Not married parent, am I bonkers to be part time?

[Daisygivemeyouranswerdo]

I am hoping for some advice regarding finances and future planning as an unmarried but partnered mum.

Currently, I’m working PT since returning from mat leave last year. My partner and I of 10+ years own a home together but are not married and likely will never be (he doesn’t want to get married, has said he basically wants to protect his own assets. This isn’t a guess. He has said this but I think instantly regretted letting me know it)

He’s a lovely man and a great dad but I know I am in a tricky situation financially both short and long term. He is the higher earner and likely will be as his industry prints money.

I don’t want to be FT again until my LO is in school, a couple of years away. I know lots of people will say to go FT again immediately (or LTB, having cake and eating cake etc) but I won’t give up this short time with my LO when school is only a few years away and I have many years ahead until I’ll need to pull a pension, if we can afford it. I plan to head up the career ladder and possibly retrain into a higher paying industry to boost my income and essentially (DP has suggested I do this and will support me financially doing it) be able to provide for myself and my child long term. Could I hear any positive stories about this if this is your experience please?

Am I being unreasonable to be panicking about this now? I have a long career ahead of me right? to help boost my own savings? I can enjoy these few years with LO without financial worry (all being well…)?

Currently DP pays for most things for our household which allows me to save. So does he but think £300 (mine) compared to 3k (his) so we are totally out of balance in that. I know I cannot rely on him aside from this and the marriage thing has been an eye opener of course and that he wants all the benefits of a wife without any of the risk of a wife. He knows about the inheritance tax issue and does not see this as a reason to protect either of us by getting married. I would not want a wedding but would be happy to be legally married - not so much for romance (I do love him very much) but the financial security and avoidance of IT. I now know that no matter what, I need to plan for my child and I to be left high and dry. Day to day this isn’t his character (generous generally but a saver) but clearly, it’s something my DP thinks about and I need to, too.

An ultimatum not an option, I’ve no interest in marrying a reluctant husband 😂

What a horrible selfish man.

He's enjoying all the trappings of having a marriage but without the full commitment.

I couldn't look the person I claim to love in the eye, and put them through this sort of worry.

The fact he can do it to you, shows he loves his assets far more than you, don't you think?

Assuming he does over 50% of drudge work/ child care / mental load and the child has your surname?

I'd suggest he pay you for the childcare he'd otherwise have to pay, while you work less. This is "fair" from his perspective.

Make sure you're claiming child benefit & he pays it back in tax as necessary.

I wouldn't want to be with someone who felt like this, but you have your eyes open about it, so it's really your choice.

I would add, ive been the (much) higher earner in a relationship and it was hard. I was constantly feeling like I was his meal ticket and that he made choices he otherwise couldn't afford, on the premise I'd pay. I'd worked my arse off to earn what I did and ended up feeling skint subsidising him. The relationship didn't work out for other reasons but tbh ive seen a lot of relationships struggle with this.

Really interesting, I can see how the higher earner might feel like this. Was he PT looking after your children together?

i’m not reckless with money, have any debt and wouldn’t spend anything over and above without discussing as a family.

realistically with all the suggested ‘shoulds’ as essential two separate entities, I feel all I could ask for is the difference between me working FT and part time as that’s all that’s changed and all I’d be getting if I wasn’t looking after our child (so I was still earning significantly less)

In our relationship I was the high earner and he stopped work to loo after the kids. We weren't married. He then started a self employed business whilst looking after the kids. He earned far less than me.

I would never have dreamt of not sharing and pooling all of our money. He was enabling me to work in the higher paid job by looking after the kids, it was a team effort. He should not have been disadvantaged financially because of that. We ended up not being able to afford to pay a pension for him as well but now we are nearing retirement we will be sharing all of my pensions, just as we did our income.

I really don't understand this lack of equity in partnerships. It seems so selfish. Either you are a family or you aren't.

I
You say OP that he 'wants to protect his assets'. My response would be 'protect them from what? Me? Your life partner and mother of your children, who is giving her all right now to give our children the best start in life that we both want for them? Wow ". His stance is incredibly selfish and signals that he's not 'all in' to you or your children. I'd be very, very unhappy with that.

