Is it my fault that I can't afford to have a child??????

[mikam342]

I'm 36 years old and have not yet had any children though i would really like to I know my time is running out if it hasn’t already.
I earn more than my husband. I pay the mortgage, buy all the food and pay all the bills (my husband contributes a bit). Because the financial running of the house falls on me I don't have much savings.

I first asked my husband about four years ago to try and get some extra work or take on some commissions he could do from home so that he could save some money so that if I did become pregnant he could help pay the mortgage and bills while I’m on maternity. He still hasn’t done anything yet even though I ask him too regularly he always has an excuse for why he hasn’t yet. I'm really angry with him because I feel I can't become pregnant as maternity pay won’t cover my bills let alone my mortgage and currently he couldn’t afford to. Am I right to be mad!! Or is it my fault? Surly as my husband he should try to do everything he can to make it easier for me to have a baby. I feel really let down by him and its starting to affect our relationship. At this point I'm even considering divorcing him.

The way it stands at the moment if I did become pregnant I would only be able to take 4 - 6 weeks off maximum. I worry that if I do this I might not bond with my baby properly is this a legitimate concern or am I being silly?
Any advice or feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

Hey are you not splitting bills proportionately evenly? Why are you paying for everything. He has a cushy life, doesn't he?

Mikam you've enabled your husband to carry on with his life style so sadly it is your fault. That said you have the power to change things if you want to.

Ask him how he'd feel if you never had a child. The look on his face will tell you all you need to know.

OP has not been back to the thread.

This is a tough one. Perhaps DH is avoiding extra work because he does not want children, or perhaps he is a bit workshy.

I think you need to discuss with DH why he does not want to do the extra work. If he does not want children you may need to move on and find a man who does if it is a deal breaker for you.

Here in the US we only get 3 weeks maternity if we're lucky and our babies turn out alright. Not really a great situation for mothers, but it's living here, it's not terrible. I think by 2-3 weeks I was working again from home.

That said, DD was unplanned while we were both broke. It was a lot of frantic scrambling, accessing benefits, and making sure we at least had the bare minimum for her. You don't need money to have a baby. It's nice to have, but really it's not the most important thing.

The most important thing is that you have a supportive partner that is going to be there and be a good teammate so you both can make it work. You don't sound like you have that. He's not pulling his weight by choice, and if he's irresponsible now it's not likely to change when he has a child to help provide for.

How would he survive if you didn't exist? Presumably he would have to live somewhere and pay for bills and food? Why are you paying for everything? I don't know why people are being so hard on you. There is nothing wrong with thinking that, since you have been married a while, you should be able to have children.

There is never a 'perfect' time to have a baby - I agree with posters who say you need to have a serious talk. Tell him you want to start TTC and are considering coming off contraception. I m not saying you should trick him into becoming a dad, but you do need to hold his feet to the fire.

I earn maybe 3 x what my husband earns and we could only ever afford for me to take 4 to 6 weeks maternity leave. Didn't have any problem bonding with new babies (we have 4 DCs) though I did chose to co-sleep to make feeding easier ( mine were all breast fed until well over 2 years old). In your position, I would crack on and try to get pregnant.

PS - if I had waited for my DH to be in a position to 'fund' my maternity leave, I would still be winging and my eldest is at uni. TBH he was pretty Luke warm about having children before they arrived but has been fantastic with them.

This is by the op's description a decent guy who just happens to earn less than her.

Perhaps he's making a different contribution to the relationship and household because he certainly would be making a valuable one if he was a SAHD.

Contribution is not just about money.

What an interesting thread. If this was reversed and the Op was male then we would not have people saying that the woman was a freeloader.

Look at your joint income. If he earns less and as a couple you want one of you to stay at home with a child it is logical that it should be him (children will bond equally with a male or a female) . If neither of you wants to stay at home then pay for childcare. If you want to stay at home then he needs to earn more.

Its a partnership.

Just get pregnant and if you still want to be with him then he can be with baby in the daytime, or use daycare and go it alone.
You mustn't wait and miss your chance if a baby is what you want, just do it and things will work themselves out, they always do.

Why do you think that? Two working adults living together. One pays for virtually everything, the other just contributes 'a bit'. The one paying for everything is very stressed and asks the other to step up a bit and it doesn't happen. I don't see what the sex of the two adults has to do with anything.

The OP doesn't say that her dh is for some reason unable to work more, just that he has chosen not to do so. He is not at home looking after children for example, although I assume that if they have children it is likely he will be the SAHP.

