To say we can’t afford to visit DF’s family at Christmas

[Ambivalence]

My DF ( fiancé) is pretty hopeless with money and so I have been nagging him for ages to prepare a list of his incomings/ outgoings so that we can prepare a joint budget. I have also been nagging him to check his finances before committing to things, rather than just spending the money and asking me to bail him out. He is not good at living within his means, which I realise is unlikely to ever change as he is 46!

He has now just texted me with the conclusion that we should not go to Holland for Christmas as it would be cheaper to stay at home ( he doesn?t get paid time off anyway).

I have texted back to say we will discuss it tonight. I feel really mean to agree with him, and let him spend Christmas without his family and friends but it would be a lesson to him about working out what you can afford before making plans ( we just went to Holland a week ago for his birthday ? he booked the wrong flights and so lost 2 days wages as a result, and spent £200 hosting a party in a bar for his friend).

I am a bit annoyed with him about money anyway as he has been in a low paid call centre (£9/ hour) job since he moved to London in the spring ? despite promising to look for something in his field and at a professional salary comparable to the job he left ( her hasn?t put much effort into this), and he is disorganised about giving me money towards the bills ( no rent as I pay the mortgage on my flat) and I have been asking him for months to set up a weekly standing order/ direct debit to me, as he is paid weekly and his budgeting skills are poor.

I feel really mean saying we can?t afford to go to see his family, but in the end I think this might be a lesson learned for him. He never saves anything for a rainy day. I have just had to spend my rainy day fund on some unexpected building work and so don?t have funds to bail him out. Should I agree with him we can?t afford the trip at Christmas or be kind and pay for it?

Except that it doesn't work out well Xenia! Where do you get "few women want to be at home with children" that's just your opinion because you didn't want to be and we are all aware that is because you see childcare as something little unimportant people do but not everyone sees it that way and actually a lot of people male and female want to spend more time caring for their dcs than they do.

If he was at home with the dcs he would likely have a more important role in managing the money, she would be earning it but as the childcarer he would need to manage the children's daily expenses at least and so would need pretty unfettered access to the money and would have to make a lot of the decisions whilst she was at work. It isn't the same as having a nanny you know? A father has PR for a start and if she was a single earner she couldn't justify depriving him of access to the money whilst he was a SAHD.

I do wonder what planet you live on sometimes Xenia.

Yes but again, he isn't your dad.

I have seen a lot of women absolutely sure they did not want to be SAHM change their minds when the baby is there, also many who were absolutely sure they did feel it was a big mistake too. I do think it should be set up so that it is possible to change your mind and to make a different joint decision later on when you know what you are dealing with purely because it is just sensible to have some wiggle room in any planning like that. People most often resent things they feel have been forced on them I think too.

She's not going to hvae the luxury of deciding to stay home when she has chidlren and as he will be an OAP before we know it because of their huge age gap it is going to make more sense if she has the 40 year career and he won't be here in 40 years. The only way these older man 20 years younger women things work is if he is really much richer than she is. As he isn't she gets the very worst of all deals.

Xenia - it is an 11 year age gap, not a 20 year one, but yes, he will be an OAP in 20 years...

If he had a better job, which she says he could but chooses not to, then she might. Him having a better job would help massively anyway children or not! If he was a SAHD and her a single earner she'd pretty much end up being the earner and him the spender I think.

His earning capacity would still be less than mine ? at the moment he earns 17K, he is capable of earning £25 ? 30K at least, if he went back to the work he was doing in Holland. I earn £50K, and whilst I intend to increase that in about 10 years 9 to be able to pay private secondary school fees) , for the next 10 years my work/life balance is most important to me ? and I currently work a 36 hour week which is rare as a solicitor.

I think it would also be best if I went to work given that he has never enjoyed any job he has, whereas I actually enjoy my work. He enjoys being with kids

Nothing wrong with him being the sahd. But you need to be able to trust him. Not just to play with the kids but to be their main caregiver, know about sleep, food etc. he will in that role also be doing most of the food shopping etc and he may spend money at playgroups and coffee mornings. You have to be able to trust him with that.

Till then I think you need to see if this is the amount of work you want to invest in before the marriage!!!

We went from a double income to a single when my dh got made redundant. Thank god I had a high paying job. But it was a huge hit. He's set up on his own and doing well but of course the payment isn't stable for now. And in the meantime we struggle on with nursery fees, mortgage and life. It's hard but I never accuse him of not pulling his weight. I'm not sure what I'd do if my dh was like your partner now. I wouldn't even call him partner!!