If it were me, if he won't agree to share properly I'd go full time ASAP so that you are better placed to look after you and DC should you end up splitting up. Sad but avoidable if he's willing to,properly step up.

Honestly, I don't see why you would stay with a man who has this approach to sharing assets. What would happen if one of you got seriously ill and any insurances etc didn't pay out/weren't enough? they would scratch out a life on sickness benefits while the other climbed the career ladder?

How about a civil partnership if he doesn't want marriage?

Depends. Would you be able to up your hours to full time if you separated? Can you retrain in some way now whilst part time (to increase your earning potential), so in the event of a split you can be financially independent? If the answer is yes then I don’t see a problem. I don’t think that protecting assets is necessarily a bad thing. I know mn hates the whole not married thing but I will never marry because I am the one with the much better pension, higher earnings etc. I see it as protecting myself and I believe that men have the right to feel the same way. Shared ownership of the family home you bought together is important when not married. However, If I was providing a much larger deposit, I would have that ring fenced. A lot of relationships fail. Some women view marriage as their financial security in the event of a separation. I view not being married as mine.

Doesn't he "pay" her already by financially supporting her?

This from the OP: "Currently DP pays for most things for our household which allows me to save."

He provides her keep, apparently. That's a significant expense.

Per the OP: "Currently DP pays for most things for our household which allows me to save."

@LaurieStrode I used to have a nanny. She wouldn't work for keep only.

A dependent girlfriend isn't a professional nanny.

So OP charges him full childcare and then he charges her full rent, water, gas, electric,CT, food, activities, car.....

I wonder who will be worse off...

The most stupid argument I ever see on the Internet and its constantly used on this forum.

I'm in a similar position op, although worse as our relationship has become very rocky.

I think without the option of marriage, you protect yourself as best you can

• both get wills and he informs employer you are the beneficiary of pension/ death in service etc.
• keep pt work and good to be thinking of training to boost your career in future.

However, I made the choice to continue to work pt and have 2 dc. I have a professional job, and could increase my hours back up if we split. We own the house jointly.

financially, we both keep the same
amount of spending money for ourselves, and all other money goes into the family pot for bills/ family holidays/ house repairs/ kids costs etc. So we have the same amounts to spend on ourselves or save if we want (pensions separate so this is a potential problem for me), despite dp earning around 4x what i do. Would this suggestion work? Still protects his assets, but feels less unbalanced day to day.

Fwiw, I wanted kids, and have benefitted for a long time in terms of living a nicer lifestyle than I could afford on my own (nice house/ part time work etc), so I'm OK with my choice. I'd obviously be better off it we were married but that wasn't a choice I had. It was also really important to me to be part time when dc were small, and still is now they're at school, and I've had this option due to dp's income. I would have hated working ft before they were at school.

Google compound interest and you’ll see how wrong you are…

Agree, @Wibblywobblylikejelly

Don't forget wifi, sky, dwelling, fuel, leisure & holidays, clothing, personal care, gifts, takeaways, etc.

Supporting a dependent adult isn't cheap.

• both get wills and he informs employer you are the beneficiary of pension/ death in service etc.

In reality though, this protects you should an unmarried partner die but is no protection if the relationship goes wrong as both are easily and quickly changed.

Men do have a right to feel the same, and I will never remarry if my marriage broke up because my house/savings/ inheritance/pensions are for my children. However, he has said he is not committed to her yet wanted her to go part time to care for their child. Hes even wanting to pay for her training so he doesnt have any guilt when he buggers off ( OP should absolutely retrain) She has suffered permanent ( in terms if pension and career progression) damage to care for his child. If she insisted on not working or going part time then OP would have to face the consequences but she seems to have made all the sacrifices while he seems to be suffering no financial loss at all from paying for her while saving £60k and building up a huge pension for himself. At least some of the savings should go into a trust fund for the child.

@Daisygivemeyouranswerdo angrycat has a very good idea - do you have anything for your child, a child trust fund account for them paying in at least half of what he saves would mean at 18 they will get a lot that might be a v good idea