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?)

However the op should not have to work extra to afford a house her husband chose to upgrade. I'd be annoyed that the family decision to have a sahp was now being changed because of an expensive house.

THEY upgraded the house. As a couple.

And again, if the dh is sat on a fortune why on earth would she be considering tapping into their kids money?

It doesnt make sense that he is sat on a fortune, but op thinks 'hmm let's use the kids money instead'

It's not misogyny to know you dont spend your kids money to stay at home.

Since, as you say, you don’t believe your DH will step up on the parenting and housework front if you work more hours YANBU at all to be frustrated and annoyed at him. He was happy to stretch things and use the money to do what made his life better (moving to a bigger house) but that decision looks set to make your life harder and of course that seems unfair.

But I also think your plan to use the inheritance is unrealistic, too short term and, where it involves “borrowing” money left to your kids, very unreasonable. I can see why your DH and FiL are against it.

A good arts degree and a decade or more out of the workforce leaves you in a very vulnerable situation, financially. As you’ve recently noticed, you aren’t able to walk into a good job. You’re also about to hitting the age at which employers seem to discriminate in hiring (on top of your lack of recent experience, old qualifications and your mother status). From a getting a good job perspective this does not look at all good.

I think you need to stop fixating on how to continue to be a stay at home parent, your family wealth, even with this inheritance does not sound significant enough for that sort of lifestyle.

10 years of supplementing your family income with money from the inheritance won’t even see you through your children’s education and you will have even fewer job prospects at that point. That’s not good planning for you personally or for your family. If your day-to-day expenses were covered by your day-to-day income, your DH might be more in line with the idea the inheritance money can be enjoyed. But really if you want to be sensible for your family, you should use what’s left of DH’s inheritance to invest in increasing your family income to a sustainable, higher level by getting you back into the workforce in a well paying role.

Look at how you can best improve your personal financial prospects and your marriage such that you DH stops treating the family as women’s work he can leave to you. Look into training for a new career, volunteering at a high level that could get you back into the workforce on a high wage or consulting if you still have industry contacts. Try to aim to be earning a reasonable, full time wage by the time your youngest is in secondary. Talk with DH about the additional support the kids (not you - it’s your kids) are going to need if you are putting in more time outside the home. Discuss how your current housework/childcare roles are going to be covered and how much it will cost (including cleaner, increased food bills, holiday care, babysitter at the weekend so you can have equal time off, etc. if he isn’t prepared to do any more than he currently is). If he isn’t receptive, consider marriage counseling, but don’t back down on your improving your work prospects - his selfishness makes your need for good personal financial prospects even greater) This is going to take effort and there may be a lot of pain before you get to the point where it seems reasonable.

Work on your fear of childcare - it has many positive benefits and a fear of it is irrational and doesn’t serve you or your family well - and start using it a bit. Find the types your kids enjoy. Sometimes childcare isn’t great (but some family life isn’t great either) but most of it is positive, especially for kids’ social development.

I don’t think you’re being unreasonable to be annoyed at your DH, but I don’t think you’re being reasonable to cling to your SAHM role.

Wishihad

It is very much what was implied. And I didn’t insist on anything other than basic common sense: the more paid work you do, the less time is available to spend with your children. Can’t see how that is an objectionable statement.

Because lots of people work AND give their kids plenty of attention.

There is time to do it all. No matter what you say, its possible.

No, it was implied and out right said, that staying at home when you cant afford it and contemplating getting your kids to foot the bill is poor behaviour.

*Because lots of people work AND give their kids plenty of attention.

There is time to do it all. No matter what you say, its possible.*

I don’t think it genuinely is possible for everyone. I accept it is possible for lots of people and I didn’t say otherwise. But the laws of time and space say that the more time you have, the easier it will be.

The OP is being asked to relinquish time with her children but at the same time keep her responsibilities for the home, meals, shopping etc., because she says her husband won’t do more. By a simple application of logic, it’s going to get harder for her.