Does he work FT? Or is he sitting on his backside playing on the xbox and doing the odd bit here and there? If he's FT, I don't understand why you pay for everything? Surely he is able to make some meaningful form of financial contribution?

Plenty of people have babies without lots of money. Obviously without knowing your income and outgoings, it is difficult to know whether your concerns are realistic or not.

But I can barely imagine the uproar on here if a man said he was thinking of divorcing his wife because although she worked, she didn't earn enough.

I agree with other posters. If you are the main earner, maybe your DH should become the primary child carer. Most companies in the UK now offer a reasonable maternity package surely? I work FT and had between 6-10 months off with each of mine which was fine.

You shouldn't be looking to lay blame, but you do need to find a solution to the problem you as a couple have. You personally need to decide what you are prepared to accept, what your deal breakers are, and then stick to it.

Does your DH contribute in non-monetary ways e.g. cooking, budgeting, cleaning or household admin? Is he / would he be good with babies? If so, then why not have him be the SAHD while you go back to work?

That would depend completely on his level of commitment and interest in stsrting a family, however, and from your OP it doesn't sound like he is that committed to becoming a parent. That's the crux of the issue. If you want to have kids with him he needs to step up with either financial or other non-financial ways.

Hmmm. I am a bit on the fence here. On the one hand, if he's going to be the stay at home parent, then you go back to work after 6 weeks, it shouldn't be different to dad going back to work after a few weeks off with mum having the longer period of parental leave. However, it isn't that straightforward, because it seems that you want children far more than he does, and whilst he is paying lip service to the idea of starting a family, he is doing nothing to prepare for the future, and failing to step up to his financial responsibilities. I would say that to a woman too, by the way. Whilst we were trying to conceive, I (as a lower earner) saved as much as DH in order to make it easier for one of us to stay at home with our children, because it was important to both of us. I'm afraid his actions speak louder than words.

Yes he could have saved however there is no right time to have children. People are rarely in a financially perfect situation to have kids but we all crack on and have them still. Don't leave it too late. Start TTC now and let him take on paying the bills so you can save a little.

Would he be willing to be a SAHP while you went back to work?

I know a number of couples where the mum is the higher earner and where, once children came along, the dad has either given up work or reduced their working hours in order to take on the primary childcare responsibilities.

And as far as bonding goes, many fathers only take 2 weeks paternity leave before returning to work and still manage to bond well with their children.

It depends a bit though. You knew what he earned when you married. Did you buy a house that was within his capacity to contribute to or buy one based on your income? What was the conversation? Eg I want a bigger house and I can afford it or him saying he wanted a bigger house? Do you live within means he can afford or do you have tastes that reflect your earnings more than his? Who leads that?

As your dh of course he should do all he can but it is important to consider how and why you are in a position where he needs to work or earn more to do that before you decide how unreasonable he is here. If he is just living happily on your generosity and making no effort then he is a cocklodger and you need rid however if he is living the lifestyle you want because you want it then maternity should have been part of the plan somewhere along the way.

Well, presumably he's always earned a similar amount, and didn't suddenly cut his hours when you got married?

I think if your partner has a low earning potential (not a bad thing, just a fact), then you need to accept that certain things won't be attainable. You must have known this when you married. If you want to start TTC, talk to him - at 36 your biological clock must be ticking! Set it out realistically. You want a baby and XYZ needs to happen if it's going to become a reality.

Are you prepared for the reality that he might have to quit work or go very part-time and be a SAHD? If your income pays the bills and mortgage, you can't afford for you to be off work for long. Would he be willing to step up and stay at home, and is this something you want?

Sounds to me like you could save ££££ on nursery fees if DH stays home and looks after the child. My husband does this - it works great for us.

If everyone waited until they could afford to have a child, there'd be a lot less children born each year. I'm not saying it's not prudent to plan, but if you're 36 and you want a family you may have to have a bit more of a f*ck it attitude.

Basically, you need to ask yourself this question

Would you rather be piss-poor but a mum
Or comfortably off but childless

Because it looks like you can't have both, with the current situation.

Nobody can afford kids. Ever. If you waited until you could nobody would ever have them. You just have to jump off the cliff and keep your fingers crossed. If you both [nb: both] want children then have them. Trouble is that from your post, it seems clear that while you may want a family, your OH is lukewarm at best. You need to sit down and have a serious discussion about this.

It's no ones fault. He earns what he earns. Do you pool money together so all bills are paid then left over money is split?

Could u ask for a mortgage break? Perhaps go interest only for a year?

OP, you haven't used the words 'we' or 'us' at any stage. A child has two parents - you and your DH sound as if you're on different planets.