to think that DP should contribute a greater part of his salary to our joint/family finances?

[ScandiCinnamon]

Excuse the rambling and the exact numbers but wanted to give as full a picture as possible.

Backstory. Been together with OH (not married) for just over 9 years. Two DC's (one 5 and one 7) both in school. We live in co-owned property. He is working full time in a fairly stressful job and earn (I think) about £4k/month after tax. £2.3k of that goes into joint account for mortgage bills etc. When we met I had a decent job with a good salary, but now I work PT so I can collect the DC's after school. I earn a pittance, but still contribute. So, pretty much at the end of the month I am left with £70 'pocket money' for myself and I don't manage to save money/put anything aside for a pension. He has after commuting costs etc £1.3k to play with. Our joint account regularly goes overdrawn due to car trouble/emergency house stuff boiler/roof etc and so on.

I am starting to feel increasing resent and almost feel trapped. And that I am simply filling a function in the family. AIBU to think he should share more of his money and that it is astounding that our joint account goes overdrawn but he still has his little money pot for himself?

It's all very well to say that all couples should pool their money, but I think it really depends on :

• what age you get together
• what each of you bring to the table at that point
• whether either of you has been burnt badly (financially) in a prior divorce

My 1st marriage, we were young and had no assets and everything was pooled, even when I went PT (cos kids came along) and I then earned a third of what he did.

My 2nd marriage, we were both in 40's and I brought a lot more to the table. A house, some shares and some cash savings. Having been cheated on by my 1st H and having my assets halved at divorce, this makes you very wary to pool everything with a new H, as you know it could go tits up, and if it did, you'd be halving assets yet again and if that happened I'd lose mine and DC's home! That's not wise.

The OP's OH has been thru a divorce before and I think that's making him wary - once bitten twice shy.

That said, he placed OP on the deeds to his house and that's a massive step.

I do think that the fact they share kids, puts a different spin on it, and they should just pool the £1370 and use it for anything else that's needed throughout the month plus holidays etc.

OP - tell your OH that you're going back to work FT as you can't live on £70 a month and ask him to reduce his hours in order to fill the gaps that will leave in your kids lives. It's a bluff of course. Just let the penny drop.

I actually think YABU. He works his bollocks off in a stressful job, paying the majority of the bills and you want him to give you more money so you can stay pt?
If your not happy with how much you have left go back to work full time and earn more. Any child care costs should be split equally as they are equal responsibility.
I do say this as our situation is the opposite, I worked hard at school then studied at home to get my degree to better myself and my children. My husband did not, he left school at 16 with 1 GCSE as he didn't see the point of education. I have not worked really hard to get a good paying job to provide for my non ambitious husband who's happy to just plod along.

Are you able to work FT OP, or in a different part time job that would increase your income more than your half of the childcare? If the answer to that is yes, then that may be what you need to do. I understand your point about not having kids to never see them, I only work PT myself. But the reality is that reducing your earning potential is not a luxury that is open to an unmarried partner with an OH who isn't willing to fund it. It's just not. Obviously don't go back to the job that made you ill, but there could be a middle ground.

jamtartandcustard

You ARE joking, right???

OP works part time and has the kids. They are partners.
Why did you marry your DH? He doesn't meet your high standards - You must have known this before you married?

Jam tart, I think you are bringing your own issues and resentments here and they are clouding your judgement. Im sure you didnt mean to imply the op is non-ambitious and lazy. Looking after the children is a full time job and it's up to the 'working' parent to ensure its properly paid within the family to the same leven of com fort the 'working' parent has.

On the subject of pensions OP, are you a beneficiary of his? You mention him being married before, has XW got any of it?

Is he aware of how much goes out of the joint account? It sounds like maybe not, if he's suggesting it can pay for a meal out when overdrawn! It is not unreasonable to reconsider finances periodically - things get more expensive!

Make a budget including all the regular expenses (don't forget ones that come once a year!), and also add in 'emergency funds' with an estimate based on recent experience. And if it's meant to cover meals out and holidays, those had best be included too! Then you two can look at it together and discuss what is a fair contribution from each of you, considering how much you each bring in and how much you are saving the family but not needing childcare, etc.

Looking after the children is not a full time job when they are going to school. If it was, nobody could work part time.

£70 and £1,300 is clearly unfair. Spends should be equalised broadly.

So should contributions to the running of the household, in that case. Is the OP contributing an equal amount after deducting an appropriate amount for before and after school care?

It's quite possible that a person providing wraparound childcare for DC might be putting in the same number of hours they would do in a full time job, particularly where the other parent is working long hours. You'd only need 2 hours before school and 5 after to clock up a 35 hour working week. Easy done on a 9-3 school day. In OPs case, she is working part time as well as providing childcare, so she may well actually be putting in more hours than DP. It would be interesting to know.

