Who is BU?

[hdha]

2 people, person A and person B.

Person A is a SAHM. A receives money from parents £200 a month. This goes towards birthdays, wedding, fathers/mothers day, clothes, items for baby. This money is rarely spent on A unless needed.

Person B says that A should give the £200 to B as it's 'fun money'. B says that normal SAHMs put any money they get into family money for it to be shared. A agrees with this, however, A has no access to B's money therefore this means that A would have to ask for money if anything is needed. A wouldn't be comfortable doing this.

Who is BU?

B is unreasonable.
A's parents obviously thought B was allowing A open access to their earnings so were contributing on A's behalf to the pot.

I'm sure if A's parents knew what B was like they'd want A to keep the money to themselves.

I think A should split anyway, as B is financially abusive

I don't understand any of this.
Why do parents contribute money towards adult children's relationship?
Why does someone only do a 3 day week andvtgen other work zero.

Why must we guess A B and the relationship.
Just tell us what the hell is going on here.

B either puts all their money into a joint account, or is a hypocrite with no claim on anything A receives.

B is a selfish tight arse.

donoteat one does not 'not work at all' they have a baby at home. 3 days a week, if you earn enough in those 3 days, which he obviously does as he gets to keep all the money to himself, is a perfectly valid choice. Obviously the couple SHOULD ideally decide to not rely on the parents and work 5 days if thats whats needed but that's not really the issue here. The problem is SAHM to a very young child having to be bailed out by her parents because the father is financially controlling.

A (you) needs to think about how they ended up in this position. Entirely the fault of abusive B, or also a series of poor decision of their own?

SAHM, no access to family money, no idea what B earns, happy to take pocket money off their parents without that being a trigger that their relationship is seriously wrong?

As a family, A & B can afford a SAHP, a 3 day week and expensive technology. Therefore, Family AB are taking the piss accepting pocket money from A’s parents, who think they need it to pay bills. Get some bloody pride!

Now if Parents of A want to give A a fuckton of money to get the hell out of this shitshow, that is fine and no an issue of pride at all.

B is a financially controlling twat and A needs to get a job and get their own money because they are getting screwed over.

Although B sounds financially abusive, it does seem that both A’s parents and B infantilise A. Why is that? Why do A’a parents think A needs help towards bills?

B is a twat. If I was A I would tell them where to go and the only way it would change is to have a joint account and full access to all funds and the ability to use them

I might also say something to B along the lines of how sad I have to be to be supported by my parents as you won’t

When the £200 is being spent on 'birthdays, wedding, fathers/mothers day, clothes, items for baby' it's not fun money it's joint costs, which should come out of joint income.

Person A is looking after the baby so needs access to joint funds or needs to go back to work and A and B share childcare costs and other domestic responsibilities.

WTF is Person B getting the CB when Person A needs it for their NI contributions for their pension? I hope it's in person A's name even if it goes into Person Bs account.

If Person B can afford Macbooks and other expensive non essentials then Person B owes Person A money, not the other way around.

Put all income into a joint account and pay for all joint costs, ie anything for the household or child out of this money including a pension for Person A.

Both parties should equally split what's left so they both have access to their own money.

Person C is BVU.

@HugeAckmansWife

donoteat one does not 'not work at all' they have a baby at home. 3 days a week, if you earn enough in those 3 days, which he obviously does as he gets to keep all the money to himself, is a perfectly valid choice. Obviously the couple SHOULD ideally decide to not rely on the parents and work 5 days if thats whats needed but that's not really the issue here. The problem is SAHM to a very young child having to be bailed out by her parents because the father is financially controlling.

One works 3 days the other works no days in paid employment but gets 200 a month off their parents for bills. It's odd. I'd be thinking you can get a part time job so I don't have to give you money every month for your bills if I was the parents.

B doesn't earn enough in 3 days if A is given money for bills.

It's weird.

A needs to wake up and realise that B is being financially abusive but why on Earth do A's parents think they should be contributing to the bills? B clearly isn't short of money.

The whole set up is dysfunctional unless you've missed out some relavant information

If you are comfortably off, why are you taking £200 per month off your parents OP?

@ChicChaos

If you are comfortably off, why are you taking £200 per month off your parents OP?

Because her husband is financially abusive maybe?

But the parents think it's going on bills. Maybe they can see a couple with a baby who only work 3 days a week between them and assume that they must be struggling to cover the basics?

@hdha

This came about because A's parents came and said they assumed the money was going on bills. Meaning they thought A was giving it to B. A assumed they were giving the money to support A because A gets no other money. A sent B the £200 but B is now saying that forget about the money they don't want it.

B is a cunt and A should save up and leave.

Person A should be getting the child benefit; it will mean that they get National Insurance credits until their child is 12. That's really important for a SAHM.

I dont think the 200 matters. I think what matters is if both partners have decided between them that one will be a SAHP then both partners should have equal access to money and be able to spend the same amount on things for themself. One shouldn't expect to have more 'spends' because they earnt it, leaving the other either with none or having to ask permission to buy something (unless the main earner also asks permission because money is shared)

A and B are married and share a dc? B is financially controlling and massively BU

A should have realised long ago that having no access to the family finances and needing to rely on parents' charity is a dangerous situation to be in, especially now that B is demanding that too, clearly threatened at the idea of A having money of their own.

@Amdone123 exactly what l was going to write! My ex husband was the same, one of the many reasons why l divorced him

B is unreasonable and is financially abusive from what you have written. I can see why they want A a SAHP so they can control and manipulate them

As B told A to be a sahm, they shoumd give A access to some money.

If B doesn't want to share everything with A that's fair enough but they should open a joint account with :

• all bill money
• rent etc
• whatever kids need
• fun money for A (amount to be agreed together but must be a reasonable percentage of B's income, say 10-15%, obviously it'll depend on what B's income is)

B should transfer the necessary amount from their account every month to this joint account.

And A should start looking for a job asap as I wouldn't want to depend on B for money, when they don't seem to want to share.

Forgot to add, B is definitely being a controlling cunt.