AIBU to think we should split things 50/50

[coolestmum]

I have been in a relationship now for some time and we are thinking of moving in together. Because I have children we are going to have to rent/buy a bigger house than we would if no children were involved. (He has no children, so currently has a small affordable home).
I was assuming that as we were basically becoming partners that we would just split things 50/50 in terms of rent/mortgage, bills, food and then spend out on things that come up as and when. He has alot of hobbies which cost money, for example, I have none.
But he is giving the impression that because of the children, he is not expecting to pay 50%, but less than that as they are not his children. I do totally get this, and do not want him to be burdoned with paying for them, but on the other hand he wants to live with me and I happen to come with dependant children.
The other issue is I receive money off my council tax, some housing benefit and tax credits because my wage is not very high. He earns around 3 times what I do. This benefit and tax credits keeps us afloat and when we live together I will lose that as his income will be taken into account, quite rightly.
I think this means that although he'll be contributing towards our family, by living together if he is not going into this 50/50 i'll be way worse off as I'll be losing the current help I have which is essential for us to pay bills. I am currently undergoing training through work which means that in a couple of years I will earn significantly more, but that is a couple of years away and I can't count on it until it actually happens, if you see what I mean.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I can do, or has been in this situation and what worked for them? Or what is actually fair in this type of scenario?
I don't want him to be financially responsible for my children, but on the other hand by becoming a family and living together I feel he should contribute accordingly instead of continuing to think he can fund his life like a single person would. Their father pays nothing at all.

I think moving forward you'd need to explain what you'll be losing if you live together. I wouldn't expect him to foot the bill for your kids considering their Dad doesn't even pay a penny for them so I can understand his reservations but equally if you'll lose out financially then the money will need to be topped up.

But why does the money need to be topped up only for OP? Her partner's money won't get topped up if he ends up being the one to pay more?

I think it depends on whether it's a case of OP being worse off, or actually being unable to afford what's being asked of her. If it would leave OP totally skint to pay more than half, then that's a scenario that needs to be addressed with the boyfriend.

However, if it's just a case of either OP or her partner being worse off once they've moved in together, then surely it's only fair that that falls to the person with the requirement for the larger and more expensive property?

If I was moving in with someone who had teens and pre-teens x3, I would not want to pay 50% either.
I know you come as a package but it does seem a bit unfair on him.
Just live separately for a couple more years and then think about moving in together.
You cannot be worse off and equally, he should not be expected to support your older children.

He doesn't love you or he'd be happy to merge all the finances.

This is rubbish . I love my DH but I am not going to pay 50/50 for his older teens and I am certainly not going to offer up all my assets to him . He is the same.

When I moved in with my DP we saw it as a long term thing so we split all costs 50/50 apart from childcare which I continued to pay myself. He understood by him moving in we were becoming a family so I'd be losing my tax credits etc.

When we got married we started a joint account so all our money is one pot now anyway so my eldest childcare (and mine and DH joint children all come from
One source anyway)

I put my maintenance for DS1 into the joint pot

He doesn't sound like good stepdad material.

In fact he sounds selfish.

I've been the dec in a relationship like this, it's extremely painful and they will feel unwanted. Because let's be honest, he'd probably rather they don't exist.

It doesn't do wonders for the self-esteem I can tell you!

My advice would be to put the move off till you’ve completed your training and you are on a more equal financial footing. Even if you suggest this and he says at this point he will contribute 50/50, don’t do it
You are then putting him in financial control and if anything happens to him/between you, you will be left in a mess. Just wait.

If he earns three times what you do, then the way you should divide your expenses are: For all your shared expenses, he should pay three times what you pay. Also, he should make up the difference for whatever you lose for your council benefits. This is the normal arrangement. If your children would lose money for uni because he is living in the home, that should be his responsibility as well.

You need a proper discussion as said.

Expectations around housework and household management.

What he expects of your teens. Will he interfere with your Parenting?

How he views young adults at college/uni etc. He might not understand why you'd still want to offer support etc.

You've been caught up in the romantic aspect and not sorted out the practical.

I've never seen this situation turn out well, especially for the children.

My mum did this. Lost all benefits and her 'partner' didn't make up any loss. I got a job when I was 16 and moved out as I was so sick of being poor and scrounging for money.

My dh is not my dc dad. Pays more than 50% though, much higher earner than me. He knew I had children and they came as part of the deal. There's no way I'd make myself poorer to be with a man.

I was in this situation and we agreed that we would things out so that we'd both end up with similar disposable income. This means that he had less left over than he used to so was losing out when I had more but his disposable income was just for him whereas mine was to share with the kids. It seemed fair though as he was losing out quite a bit. This was though on the understanding that I worked FT, that I got all I could from their father and we'd already talked of getting married at this point.

He also paid for all the house maintenance, almost always paid when we went out just the two of us and holidays all together were paid 50/50.

I wouldn’t bother moving in with him and would start to question if I wanted to be in a relationship with that man.

Like you say, you come with dependant children. My partner has 2 children who stay every other week and we live together and I wouldn’t dream of suggesting I wasn’t going to pay 50/50 due to his children. I think it’s just plain rude and even worse he’s opened his mouth and actually said it to you.

If you’re going to be worse off living together, stay where you are with your stability.

