these savings and income from his work and used that pre DS.
So on day 1 if he put the savings in the house then he would obviously get a share - but he doesn't want to (he sees it as his pension which i understand)

I do get the discrepancy. If i were a man I would be called a sexist pig blah blah SAHM is hard work ...but when I have posted previously with the genders clear DP was called a cocklodger/waste of space and was told to get out and earn. I am just trying to work out what is fair.

His work is generally more available in weekends/evenings - but he could find work during the week. He chooses to pursue his hobbies the two days a week DS is in nursery and much of the weekend (when we aren't doing family things) - which is fine financially ( and for our relatioship to a degree as he is happier) - so his claim that he can't work because of DS is a bit annoying- as even when DS isn't there he isn't working

I have to say that if I were a work to live not live to work type person with a young DC, and my DP was earning more than I ever could (and lived to work) and more than covering all expenses including a cleaner, I would choose to spend time enjoying my child and my life. If this bothers you tell them.

Talk to him. And make sure you're making provision for your pension.

If he has savings still, then a portion of them should go into the deposit.

Refer me to all the threads you like but my opinion still stands, regardless of gender, I don't think it is fair if one person in a partnership has to spend two of the days of the working week working (be that in paid employment/childcare/housework) while the other does not. If that works for some people fine, but from the sounds of the OP, its not working for her.

I don't think it's acceptable to ringfence his savings and expect you to put your savings into a house in both your names.