DH cross I have questioned bank statement

[bank100]

Name changed for this.

DH and I have a joint current account that we both use for pretty much everything. DH is generally the one to keep an eye on our account and look out for any error transactions.

Today I had a good look through the Dec transactions as I noticed the balance was lower that usual. We are expecting a baby next month and was hoping the balance would look a bit healthier. I made a list of things I hadn't realised we were spending on. Including £100 he'd spent at various pubs (after work drinks), £100 cash withdrawn for imo no reason, £50+ at a sports venue, £70 on another hobby & numerous starbucks etc.

His reaction to me questioning these things was to grab my list, shout that he earns most of the money so he's allowed to spend on whatever he wants. He then tried to find things I had spent on... literally couldn't, I don't spend much on myself. There was one cheap beauty appointment. So was IBU for questioning this, or is he being U for being so cross? I feel weird about it.

I can see both sides. On one hand it’s not just his money as you are facilitating him earning it in the first place by doing childcare that he’d otherwise need to pay for.

On the other hand as a PP has said I’d be fizzing if my husband asked me to justify what I’d spent spending money on. If he was leaving you short to pay bills or gambling money away then I’d appreciate the concern of course however given you’re already in a bit of a privileged position by being able to save £400 a month it doesn’t seem the worst thing to go a bit overboard at Christmas.

I don't think 70 or so on a hobby and an extra 50 is that much. The rest seems reasonable considering it was Xmas.

Personally I wouldn't mention to my partner every thing extra I spend money on from time to time; in particular if I am the higher earner.

It's only one month not being able to put 400 aside. I get a baby is coming but it doesn't hurt to spoil yourself sometimes and live a little.

Anyway of he handles the finances how do you know he hasn't done this before? By your own admission he normally controls them.

If you earn half of what he does then maybe you need to split your money more equally. So you each have respective bank accounts and then a joint one for bill's and a joint one for savings. You each contribute based on what you earn.

I think you're being petty.

Among my friends, all the women earn similar to the men. Some earn more. Some earn less.

And that argument you had sums up exactly why we each have a personal account for personal spends. I would hate DH questioning expenses he deemed unnecessary, and he would hate me doing the same.

To prevent this happening again (baby classes, baby clothes, coffee and cake with new mum friends) I'd get you each to work out a budget for your personal spends and transfer that amount in to your own accounts each month.

Don't be so ludicrous, I'm sure he could still earn what he does with a child minder caring for his kid.

Not necessarily. My husband and I used to have the same high earning job we'd regularly need to work late and it would be frowned upon to take time off for a sick child. Only one of us would be able to continue with that career with children. Likewise obviously you'd have to pay for childcare.

This works really well. Im funding my own maternity leave (eg, i continue to pay my half of bills etc and he hands me money equivalent to childcare). This is because we would be much better off if i worked, i dont see why he should subsidize me to be off work for a year when I'm not offering that to him. Thus zero resentment, no question abour what each of us spends.

You are not “offering” him that because he has no womb and it’s impossible for him to carry a baby, give birth or breast feed. What a bizarre way to think about mat leave when you’ve had a baby TOGETHER. We just have 1 pot of money, my husband isn’t subsidising anything, we had a child (well 2) together, it just happens as the female I do the carrying the baby bit and I have the boobs to breastfeed, therefore I take the time off to look after the baby.

@ChocolateTeapots1

By the sounds of it, he spent all the disposable income. She has said that because of his extra spending, there isn't enough money to put aside their usual savings. That money is both of theirs. He spent it all.
As you say, it was xmas and people spend more so what if OP had decide to withdraw £100, and spend extra money on a hobby and go for a few drinks? Without discussing it or checking money was available like he did? They would have ended up possibly overdrawn, since it sounds like he spent all the leftover which usually gets put into savings.
He wasnt spending money which has been agreed as spending money. He was spending their joint savings money, leaving her with nothing to spend if she chose too and taking away her savings that month. She works and also saves the family money by doing all the childcare. She is just as entitled to spending money as him because he wouldn't have that leftover if he had to pay for childcare. But she got left with nothing extra that month and no savings contribution... all without any discussion.

