To refuse to work full time even though DH wants me to?

[Arabella3]

I think I’m 100% in the right here so asking for validation 😂

DH and I had a baby DD last year and I’ve reduced my hours to do a four day week. DD is in nursery for those days. No family nearby.

It’s emerged that DH is expecting me to go back to five days a week in a year or so. I have no intention of doing this until DD, and hopefully a little sibling, are at school.

Even with my pay cut I pay 60% of the household bills. We have SC who are with us most weekends and all holidays, so my Wednesday off is the only routine time I get with DD. We can’t afford to save much or do fancy holidays after my pay cut but I don’t care, I’d rather have the time with DD.

AIBU?

It sounds like you are paying more than your fair share.

Out of interest , why is he paying so much child support when you have the stepchildren every weekend and every school holiday.

Well, that's the stereotype but it doesn't really match up with my experiences growing up in an upper middle class area - my father was from a really poor background but worked hard and did well for himself.

I remember very few of my friends' mothers working when I was young but most of the dads had pretty big jobs. They mostly seemed like pretty normal people but just rather well off. The men weren't player types waltzing around on the red carpet with a 25yo blond on their arm lol.

I think a lot of men are just happy to be the provider. If they earn enough money for their wife to not have to work, and she doesn't want to, many will just say "OK, no problem".

How long has your DD been with her boyfriend?

Would your own mother perhaps fall in to this category?

Is he on board with having another baby? It would be his fifth child..

In general, who is most likely to reduced their hours after children, the mother or father?🤔

Unlike @PumpkinPie2016 I do think Dh is being unreasonable, 4 days is fine.

Thanks for clarifying. That's important, because if all women were still higher earners when part time and the breadwinners like OP, the gender pay gap would be the other way round!

No you’re not. My view is that since you’re already footing 60% of the household bills, he should pull his finger out before expecting you to do any additional hours.

100% And as you said let’s be honest, a man is far more likely to be judged if his wife supports him.

This seems like a big compromise on his part. He certainly doesn’t need any more children and having two more does take away from the lifestyle he aspires to.

But a compromise I assume he went into the relationship knowing

the OP knew he had 3 children
He knew she wanted 2 more

a d aspiring to a lifestyle is normal we all aspire to me able to have luxury holidays etc but given she gives 60% of the funds and 99% of the chores she seems to be doing her part

and let’s not forget he is wanting his coild to unnecessarily be in childcare 5 days a week so she can work to take his older children on holiday

If he agreed or was court ordered to pay an amount towards his kids he shouldn’t get to turn around and plead that he had another so he needs to pay less. If he couldn’t afford another without taking away from his existing kids he shouldn’t have had more.

I don’t think your husband should have had more children with you if he doesn’t make enough to support you working part time

Did the husband agree to his new wife having two children of her own? The other DC may be teenagers, we don't know the ages.
It would be highly unlikely a savy lady like @Arabella3 would not have discussed what she wanted from the relationship before they married. I suspect as now she contributed more.
Every weekend is devoted to the first family and she just wants a day with her child. Not much to ask. Many people have less money in the early years. It's the husband who doesn't like it.

I get what your saying but there’s still a dynamic where he is agreeing for have more kids because the OP wants them.

Agreed that they OP shouldn’t be funding SC in any case.

Also to add - stop paying 60% and starting paying 50.

also get a fuck off find he can’t access in a divorce

cant see this going well

Isn’t that kind of the dynamic of a lot of relationships though - the number of children is often discussed and one may have stronger feelings than the other.

i am an only child because my mum only wanted one - I am fairly certain in a different relationship my Dad would have gone along with having 2 (not that he indicates it)

on the flip side DH I know would have stayed at 1 (like my Dad) if that is what I had wanted 2 was very much discussed and compromised with us

I'm quite torn on this. I think you do have quite different expectations to be honest - he obviously has a clear vision for a certain lifestyle he wants you to work towards as a team and its not something you value as you see his vision and wants as nonessential. But to him they're clearly important. I imagine that for him this is probably also tied up in the lifestyle he wants to provide for his children who are old enough to notice - even though they may not be essential needs. Your baby is young enough they don't know any different so I think it's less of a priority for you.

I think the idea that some pps have about income and division of labour etc is quite strange to me to be honest - particularly the comments about him doing this to line his own pockets. I understand why he should be paying maintenance towards his children absolutely but other than that you're surely a team so any household income outside of that should be for the shared benefit of your family unit. While I do understand its important to have your own money and bank account etc I think the mentality should still be that you're both equally working for a shared goal. I think you both need to sit down and decide what that goal actually is outside of the big things. What do you both want life to look like and what opportunities do you want all of the kids involved to have. Obviously dsc are not necessarily your responsibility but they are in your life and impacted by this so I do think they should form a large part of the discussion as should opportunities for them as part of your family unit.

I also think you need to consider that if you are planning to go off on maternity again I'd be inclined to go back full time in order to go off on full maternity and then look at 4 days. I'd also be thinking carefully about your future aspirations for career development- it's obviously an unfair stereotype but companies do often look at part time staff as being uninterested in career progression so I think you need to weigh this up carefully in light of your field.

I would have loved to be able to afford 4 days a week so I totally get where you're coming from especially in terms of quality time and extending the aspects of maternity leave that are so lovely. So I don't think you're being unreasonable, but I don't think he is either. I agree that you need to sit down together and have a broader conversation about what you want life to look like on the day to day and the nice things and general lifestyle as well as the big goals like developing your home and more babies. And I think you need to maybe be a little less dismissive of his wants just because they aren't things you necessarily value in the same way, and equally he needs to step up and recognise the unpaid labour you're doing in your home and his role in contributing to that. I will also say that while we're separated now, it was easier to split responsibilities with my stbxh when I returned to work full time and we both felt less resentful as a result. But you need to work out what's right for your family and you both.

4 days with a young child is more than enough, having that day off makes such a difference mentally. Xx

Yes, agreed but in a situation where the DH already has 3 and now 4 children it may be more likely to cause resentment.

Im probably coloured by my own bias that I think 5 children in today’s economy in a crazy number to have.

I also think the DH owes a duty to his existing children to give them as good a life as he can. I don’t agree with the OP funding them directly, but the reality is if you marry a man with you 3 kids you know he has existing financial commitments that as in the OP’s case you may end up supplementing.

I think your DH is being unreasonable - the important things here are time with your child and your own wellbeing.
The 'nice to have' things like a newer car, expensive holidays etc should be acting as an incentive to him to get a better paid job and I would say that's a priority for him right now.

And she is - but what he wants is luxury holidays and is prepared to make his other child go to childcare 5 days a week and his partner work more than she needs to do so

i agree with the 5 by the way and it does make me question his motives for getting with the OP

Flip side to he should provide what he already does is op leaves him because she wants a second and his changed his mind. His children are worse off full stop.

If ops paying 60% he certainly couldn’t afford to run and maintain a home where all his children have their own rooms, he would be paying maintenance for his shared with op child and again if ops purely funding the holidays they go as well. It sounds like apart from maintenance op provides most of what the step children get when with their dad.

Op would only need a three bed to give her current and future plus herself their own rooms. Much cheaper than a 5 bed house.

The stepchildren’s mother only works weekends so they are not getting the lavish luxury lifestyle in that home either just the one the husband expects onto majority fund.