He’s not a knob - I don’t think he should have to pay in full for kids that are it his. However there’s a compromise positioncompensating you for your loss of benefits I’m sure. My partner lives with me. He contributes to the household but i’ve Never expected him to pay for my DD for anything other than the odd gift/ splitting meals out 50/50 -

See, living together is supposed to be about partnership, and if there are dc, the incoming person is joining a family, not becoming part of a couple. Ideally both of you should benefit from living together.

A friend of mine has a teenaged son - her partner moved in with her and shortly afterwards she was diagnosed with a debilitating condition that meant she can no longer work.Because of his wage, she's not entitled to any benefits and the dc's father is a deadbeat. Now where would she magic up the money to support her son and enable him to get to the college course he's studying if her partner took the view that her son is entirely her responsibility? Because he's a good man and a true partner to her, he covers all that. And he's much loved by the family he has joined and is joyfully "grandpa" to her older child's children.

What's the point of a partner who doesn't or wouldn't step up for you and your family?

@category12
Joining a family doesn’t mean paying for and having financial responsibility for THREE children that aren’t yours.

I don't think he should pay for your children but I don't think you should be worse of either, if I were you I would wait. My dp doesn't pay for my dc but I didn't get any benefits so known to lose,by dp moving in we are both better of

Yes it does, if you're becoming a step-parent. Three or more, you're hardly unaware of their existence. If you don't want to take on the person's children, don't live with them. Because what happens if things go wrong, as they did for my friend whose ill-health took away her earning power. If her partner took your view, where would she be?

I totally agree with category12 you're joining a family. If you don't want to be a family member, don't move in.

I had a "step dad" who lived with us for a decade but was very clear he wasn't prepared to take on that role. He was basically a lodger who had (loud) sex with dm.

Dsis and I were young. DC naturally love father figures, It was horribly confusing and we felt very unwanted.

He's putting himself first and you haven't even started to live together.

He's awful.

Please don’t rush into this. I think it sounds way too risky right now for you and will quickly fail if you are not both in agreement

I am on the side of many where I agree he should not be expected to pay for children that are not his but equally this is the deal he is signing up for. He will benefit from a large house and should be signing up to family life. He needs to know the full situation and you should never ever do this if you are going to be worse off.

category12
Parents have responsibility for their children. Step-parents don’t. 99% of the women on here squealing that he is being selfish, doesn’t want to be a family would never pay for and financially raise three teenage children that weren’t theres.

It doesn’t happen in real life. No one wants to spend their money raising other people’s children. Absolutely no one.

If she was receiving money from EX and could financially support her children alone then it would be a different situation but she would be dependent on a man who isn’t there father supporting them.
Once again, not real life.

@PookieDo

How will he benefit from a larger house? He doesn’t need one, she needs one. Increased rent/mortgage, increased electricity, three teenagers eat a lot. He’s the one at a loss.

I gave you a real life example. And I grew up in a step family where, although things weren't perfect, at least there wasn't this "my money" thing going on, thank christ.

If you're not joining forces, if you're not partners who look out for each other, if you don't see your stepchildren as part of your family, there's no point living together. In fact it's potentially harmful for the dc for you to live together if they're to grow up feeling unwanted, a nuisance and a drain, and if you're going to be that kind of step-parent, you should walk away.

And it's laughable to say the man here doesn't gain from moving into a bigger house. He wants to move in with op, the house she has is too small to include him - he's the reason they're planning on moving, otherwise she'd stay where she is. It's for his comfort as much as anyone. He gains the status of larger home - and the joys of a house full of children. If he's not positive about sharing with the children then he should not be pursuing living together.

I really don't understand why some of you think this is ok. This man is putting up a barrier before even moving in. If this relationship is to last forever then so would his relationship with those children, he should want to work on that and be part of their lives or not get involved at all. Living together requires everyone, particularly the adults, to work as a team and a family. Everyone working individually for their own benefit and never mind what happens to the others means problems will lie ahead when each one needs occasional support. That isn't a family and it can't possibly be good for the mental health of the children caught up in it, who should be able to rely on the adults close to them for any and all support that they need. Quite apart from the children, it's a horrible attitude towards OP and makes it very clear that this man isn't in the relationship for the long haul, but for the convenience he can get out of it. It's much more practical to stay living separately if you only want sex and an occasional date.

Nobody is wrong or right here.

He is right to feel it's unfair for him to pay more because of your children - but I think this would be justifiable if the relationship was only a year or two old.

You've been discussing marriage right? So you have probably been together three or more years?

In that situation, I think the kids do kind of become his responsibility too.

I had a dad who never paid a penny. Luckily my step dad was such a generous man. He and my mum and us all moved in together after a year. He always treated us like his own. He was by far the higher earner. Now, 30 years later, he is my dad and I love him.

In your boyfriends situation, I would be protecting my interests in the fest year or two. But after that, if I wanted to be with you, I would be considering us all a unit.

In short, I think this man is probably a decent man, and on paper, in black and white terms, he is right. However, life isn't black and white, and emotionally, hes in the wrong from my perspective, despite being technically right.

This is tricky !
He doesn’t have to pay for your children.
If he moves in the children will see him as part of their family. In those circs it’s damaging for children to have an ambivalent parent figure - one who loves with them but doesn’t contribute for them.
If he’s not able to be a full parental figure your family (and be jointly caring and providing, with you, for the children in your family) then you’re just not ready to move in together. At all.
Keep it as it is.

Of course you benefit if you move to a larger house. He is 100% responsible for his small house but wants to be 25% responsible for a bigger one.