Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

About my children's inheritance?

999 replies

BonyPony · 12/08/2019 10:20

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?)

OP posts:
LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:02

He has benefited from having the OP at home to raise his children for a decade, and if there is a longer term financial cost to that, he needs to accept it

Who’s going to make him ‘accept it’?

Their family finances are their own business. They need to both be on board. If not then 🤷‍♀️

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:03

She has also benefitted from not having to support herself for years. That was fine while it lasted.

Now he wants a new arrangement.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:04

*Who’s going to make him ‘accept it’?

Their family finances are their own business. They need to both be on board. If not then 🤷‍♀️*

I expect his wife will, when she doesn’t jump at the first cleaning job she finds.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 10:05

Childcare might not need it
School holiday childcare yes this needs to be discussed
New working wardrobe and additional transport cost not nessacarily since OP already works an hour and travels an hour a day.
Cleaning and additional food costs op doesnt currently eat lunch?

I have an MSc and the same level of qualifications as DH and he knows this full-well. It’s not that I’m not willing to go back to work. But I would expect an open and supportive discussion about it, that’s all. Not, “Yes well thanks for looking after my DC for 16 years while I fly round the world and work as and when I see fit with no other demands on me whatsoever, but I’ve over-extended now, as it turns out. Therefore, I deem you lazy, so get a job as a dinner lady because actually you have no choice these days, do you? Unlike me. And no, I’m not prepared to reconsider accessing any of the money I have off-shore or tied up in my investment portfolio. Thanks very much.”

And pp hasnt even hinted any of that happened.

Neither has she said both her and her dh are good at handling money. They are not. This isnt money OP and her dh have saved for their kids. Its money that her husbands mother left for them. The father in law has been asked to look after......because the pp and her dh make poor money choices. Such as another big mortgage.

No where has it said the dh has called her lazy.

And missing the biggest fact of all out the op has never said her husband is sitting on money. The fact that she wants the kids money, is surely a sign he has no money.

Or are you suggesting that the OP knows or suspects the dh has loads of money, but still wants to spend the kids instead.

The situation above is nothing like the ops. At all.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:05

Now he wants a new arrangement.

But there is no reason he should get to dictate that new arrangement, is there? Who made him the boss?

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 10:07

I really hate the 'he has benefitted from her being a sahm'

Yes, he may have.

But she has also benefitted from him going out to work because she wants to be a sahm.

Its mutually beneficial. She hasnt done hom some huge favour anymore than he has done her one.

They had a set up that worked. It doesnt work anymore.

All the speculation that he has loads of money, is just that speculation. Based in nothing g the OP has actually said.

Just being spouted by posters who, clearly feel that women who want to be sahm should be allowed to be just because.

Its ridiculous.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 10:09

But there is no reason he should get to dictate that new arrangement, is there? Who made him the boss?

Because there is no money.

Proved by the fact that the OP is considering using the kids money.

I dont believe any mother would even contemplate this unless she is sure it's a last resort. I wouldnt contemplate it even then. But surely no one thinks of this as plan A?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:11

Wishihad

But that makes no sense, Wish. Yes, it was a setup that benefited both, but the OP is the one of the two who will, as a result, find it harder to attain the same level of earnings as the other. Why should she be the only one to keep paying the cost of an arrangement that benefited both? Why should he be the one who is allowed to dictate the timing? Why should he - as may be the case - be able to make decisions about the family finances with his dad rather than his wife?

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:12

But there is no reason he should get to dictate that new arrangement, is there? Who made him the boss?

She can’t make him support her. Or do you know of some legal action she can take?!?!

The default for ppl is that they support themselves or rely on benefits. Being supported by someone else is dependent on that person willingly signing up.

I get that you have issues accepting this. But this isn’t about your situation. There are lots of SAHP situations which work beautifully because everyone wants the same thing.

The OPs is not one of them.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:12

Because there is no money.

The OP thinks otherwise. Why?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:12

She can’t make him support her. Or do you know of some legal action she can take?!?!