He enjoys playing with OTHER PEOPLE'S kids. He has no children (unless I've missed something). It's very different playing with other people's kids for bit and giving them back and actually looking after your own. You cannot be this naive.

No, I am not that naive ? yes, he likes playing with other people?s kids and giving them back after a couple of hours. I like that too. He has done a lot of babysitting for his friends though ? so has got through his fair share of dirty nappies, pukey messes too.

Yeah but that still isn't the same. I think what people mean is that he is showing he isn't very responsible or selfless with how he is behaving at the moment and those are two fairly important things. The responsibility of being a SAHM and also the isolation, the demands are all very wearing and normally the SAHP is the one who gets all the shit (i hate you i want [the other one]) while the child is excited by the working parent who they see less often. You have to have extremely good self esteem and confidence and be prepared to be very patient and calm as well as organised and responsible I think.

(And you have to been prepared to work hard in long hours for no pay, simply for the good of the child)

OP you say that your a solicitor.

You surely must know that, even with a pre-nup, if your partner gave up work in order to look after the children he could still re-negotiate the pre-nup in the event of a divorce & argue that, since he 'traded in' his chance to save for a pension in order to care for the children, that he should have a claim on your pension.

He could also end up being the parent who is given residence of the children on the grounds that they're used to him being the primary carer & force you to pay maintenance to him.

He could divorce you, take your children, your pension & force you to support him for ever more

DON'T MARRY HIM. DON'T HAVE CHILDREN WITH HIM. FIND SOMEONE WHO IS MORE WORTHY OF YOUR LOVE

If you marry him with the intention of him being a SAHP you must be mad. Completely bonkers. Do you honestly think you can't do better than this? Being alone is better than this.

What on earth makes you think he'd put any effort into being a SAHP? Given he can't be bothered to pull his weight at home at the moment, or put anyone ahead of (or on a par with) his own entitled self?

What a warped, messed up excuse for a relationship. I pity any child you two have.

You haven't answered any of the comments that state: you do realise people go to relate AFTER they are married?!

Why are you going when he seems highly unsuited to you? You could find someone else you really love and more than him, if you get rid of him. Eventually, he will hate you cos you nag him too much, and you will hate him cos you have to nag him too much.

Pendipity - am on my phone as can't find laptop after builders.

No, i don't agree people only go to relate after they are married. we were together for 6 years. Apart for 7 and now another year. i think it is sensible to get professional help asap. not wait til crisis point

That said i think your statement that we will end up hating each other is accurate . That is why i am drawing on mumsnet wisdom to work out what i should do .

I am listening to the advice i am being given, and changing my behaviour as a result.

I was going to post further argument....but realise I am wasting my time. Op has already posted at length on other threads about this lazy fuckwit. Op - you only want advice on how to "improve" him. That just ain't happening.

When I got with DH, I owned a house and earned more money than him, but I never, ever would have had cause to come on MN and berate him like this. He ALWAYS paid his way, he never felt entitled, he always did his share of household tasks. We had dd before we got married, and again he supported me fully. All the money went in the joint account proportionately so we had the same amount of spending money.

If you need counselling BEFORE you are married and have children there is NO BLOODY HOPE. Please, please face it that you are with the WRONG person.

Pirates - yes. i know. bothers me a lot.

Of course some people who are not married go to relate but it doesn't make it a good plan unless maybe you have children together. Relate is for people who have important reasons for needing to stay together like that they are married and want to avoid the pain and expense of divorce or that they have children and want to make sure they have tried everything before splitting up. It is NOT for people to "fix" their incompatible boyfriend... But they will take your money anyway...

So leave him and then you are free to meet someone else!

I wonder if there is part of you that feels very grown up with your counselling and your pre-nup and all the rest of it? You are giving yourself a pat on the back for being so sensible, etc etc.

From reading some of your other threads it does not sound at all like your father sorted himself out either and your siblings and you have been very badly affected. You are just completely modelling this terrible example - why?

I think alibaba has a good point. Sometimes if you feel inadequate all that "being sensible" stuff can buoy you up, even more so if you can teach some man child something about being responsible, it gives you a purpose and a good feeling of self-confidence... For a while, until you have real responsibilities and need to share the pressure with someone else.

On other threads you said you couldn't be a single mum because you need someone to share the pressure with well a man like this is worse than nothing, he makes your life much harder for no reason, maybe not because he is particularly bad as a person but simply because you want different things out of life and are incompatible. You way and your wants don't trump his and you can't make him change if he doesn't share your values.

If you need counselling BEFORE you are married and have children there is NO BLOODY HOPE. Please, please face it that you are with the WRONG person

^ This!!!!