I think everyone is agreed that the children’s inheritance is untouchable.,

However, on the SAHP issue- I tell you what....If my DH has been prepared to put the well-being of our 3 DC before his career progression / identity for 10 years, so that I could swan out the door without a second thought or worry about anything related to them, I’d be so extremely grateful to have a partner prepared to do that. What I most certainly would not do, is suddenly turn round a decade later or whatever, and make them feel as if they are now lazy and useless and should get a “little pin money job”; or make them feel indebted to me as the “Oh great provider.”! What kind of human would do that? Talk about having your cake and eating it!

If financial circumstances had changed, I would support DH back into the workplace. I wouid recognise the impact of the years out. I would not patronise him. I would have to adjust too. Maybe cut my hours or be more flexible to facilitate him, if it came to that. It would be as much a change for me as him. That is how I’d approach it anyway.

virginmojito

Very well said.

The number of persons on this thread willing to belittle the OP for child-rearing is very, very sad.

Your DH's money is exactly that - his money. Has he said if he wishes to use his money to pay the current bills? What does he anticipate doing with the money?

I disagree. I think it's family money. It would be very unreasonable for DH to spend tens of thousands on a yacht or a classic car when the family budget is under strain, and then expect his DW to go and get a job. With all my worldly goods I thee endow, and all that.

OP, I don’t understand why on Earth you and your DH thought it would be a good idea to move and take on a mortgage that you can’t afford when you had the opportunity to be mortgage free!

What if your FIL hadn’t paid off the mortgage to your previous home? Would you have been able to afford being a SAHP then?

If the answer is yes then you have both monumentally fucked up your financial planning and you’ll have to compromise your ideals for reality.

What you absolutely don’t do though is use your children’s trust fund. Don’t punish them for YOUR mistakes.

The OP is being asked to relinquish time with her children but at the same time keep her responsibilities for the home, meals, shopping etc., because she says her husband won’t do more. By a simple application of logic, it’s going to get harder for her.

Oh give over. She might not even have to give up anytime with the kids.

Or keep doing all the work in the house.

That is projection. They havent discussed her properly, because she wants the loney instead.

@virginmojito so should OP be ever so grateful that she got to be a sahm, as she wished, because he facilitated that aswell?

I dont get this line of thinking. Op didnt sacrifice her career just for him. She is afraid of childcare, apparantly, and wanted to be a sahp.

Why do people always the the one with a career has to be eternally grateful. But the one that stayed at home, as they want to shouldnt, be grateful too.

OP was part of the decisions that have led them there.

If dh is sat on a pad of money, I could understand her wanting say in that.

Bit the fact she wants to spend her kids money, shows the dh doesnt have alot.

Unless the OP is really ruthless and wants to spend the kids money without touching the lump sum her dh has.

If he had a load of money there would be no reason to even contemplate touching the kids money.

And he hasnt turned round d a decade later.

They struggled in their last house. Again, op knew that but didnt make any head way to even planning on going back to work.

She has been quite happy to know they are struggling and carry on as usual.

When my kids were small we also had no childcare. I used to work a Saturday and Sunday nightshifts as an agency nurse, this meant that I could sleep all day on a Sunday and get the kids to school on a Monday. Because I wasn't working on a Monday night I could go to bed for 3 or 4 hours and be there to get them from school.

I don't suppose you're a nurse, but I reckon there's probably some care based jobs available to you.

*Oh give over. She might not even have to give up anytime with the kids.

Or keep doing all the work in the house.

That is projection. They havent discussed her properly, because she wants the loney instead.*

It’s not projection. She said she does the school run and wouldn’t be able to do it anymore and would need childcare. She said her husband was unlikely to help out.

Do you actually know what projection is?

If he had a load of money there would be no reason to even contemplate touching the kids money.

And I don’t actually disagree with this. But then I suspect she has been fobbed off with a bit of misinformation. The money probably legally belongs to her DH.

Surely @BonyPony If you gave up the two voluntary positions and used that time to do paid work instead then there is no impact on the Dc or the "running of the house" but there would be more money coming in?

Unless I'm missing something your unwillingness to do this and eagerness to access "free money" makes you a lazy scrounger in my book.

