To not work full time?

[Lazym]

I have two children 16 and 12. Since my oldest turned 7 months I have worked part time. I cleaned in the evening for 8 years and for last 7 1/2 years I've worked in a supermarket 4 mornings a week, 4 - 8. Obviously when kids were younger this worked out well as I was back home for the school run and partner went to work. My youngest started secondary in September, so now childcare costs aren't an issue I've had comments from partner about finding a full time job. My point is I enjoy my job and am good at it so why should I leave this job to potentially start a job I could hate? The job I have doesn't have full time hours. I contribute to the household financially, pay for two weeks of food shopping every month and pretty much pay for all of the kids needs/clothes. One example, just spent £200 on my lad for his prom, partner paid nothing. So I work and do the usual household chores cook, clean, washing etc. Partner is very money obsessed, but I feel I pay my way too. From when they were very young he's always swanned off and done his own thing, leaving me to it. Another issue with working full time is my lad will be starting college in sept and he'll need a lift to the train station which is 6 miles away and collecting, so how am I supposed to do that? Just needed an opinion. Can never reason with partner as he's never wrong.

Yes, it may well have been in the DPs financial interest not to put the OP on the deeds of the house. But the OP should have insisted she was on the deeds in some way before they had children, as they are at that point in a partner ship where all contributions are valuable, financial or otherwise. It didn't need to be a 50/50 split, if the ownership of the property was transferred to Tennants in Common, they could have reflected the equity he had built up, and her financial contribution, from her contribution to bills or from her mother, in the split. You could also put a monetary value on the cost of childcare that the OP has provided for free, to enable him to work, or the costs of domestic tasks like cleaning that she has done so he didn't have to, call that her contribution to the mortgage. In an ideal world both partners would contribute equally financially AND domestically, but that hasn't happened here. That's all hindsight and doesn't really help the OP, but maybe it will give some other women pause for thought before having children with someone who already owns a house.

She can insist all she likes now but he can't be forced to do it.

This all should've been sorted before they had kids.

It seems like they never had a proper conversation about money.

You could also put a monetary value on the cost of childcare that the OP has provided for free, to enable him to work, or the costs of domestic tasks like cleaning that she has done so he didn't have to, call that her contribution to the mortgage.

The law doesn't see it that way.

I think you’ve got bigger problems to resolve than whether or not to go full time tbh.

The law doesn’t look at it like that though. Probably because in households where both people work full time, childcare and cleaning still gets done! The partners either divide the work or divide the cost of outsourcing the work. Equally. As partners.

If they were married, a divorce court would. Which is another reason to get married.

Absolutely @Hayliebells but they're not married.

Op what are your plans when both your children are over 18 ?

Do you expect to work FT ?

How will you fund your retirement ?

How will you fund luxuries, holidays ?

Why don't you increase your hours from 16 to 20 now or more ?
Next year year increase your hours further ?

What is your reluctance to work more hours ?

We all have to do chores at home onto of working

But OPs partner hasn't been doing that, so at very least his share of that could be considered a financial contribution. He could work out what he'd have paid in childcare, since he wasn't doing his 50% of that, and what he'd have paid for a cleaner, since he wasn't doing his 50% off that, and call that his OPs additional earnings, over and above the hours she had worked in paid employment. If married, as her career has been compromised to allow him to further his, by providing him with that free childcare and domestic work, she'd be entitled to spousal support in a divorce. If he didn't want to do 50% of the childcare and domestic tasks, to allow his partner to work full time, he needs to take the financial hit for that in a divorce.

@Hayliebells that would be lovely if the law worked like that but it doesn't.

Yes, as I said, this is all hindsight and doesn't really help the OP. But hopefully it will help someone else who is considering having children with someone who won't marry them.

Also. Unless he's a very high earner she won't get spousal support.

Here's some info about the law surrounding spousal maintenance. Although it's a complex calculation, a good lawyer would help the OP get spousal maintenance, if they were married.
https://www.family-lawfirm.co.uk/divorce-settlements/spousal-maintenance/

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/family-and-care/divorce-and-separation/clean-break-or-spousal-maintenance-after-divorce-or-dissolution

Unless he's a higher earner she has no chance. And she has zero chance to start with because they aren't married.

I’m not seeing financial abuse.
The man is legally single. He’s got obligations to support his 2 children but no legal obligations to Op. He’s not lied or hidden anything. He doesn’t have an obligation to divulge his salary, Will details etc. Can put his kids or mum as his pension beneficiary.
Op is legally single and responsible for her own financial situation.
If she’s acted to her detriment and opted to work pt, cleaned his house etc then that’s her decision as an adult.
It sounds like this man hasn’t even done what lots do and made promises to string her along eg got engaged with no interest in marrying.
Problem is people think ‘partner’ creates obligations it doesn’t.
There’s often good reasons people want to retain own property eg parents contributed, they want their adult children to inherit if it’s a second relationship.
Adults can choose whether or not to enter into legal commitments to each other (marriage or civil partnership)
We don’t have de facto or common law marriage here.
If you want to have legal obligations to each other you need to opt in.

Maybe it won't help the OP, but it might help someone else. Don't have children before marriage! It's not old fashioned, it's sensible.

This nonsense of ‘facilitating’ the partners career is rubbish and needs to stop being spouted

It is not nonsense. Anyone, male or female, would need help in maintaining a career especially if there are children.

It's the children they wouldn't have, not the career.

There's a knock on effect to this as well. It disadvantages people who don't have a partner taking care of everything at home because it normalises working as if you have no home or family commitments. People have the right to choose what's best for them, but let's not pretend there are no wider consequences.

Spousal maintenance is virtually unheard of in divorce these days. It’s irrelevant here as op is unmarried.
If Op had been married then yes his house, savings would be viewed as matrimonial asset and split. Things like her contributing to family can be taken into account. She could also register matrimonial home rights to stop her being thrown out of his house. But irrelevant as Op not married.

@Hayliebells please stop suggesting the op will get spousal maintenance. She won't. She's not a spouse. And it is highly unlikely even if they were married that she would get it.

Where does this "anyone would need help maintaining a career" come from? I'm a single parent - I did it by myself. Why can't others do the same?

Ahhhhh ok. This explains a lot.

What do you mean@GrinAndVomit ?

I don't understand it - why do people need a stay at home partner to maintain a career?

I’d ignore that poster if I were you @speluncean, they’ve got a massive bee in their bonnet and are determined to insult as many people as possible who believe in women going to work and supporting themselves.

Indeed @Skodacool it would be virtually impossible to have children and work, if there wasn't someone to look after the children whilst working. I don't know many jobs where a toddler could accompany a parent to work, or once they're at school, where the working day starts at 9.3am and ends at 2.30pm. Any partner who looks after the kids whilst their partner works, is facilitating their partner's career. Yes they could have both worked full time, shared childcare costs 50/50, and split domestic duties 50/50, but they didn't, so the OP facilitated his career.