Seems to me op is working ehilst dc at school and doing wraparound as well so I would say she is contributing as much as dp. So she is nbu.

If you turn this around and it was a man who had gained a house by being put on the deeds, paid little into the joint account and wanted so work part time despite the children being at school he'd be called a lazy bugger.

The OP wants her cake and more, the poor man doesn't seem to get much say in how much he sees the kids as he has no choice but to work many hours. He's then expected to subsidise another adult who didn't want to work full time as well as provide for the children.

If the OP wants more spending money she could simply work more hours. If not in the current job then another one. Why does he have to give it all when she's doesn't simply because he's male. I'd despair if my son was being taken advantage of in this way, perhaps that's why he won't marry.

Love the assumption that just because a man puts you on the deeds you have gained a house from his generosity. You may have gained a share in the equity in the house, although it is possible to use paperwork to protect one partner's equity stake. The DP bought out his XW presumably by increasing his mortgage. Their joint household expenses are £2.3k from him plus most of the Op's PT salary which is probably only "a pittance" in comparison with her once high powered careered. That suggests a pretty hefty mortgage to me.

As pp suggest it is quite likely Op is covering upwards of 25 hours wraparound care. I quoted some figures upthread on this for inhouse arrangements. The actual figure for our school is £7.50 per hour per child.

I assume since Op is around at home more she is also doing more than half the cooking, cleaning and shopping.

In addition she is working PT and contributing financially.

I trust my dds will steer well clear of your ds cookie.

YY howabout. But cookie does rather have form for making assumptions about women being freeloaders despite not having anything close to all the facts. Hopefully her son will have a bit more sense.

I'd despair if my son was being taken advantage of in this way, perhaps that's why he won't marry. One wonders where all the misogynists come from and then...

Sorry what is this about wraparound? Is this what I'm doing now, after a full days work?

Not sure it's still wraparound at this time stealth, no. It's the hours just before and after a school day, what with the standard FT working day being rather longer than the standard school one. Based on what OP has said about her hours, they might well need wraparound childcare for the DC were she to work full time.

Ate you sure? I was hoping to invoke the 48 hour rule and insist on a nanny.
Thought someone mentioned 5 hours after school which I assumed went up to bedtime.

It is highly unlikely that the OP would need 5 hours of after school care. Don't most couples split the cost of childcare? So she would not be "owed" the cost of all the childcare.

It is highly unlikely that the OP would need 5 hours of after school care. Her DH works long hours and she was stated that she used to work until 8pm and that she used to travel a lot.

Yes, that was me, but you'll notice I didn't give that as a definition of wraparound care. It was simply to demonstrate that a parent caring for DC before and after school might well be doing the same number of hours a week as they would in a full time job.

You've actually piqued my interest about what time 'wraparound' care finishes though. I am not at all sure. Quick google hasn't thrown up any answers. This report mentions provision 7.40 to 6, sounds an ok definition although if you have a longer commute it might be more.

vouchers.employersforchildcare.org/media/Wraparound%20Childcare%20in%20Primary%20Schools%20Report-1.pdf

And I guess you could still be providing wraparound care having done a full days work if you started and finished early. Like 7-3 or whatever.

My post above was to stealth btw.

Not sure if this point has been made already, but if he earns 60k gross, then his take home is not 4k per month.

If he has no company pension, then it's more like 3.5k / month, and then the communting cost needs to be paid for too

What I want to know is where you find one of these men that pays the mortgage, utility and food bills for an entire family? Can I have one please? Presumably he even provided the deposit for the house and paid the stamp duty and so on. The most I've ever been able to persuade one to do is pay half the mortgage (after I provided the deposit!)

As for 5 hours choli, I should think that's pretty standard for children of that age after school. When I was 7, school finished at 3 and bedtime was 7.30. I did used to piss around rather and it was often more like 7.45 by lights out: suspect this is a common enough failing in infant school children. So the DC probably do need care for about 5 hours after school (shall we count the time OP spends travelling to pick them up?). Whoever does it, however the parents split it and whoever pays, they're going to need someone to look after two children for a bloc of time both before and after school, and the hours are likely to be something around a 35 hour week.

This is why I was interested to know about OPs hours, because she may well be working the same as DP when the childcare is factored in. Would also be good to know what the cost of said wraparound care would be, as they don't appear to need any at the moment. Without that information, we really can't presume as some posters have been doing that OP working full time wouldn't cost the family money.

But cookie does rather have form for making assumptions about women being freeloaders despite not having anything close to all the facts. Hopefully her son will have a bit more sense.

YY! You know it's bad when you can identify a poster before even looking at their username. Have a , dieting Cookie Monster.