@herculepoirot2

She has said in her own words she isn’t really running the household in the sense you mean, they are getting through it ‘on a wing and a prayer’. The hours the DC are at school she works as a dinner lady or volunteers then does pick up. She could replace all of those hours with (better) paid work. She would be doing the same amount. Possibly on a day or 2 she might need a breakfast club or someone to pick up the DC but millions of mums and dads manage this way of life without as much hand wringing

She hasn’t stated what the DH is not doing to help her, or step up. But like we have said, he’s probably not going to want to be the only parent always doing the stepping up is he?

She has said in her own words she isn’t really running the household in the sense you mean, they are getting through it ‘on a wing and a prayer’.

That just means she already finds it a struggle, as far as I can tell. I doubt it means they’re living in a swamp.

How can you know you need childcare when you don’t even have a job to need it for? How do you know you can’t do the school run? You don’t!

It’s not projection. She said she does the school run and wouldn’t be able to do it anymore and would need childcare. She said her husband was unlikely to help out.

She might be able to find something during the day she hasnt even looked. I work at head office for a supermarket. We have thousands of staff working round school or the main wage earners shifts.

She has no clue wether he will help our and I have said that he needs to step up. Which he might do

Yea I di know what projection is. It's you saying that working people cant give their kids attention, because someone you know cant.

Or suggesting her kids will neglected if they have to go to childcare a couple of hours a week.

Al projection from you

Why do you assume she has been fobbed off. If anyone is talking down the OP its you. Acting like she is a victim and played no active part in her life. She sacrificed her career (even though she wanted to be at home), she probably doesnt know what's going on, or doesnt understand the finances etc.

Fact is, she wants her kids money so she can continue how she is.

She is an adult. Capable of thought and decisions. She is where she is, in part because of her own decisions as well as his.

@herculepoirot2

Ok so OP is collecting and dropping DC and doing school hols

10 hours a week at the school
Some volunteering

He works full time

Clearly no one is doing the finance work in this marriage. She isn’t out of the house enough to not be able to manage any housework and admin and if she is then she probably needs to prioritise that because it seems to be one of most people’s priorities to know and manage your finances.

She’s asking her DH a hypothetical threat type of question - to do the school runs and help more - to try to make him back down and see her POV not in a serious capacity of please step up and help, I want to get back into work but ‘see what you would have to do/lose if you made me do this’

That’s not good communication and it’s not what you seem to think this situation is about

I'm surprised at the couple of posters trying to argue she shouldn't work.

I wonder if they do? They seem to be highly defensive of a woman needing to do wife work which would then preclude her from paid employment.

Apparently it's thr 1950s

Your job as a midday supervisor- do you mean SMSA or lunchtime assistant that is 5 hours a week, term time only max?

Could you not find a part time job for 2.5/3 days a week? You need to work out finances and see how much better off a month you will be.

I know everyone's circumstances are different but I think if you have children all in primary school age then you should be looking for work if your husband is finding it hard to make ends meet. It would be a shame to miss out on that money later in life because you didn't want to get a job to help with bills.

PookieDo

I don’t think the OP is allowed to manage the finances. I would be very interested to know the actual terms of the will.

But no, she doesn’t want to go back to work at the moment. She wants to be at home for her primary age children. I think that’s fine. If they genuinely can’t afford it without touching the children’s inheritances, then obviously she needs to work. If they can, and her DH is withholding money for his own use while expecting her to make her own life harder (but not his) as well as disrupt their family life for their kids, that’s not okay. If he has better ideas about what to do with the money he should be discussing them with the OP.

You need some legal/financial advice. Your FIL didnt pay off mortgage you DH inheritance did....what happens if FIL dies. Is money tied up in bonds?

And are those bonds/accounts in DH's name? God forbid that they're in FIL's name and will be treated as FIL's should he end up in a care home.

*I wonder if they do? They seem to be highly defensive of a woman needing to do wife work which would then preclude her from paid employment.

Apparently it's thr 1950s*

It’s not the 1950s. This isn’t a woman who is being pressured to remain in the home. It is a woman whose preference is to remain in the home rather than work AND do the work of the home. Different.