About my children's inheritance?

[BonyPony]

My MIL sadly passed away a couple of years ago and left a large sum of money to my husband and kids. My FIL is very into financial management and has virtually total control of the account. We have to get his permission to withdraw any of the money.
FIL has been very generous and paid off our previous mortgage so we could move house. Husband hated the previous home, which increased his grief, stress and anxiety. We were happy to move but are now struggling financially with the bills from the new house. I cannot get this money out of my head. It is way more than I could earn in 10 years and it is just sitting there.
Meanwhile, I have been a full time at home parent for many years but husband is now pressurising me to get a job to make ends meet. I don't want to disrupt our home life, especially when all our financial worries would be solved by husband getting FIL to let him have the inheritance he was given!

Should I give up and get a job or stand my ground and insist husband fight for the money? (Also am I evil?)

Unless and until one half of the “team” prefers to keep a few hundred grand tucked away in his daddy’s bank account.

Doesn't matter, it's perfectly legal and in fact a lot of trusts are set up in such a way that a spouse cannot touch it.

Where's the proof that there is any of DH's inheritance left, let alone a significant amount?

No proof. That’s - again - not the point. The criticism levelled at the OP time and again on this thread cites it as his inheritance (if it exists) and implies that it is fine for him to be rich but for the OP to have to juggle a part-time, menial job and take on the bulk of household responsibilities and childcare, because it’s necessary.

Well, what if it isn’t necessary? What if - as I strongly suspect - he and his DF have decided between them that the money should stay in the FIL’s account so that the OP can’t benefit from it?

Anyone?

But it does annoy me, when DHs are quite happy for their wives to be at home when it suits them, only to suddenly start demanding the wife who once had the same earning potential as them, suddenly take on some menial, dead end job

I agree that it's all too usual for the woman to take a hit to her career, finances, and pension because she's generally the parent who stays home.

But the OP has some time now to start to deal with this situation, by doing some retraining/reskilling, so that she can start to get back to her career - from what the OP says, she had a good career & skills 10 years ago. But we all know that the workplace is designed around male bodies & lifestyle (ie arranged around men - who don't get pregnant obviously!) and it is really tough getting back into the paid workforce.

All the more reason for the OP to start doing that sooner rather than later, although she may have to start in a much lower grade of job than she is used to.

But it also sounds as though her DH is pretty hopeless with planning & finances - it looks like a bit of "learned helplessness" - so if the OP is really "managing the household" (although she has said she's rubbish at it) then she needs to take up some control, do the budgets, and then have a serious conversation with her DH about their family finances and budgets.

Show him what likely income she could bring in, and what the costs of that would be ie childcare; a cleaner; the DH taking on more of the household management ; sharing of tasks.

As the OP says, the money has been tied up with emotion. Yes, money in families is emotional. All the more reason for the OP to take a step back, and try to offer her DH the facts, as fairly and objectively as possible.

Then they can both talk about their feelings: I think the OP's DH may well have something to say about the stress of having all the financial responsibility. How do they compassionately& lovingly balance that against the OP's expressed being "terrified" of working/childcare?

There needs to be give & take, but based on the FACTS of their finances. And not their children's inheritance. THat idea is shocking.

Doesn't matter, it's perfectly legal and in fact a lot of trusts are set up in such a way that a spouse cannot touch it.

I don’t know if it legal, but neither do I care. This isn’t about the legal position, it’s about the morality of the DH being rich while his family struggle (if that is what is happening).

OhtheHillsareAlive

Your post is perfectly reasonable. Others on here absolutely are not.

Well if it is the case that the only disposable cash they have to pay the new mortgage / lifestyle is the children's inheritance, then the whole family need to reassess. I agree this money should not be used to fill the gap. But it’s not just the OP who needs to change..

The DH needs to be realistic about what hos wife can earn in the short-term, given the time she has taken out to raise his children. Is this enough? What will be the impact of her working longer hours on the DC and him? It’s no good taking things for granted. Everyone will be impacted in some way and ultimately it’s a cost / benefit analysis.

Might she be better starting a small business, for instance, rather than doing a MW job. Maybe think a bit more strategically and creatively about might be feasible here - eg, could she do tutoring; personal training; sell something online; start a dog walking / pet sitting agency? I don’t know- this is obviously just off the top of my head, but perhaps she has other skills that she hasn’t realised could actually bring in more money than plugging away at a low hourly rate? Or it might make sense in the long-run to think about some retraining scheme to enable her to financially contribute in a way that is more meaningful into the future? Again, I don’t know, but I suspect a bit more strategic thinking may be called for here, as opposed to just getting any old job.

Im sure the kids would much rather pay you for their own childcare than leave it invested for the next 10-15 years. They'd probably like to treat you to a few new outfits too, maybe get your hair and nails done?

Jesus. It's invested, accruing interest and growing so that they can buy houses, attend university or receive a monthly income when the time comes.

Your dh has presumably had his in the form of the lump sum that facilitated the move. It's no one else's fault that you're both utterly clueless about money and are already struggling.

OP says "We were happy to move"
Nowhere is there any implication that her husband made the decision to upgrade to a better house unilaterally. But yet again, the MN bias shows in people assuming that he did.
There is no reason to assume that the OP wasn't at least as happy to have a nicer home and didn't play an equal part in the decision.

We have a mortgage on the new, bigger house. FIL paid off our old mortgage to stop DH worrying about money but DH took the chance to move. I went along with it for his mental health.
So was the old house sold and funds went towards new house, as it reads a bit like that didn't happen.