Yes, of course he could abandon his wife and children financially. But it would be he divorce court next, wouldn’t it?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:13

*the

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:15

Also hercule you’re taking a very snotty tone towards low paying jobs. That’s not nice.

Plenty of people wait tables and clean to support their families and there should be nothing but admiration for people who do an honest day’s work to provide for their children.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:15

The default for ppl is that they support themselves or rely on benefits. Being supported by someone else is dependent on that person willingly signing up.

Are you married, Laurie? Last I checked, my DH did agree to support me, when he married me.

virginmojito · 13/08/2019 10:15

Of course couples with a SAHM arrangement both feel that they benefit, albeit in different ways.

If they didn’t both feel like that, they wouldn’t do it would they?

But berating a woman who has been a SAHM for a long period for the fact that her earning potential is perhaps not what it could have been, is as unfair as berating the DH for the fact that he’s spent less time and had less input in his children’s lives.

As well as benefits both ways, there are also sacrifices both ways. It’s a double-edged sword really, but it’s not fair to use that sword to beat each other with.

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:16

But it would be he divorce court next, wouldn’t it?

Yes. It often comes to that in these kind of situations.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:16

Also hercule you’re taking a very snotty tone towards low paying jobs. That’s not nice.

I’ve done low paying jobs, and no, they’re not nice. I would do it again if I had to. But I am not going to pretend it would be anything other than depressing, or that I would be willing to do it AND all the work in the home so that my DH could sit on his pile of coins. Fuck that.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:17

Yes. It often comes to that in these kind of situations.

And it would, if my DH and the father of my kids told me he was going to opt out of supporting us unless I went and jumped on the first minimum wage job I could find, but only school hours, and that he and his dad were going to make our financial decisions for us.

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:18

Last I checked, my DH did agree to support me, when he married me.

Erm what bit of the marriage vows covered ‘man provides financially for wife for ever more?’

strawberrypenguin · 13/08/2019 10:18

Your DH needs to get control of the account with his money in if it given as part of the will FIL has no right to control it.

Having said that, you should absolutely get a job. If your youngest will only need wrap around for a year I'm sure they're old enough to manage. 'Household admin' is a crap excuse to not work, what do you think those of us who work full time do? Get a job and support your family.

LaurieMarlow · 13/08/2019 10:19

so that my DH could sit on his pile of coins. Fuck that.

Personally I think a good amount of savings are important.

Clearly the OP is never going to provide them, so the OP realises it’s down to him.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 10:22

But that makes no sense, Wish. Yes, it was a setup that benefited both, but the OP is the one of the two who will, as a result, find it harder to attain the same level of earnings as the other. Why should she be the only one to keep paying the cost of an arrangement that benefited both? Why should he be the one who is allowed to dictate the timing? Why should he - as may be the case - be able to make decisions about the family finances with his dad rather than his wife?

He is already working. So should he get a second job? OP clearly has lots of time, she volunteers.

Her going back to work now, is better for her earning power than doing it later.

No one, not even the OP said she needed to earnee what he does. Ir even work full time.

The father is making decisions because he asked to.

I wonder why. When the ops answer to financial problems is to rinse her kids.

The money the OP has said is there is the kids. She hasnt talked about tapping her DHS money. Or even that there is anything substantial left.

The money she wants is the kids. That's the only money she is talking about.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:24

Clearly the OP is never going to provide them, so the OP realises it’s down to him.

It doesn’t give him the right to dictate finances to her. I don’t care who provides what; husband and wife are equal within a marriage. This isn’t the 19th century.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 10:24

But berating a woman who has been a SAHM for a long period for the fact that her earning potential is perhaps not what it could have been, is as unfair as berating the DH for the fact that he’s spent less time and had less input in his children’s lives.

No one has berated her for being a sahm.

But for trying to figure out how to steal her children's money when it's no longer affordable.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 10:25

The money the OP has said is there is the kids. She hasnt talked about tapping her DHS money. Or even that there is anything substantial left.

She did, in the very first post.

Swipe left for the next trending thread