Sorry @NoIDontWatchLoveIsland, I saw that, I meant as a bigger conversational piece - why are women generally the lower earners

My and DP earn almost the same and it has meant the conversations on maternity leave / pay etc are quite easy, has meant we will do shared parental leave and be able to equally contribute. I think it’s quite a luxurious position because it means there is no resentment or feeling of being unequal in a financial sense

Just sort of thinking why it’s so often women who earn less even before they think go on maternity leave

@ChocolateTeapots1

Christmas events and presents already accounted for. These were additional.

I'm not resentful of him spending, just that it feels like I have no right to know about it or even ask.

OP - did you agree together to save the £400 a month?

@pumpandthump
Baby classes and baby clothes are a joint expense not an expense which is solely her responsibility. Let's say they each have £100 personal spends a month. But she has to pay £20 for baby classes and then £30 on baby clothes. That leaves her with £50 to spend on herself, while he still has £100. Do you think if the roles were reversed, he would accept that difference?

@chocolateteapots1

Only 1% of women in the UK are still bf at 6 months. Many mothers return to work at 6 months and use a nursery. For most couples it should be perfectly acceptable for the father to take SPL and do 6 months off after the mother. By choosing to bf exclusively, i made it very difficult for my husband to exercise his right as a father to choose to have SPL. I dont expect him to subsidise me to stay off work for over a year, when he won't get the chance to have some time off himself.

Lol lulualla

Baby classes are not for the baby lol. They are totally unnecessary and are mainly a social event for the mother!

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

What about baby clothes? Are those totally for the mother?
They have older kids, what about their clothes, sports classes, school supplies etc? Are those all coming out of mum's personal spends? And again, if the roles were reversed, do you think he would accept being told "this is what you're allowed to spend personally each month, but the child related costs come out of that so watch what you do. I will keep my personal spends all for my personal stuff".

And babies do benefit from music classes etc. Or does anything before 12months of age not benefit the child?

But then there is no impact to the op’s career which has worried some posters. Sure, it comes at a cost but her career would go on unaffected.

I'm confused - I pointed out to a PP that OP's cut in hours is helping to subsidise his take-home pay because there's no childcare cost. I know that if OP worked FT her career would be preserved

Don't be so ludicrous, I'm sure he could still earn what he does with a child minder caring for his kid.

Yeah but the child minder won't take the kid when ill, won't prepare their lunch boxes, PE kits, World Book Day costumes etc., won't arrange the playdates, birthday parties, after school clubs, medical appointments etc, won't get up in the middle of the night to care for a sick child etc.

Can we lose the idea that a SAHM is just like a childminder?

Shocking to me that women think its 'his' money and he should not be questioned. Are we living in the 1950's. And also saying 'it depends how you said it'. Fuck that, you have as much right to read the bank statements as him and you can say it how you bloody like. You are pregnant and looking after the kids and it is your money as much as his and frankly he is a greedy, entitled cunt and this is bordering on financial abuse. This OP needs support not questioning how she bloody said things.

I’d be very irritated by my OH checking what I’ve spent each month and questioning it. Especially if I’d earnt that money myself.

You sound very controlling, OP. I would hate to have to justify my airbrush to my OH.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland
The aim is £500 per month but that's never reached. It's usually something close to £400. He decided this target and i'm all for it.

*spending

Lulualla

Of course baby/childrens clothes are a shared expense.

There are lots of free ways to share music with your baby without needing to go to an overpriced group. Libraries & churches usually have free sessions, anyone can sing nursery rhymes. You really don't need to spend a lot at all on activities in a baby's first year.

screaming You do realise parents that work full time manage all that, don’t you?

Why is it controlling for her to do it one month, when it is a joint account with her money in it too (and he spent all the spare money leaving none for her if she wanted it)? But its not controlling for him to do it every month and spend whatever he likes, whilst she doesnt spend anything on herself despite that money being hers too?