I've come to realise with my husband that I need to be the one who happily compromises. And by compromise, I mean to do whatever it is he wants and be enthusiastic about it. Me being the Trustee of the DC inheritance my mum has tormented him into a fury, as I don't want to invest how he thinks I should. I've taken proper advice too, but he disagrees.

It doesn't sound like you have much choice but to try and increase your income, and there's plenty of sensible reasons for that. But I do also wonder if your husband has a history of being financially irresponsible before the inheritance.

@herculepoirot2

You're projecting here, and making it all about an alleged hate campaign about SAHM.

It isn't.

Look if you have an arrangement that works for you, great. Fair play to you.

That isn't the case here. The OPs family can simply no longer afford it. End of.

But @herculepoirot2 I tend to agree with what seems to be a small majority on this thread, that op does need to get a job. But she & her DH need to plan realistically. Without thinking about the inheritance.

The whole scenario reminds me of the opening of Pride and Prejudice where Mr Bennet is (subtly) deeply criticised for his lack of financial planning so that he allows the family to live beyond their means and he has no money for his daughters' dowries.

It's the lack of accurate planning & the idea that the OP has that she will be able to "pay back" her children which is so unrealistic - like Mr Bennet. Irresponsible.

But both the OP and her DH seem to be dreamers & unrealistic. Hard to believe that either of them is a grown up ...

I think what’s shocking a lot of people here is the idea that some parents think they “own” their children and therefore attempt to justify what is, effectively, theft.

When the OP talks about “all that money just sitting there” she is basically saying that she considers that money to be attainable.

There’s a lot of money sitting in banks in other people’s accounts and in the treasury. Why doesn’t she think about all that money “just sitting there” too?

It’s because somewhere in her mind she considers that she a right to access her children’s money.

It’s wrong on so many levels and OP, you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering it.

What if - as I strongly suspect - he and his DF have decided between them that the money should stay in the FIL’s account so that the OP can’t benefit from it?

I suggested as much upthread and I don't pretend to have the answer, but OP has been so opaque about so much that it's almost impossible to see where the truth lies. Are FIL/DH a pair of lousy schemers or do they have good reason to protect this money? We simply don't know

We don't know either if DH actually has inherited hard cash, or whether his share was "given in advance" when FIL paid the mortgage. Maybe some clarification would help, @BonyPony?

The inheritance wasn’t left to you, was it, OP. Wills are there for a reason and the heirs are clearly named. You weren’t one of them.

If the dh was sat on a fortune, in his own account, op would not be talking about the kids money.

Or she wants to spends the kids money and keep the dhs.

Either way, she wants to dip into money that belongs to the kids.

Cant believe the posters trying to twist this any which way, to not blame the OP for wanting steal off her own children.

Do people really think children should have to pay for their parent to stay at home?

Are FIL/DH a pair of lousy schemers or do they have good reason to protect this money? We simply don't know

Thats right It could be all three of them that are scheming. Or just the OP that is wanting to steal her kids money.

No one knows really.

Lots of nastiness here today

I think what’s really sad about the OPs way of thinking is that parents are meant to be the greatest protectors of their children.

They’re lucky they at least have 2 other adults looking after their future security.

@BonyPony sounds to me the biggest problem is you don't actually understand the full extent of your family finances. And you should - inheritances or not.

The children's inheritance is non-negotiable by all accounts. Depending on the "technical detail" you mention, it's either money which belongs to your FIL (willed to him) which he is nominally ring fencing for your children. Or it's actually their money already (quite possibly in trust). You mention them being a pension beneficiary - which sounds like it's been set up & possibly paying out regular amounts, but isn't just "sitting there" as neither they nor you could access the lump sum easily. So whether you could or not, forget about it.

It doesn't sound like you've got a grip of your own personal and family finances though, irrespective of any inheritance. That needs an urgent discussion with DH. Covering mortgages, income (both of you, actual and potential), expenses including increased childcare costs and retirement planning. Because I'd wager you don't have a decent personal pension of your own?

As part of that discussion, DH's own inheritance comes in to it. It may be appropriate to fund you as a SAHP. Or it may be sensible to pay off further mortgage. Or it could be a pension investment. Maybe not. Could be anything - but it needs discussion.

And irrespective of any inheritances and whether you want to be a SAHP, I'd be thinking about my income potential and pension income sooner rather than later - at least make a point of thinking about it. If you choose to actively do nothing about it, well that wouldn't be my choice. But don't ignore it.

It sounds like you need to get a job OP, you should have moved to a similarly priced property to your previous one if you couldn’t afford the mortgage, it’s not fair to fund yourself being at home with their inheritance. Supermarkets do flexible hours so you may still be able to keep your childcare commitments.

Does your school not have a breakfast and after school club?

10 hours a week is piss all. And you know it.

You’d be better to use some of the money to go back to uni and get a better more useful qualification. Then get a better job.

FIL is being beyond unreasonable, your DH and you must take control of that money.

I'm 57 & my DM worked FT from when I was 2 - teacher. I went back to work FT when DS was 16 weeks.

OP - you say you work 10 hours a week including travel. That really is hardly anything. There are jobs about & it's perfectly doable & not at all unusual for mothers to work.

Op, you are not being reasonable. Most people here stated that.

What will you do? It seems you need to shift your mindset and get a job. 10hours including travel is a luxury you cant afford.

You will find it hard to balance work at first but it gets easier. Embrace it, see it as a challenge, an opportunity for growth.

Both are foolish for buying this house without forward thinking as to whether it was affordable long term, but one of them was grieving.