To think this is unfair or should I just accept it as I’m an adult too?

[Shortslothdancing]

I had some time out of work when my children were little as a sahm (biggest regret ever) and I’ve gone back to work in the last couple of years, 25 hours a week. I pick up about £1100 a month. Not great.
DH picks up (after tax) approx £5500 a month, he has a company car, a petrol card and a work mobile phone. Although he pays tax on those benefits. We don’t have a mortgage but he does cover the bills from his wages - around £1800 a month, including some of the food bill.
From my £1100 I pay for my phone, my petrol (I still do all the schools runs and taking the kids to clubs etc), my road tax / insurance, about £250 a month of food, kids’ clothes, birthday / Christmas presents (obviously an annual cost, but I try and save a bit each month) and the childcare bill for wrap around - it’s not that much, usually about £60 a month.
phone - £45
petrol - £200
tax / insurance - £50
food - £250
saving for birthdays and Christmas - £50
childcare - £60
clothes for children - varies but I usually allow approx £50 a month as one child is now a teenager and there are three of them.

pocket money for all three dc - £80
This comes to around £800 leaving me about £300 a month. DH is now refusing to pay for school lunches for oldest dc. Two younger ones have sandwiches. The oldest likes to get lunch with his mates at school. This is about £15 a week, so it’ll be another £60 a month.

this will leave me with about £240. I’m sure that is loads to a lot of people at the moment and I probably shouldn’t be complaining but it feels unfair that I am tracking every leftover penny vs DH with his £3.5k left after household bills.
I do all the housework and childcare even though I work 25 hours.
yanbu - yes it’s unfair
yabu - you’re an adult and responsible for yourself and should increase your hours / work harder / take a second job and count yourself lucky that you are overall in a fortunate financial situation.

Oh here we go - DifferentPlanet has no other posts on MN. Joined just to put the boot in here I wonder?🤔

I get all this crap from my ex.

I have to pay for everything child related. And all my own expenses. And I do 99% of childcare when not at school.

It’s not fair but the massive upside is it has set me free to see him for what he is.

I am lucky in that right now I earn enough myself (just) to be able to do it, but it hasn’t always been this way.

All I can say OP is that the law is on your side. The children are a joint responsibility and a court would look at all their expenses, not just a roof over their heads and sandwiches to eat, when considering appropriate child support payments.

Nope - name changed but glad you're putting the search button to good use!

I'm not sure how I'm putting the boot in. I've said that I think that the contributions are skewed. I'm just saying that I don't agree that this is financial abuse.

No - I am not a man

I'm not sure why the OP going full time and the husband going PT isn't deemed a viable option

Go back to work full time and show your intention to contribute financially - can you train to improve your prospects?

However, assuming you are both doing your best to maximise your earning potential, i think the fairest approach is to prorate how you each contribute to bills based on your relative income.

Eg if all shared costs total £3000.
Adult one earns 4000
Adult two earns 2000

Costs should split:
Adult 1: 2000
Adult 2: 1000

This tends to fall down/cause resentment where one adult isn't willing to work full time/maximise their earnings so the other is constantly subsidising them, or where there are shared costs not being accounted for (often children related) and the lower earning is footing the bill for them and left with nothing. I think your scenario is a little like this - your DH is paying all the big bills, as he earns more, but there are shared costs you are taking that are leaving you too short.

Your DH is being unreasonable if he's spending away from his higher income (you are partners....!) But he is not being unreasonable if actually there are loads of shared savings that he's putting away out of his surplus.

I was just so shocked by your attitude I thought you must have another agenda.

You'd have about the same as a single parent but you'd have less housework to do. What's the point of him?

No agenda - just a viewpoint

As mentioned - I don't think that the OP should be paying all the "child expenses" (although I'm not sure that taking a packed lunch to school is tantamount to child cruelty) but I still don't agree that this is financial abuse

The OP simply has less money than the husband to spend once their outgoings are done

Definitely, that financial support/security of being able to draw from your partner's account/card is something I see as a very positive feature of marriage! And if someone has given up/reduced work hours to care for children, it's very necessary.

I think this sums the situation up perfectly.

I don’t get this separate money thing with couples, all our money goes into the same bank accounts. We never have to discuss or even think about who’s paying for what. It’s all about trust, if there’s no trust the relationship is not worth having.
Perhaps you should have a serious discussion and set out a financial plan.

Op working 37 not 25 Hours isn’t going to benefit her as he sees the 3 children as her hobby to be paid for solely by her. By time she’s paid more childcare and holiday childcare she’s not going to be better off. Retraining etc takes a supportive husband eg he’s not going to be caring for them or taking them to classes so she can study.

Why isn't the young lad who likes to eat out....paying for himself? Is he old enough to have a part time job? Why can't he pay for his lunches (if he doesn't want sandwiches) out of his pocket money?

Did DH pay off the mortage....has he sorted that out himself, meaning he contributed the house?

So, the child having a packed lunch - no big deal

The OP has very little personal money - no big deal

The "D"H has thousands (literally) to himself?

And you honestly think this is the way that family life and marriage works?

You sound incredibly money motivated and have no idea of what is right or wrong in a marriage.

Agreed!

If Op has a big expense eg car repair or can’t work due to Illness and on ssp she has no money and children miss out. I can’t see how anyone thinks it’s acceptable that child has hole in school shoes, outgrown football boots, misses the school panto trip as she can’t afford any of that but dad has thousands spare. With 3 children there are always expenses - clothes, activities, school. It’s no way for a family to live.

This.

@DifferentPlanet

Do you think a fundamentally decent person (of either sex) would be happy for their partner (of either sex) to have £3k a year spending money for working 25 hours a week plus doing all housework and cleaning, while they have £42k a year spending money for working full time plus doing no housework and cleaning?

Housework and childcare that was meant to say.

We used to contribute 2/3 of our income to the join account and keep the remaining third for personal use. Seems a fair solution

If OP's eldest prefers to have a hot meal at school and his Dad has 3.5k disposable income every month I think that's very unreasonable to expect a teenager to pay for his own school lunches. It would be a different matter if the was from a single parent, low income household where the parent simply didn't have the money.

I don't know if her son works but many teenagers can't find a part-time job. Even if he does have one, I'd expect it to be spent on fun stuff/luxuries like bowling, cinema, going out for something to eat with friends, a savings account...but certainly not for his school lunch which I wouldn't quite describe as 'eating out'.

A fair solution?

In cases where the disparity is as big as this, he would be left with £1,833, and she'd be left with £333. Not particularly fair, is it, when she is also doing 100% of the housework?

Not remotely money motivated

All I have said that I don't agree this is financial abuse. The OP has the option to earn more. Her husband could go part-time and share the chores and childcare. Whilst there is no indication that he would do this, there's no indication that he wouldn't

The OP doesn't indicate that either she or her children go without

If the OP had stated that her husband earns a lot of money and she is given housekeeping of £X a week and when it's gone it's gone then I would agree. But in the scenario we're being given it's simply that he earns more than she does. Which doesn't equal financial abuse

I'd still like to know what the problem with a packed lunch is though

@TomTraubertsBlues

In cases where the disparity is as big as this, he would be left with £1,833, and she'd be left with £333. Not particularly fair, is it, when she is also doing 100% of the housework?

Exactly! And all the childcare!

It’s norm in our area for children to buy lunch at secondary school at least a few times a week. His Dad is on £100,000 a year. I bet the other lads with dads earning that aren’t having to do a paper round so they can buy a chicken burger with their mates on a Friday lunchtime. It’s horrible.

To be fair it's a bit much to expect a schoolchild to pay for his own lunch