Partner won’t put me on deeds to the house

[HannahXsanderson]

Hello,
AIBU I have been with my partner for 5 years and we have a 2 year old together, things have been slightly rocky since having our child but other than that our relationship is good. We currently live in my partners house which he had bought before we met. I contributed to the house before baby arrived but haven’t went back to work as my partner very fortunately earns a good wage and doesn't want me me to go back to work until our child is 3 and starts nursery. We are planning on moving into a bigger family home this year and I assumed that I would be made a co-owner. I brought this up to my partner and he said absolutely not because I’m not financially contributing.
I disagree with this as I feel that I am contributing in the sense that I’m brining up his child and keeping his house clean ect ect.. I just find it very odd that we are in a well established relationship and he said once we buy a house he wants to get married, so my thought is what’s the problem with me being put on the deeds to our family home?
I feel very insecure about this, I saved up money to keep myself going these past couple of years and my savings are nearly done, so it’s not as if he hands me money ect… he pays bills and food shopping.
I feel that he is reluctant on making a commitment and especially a financial commitment not even just to me but his own child. He also refuses to update his will or life insurance policy if anything were to happen to him.
Am I expecting too much?
I feel that I need to have some sort of security about our relationship especially since I’m dependent on him. I also feel that we’re not equal as he makes comments that this is his house ect..

A thread like this appears almost every week.

But she can’t make him do anything - she has no power at all here.

On the other hand, he can kick her out and make her homeless anytime he chooses.

You shouldnt be considering marriage or buying a home together if its 'rocky' fullstop. Your partner isn't wrong to protect himself either. If I bought a house on my own and was in a happy relationship I would say buy a new one together but insist on having more equity because I put a lot more into the home that is fair. Once married and been together longer then the deeds could be changed. A lot of men get screwed over this way so he's sensible. If I were you I'd get a part time job and see how things go before even thinking of buying another home.

Sorry haven’t read the full thread but have read OP posts. For me no way would this continue. I would immediately look for full time work and inform partner he will be responsible for 50% of home and childcare - either do it or pay for it. If he says he would prefer me to stay at time, yes
id love to but can’t afford to. If partner says child is too young for nursery, yes I agree but I cannot afford to stay at home. He is welcome to give up work and live of HIS savings and assets to do it until child is ready.
When he points out he pays for everything and can afford it, good for you but I can’t. I have no home, am paying no pension and have no savings. Until that changes, I must work. I also can’t afford more children for the same reasons. Also point out doing 50% of all childcare and home making will surely be no issue as if you are not currently ‘contributing’ then there is no effort or cost required! Selfish pig. I’d leave over this rather than tolerate it if I were given no other choice. The protection for your current position is marriage. If he wants to treat you as two separate individuals, you must too.

Yep. It’s so bloody depressing.

I don’t think the situation is fair on you at all.

Your partner wants you to stay at home with your child and look after the home. He gives you a roof over your head and buys the food but beyond that it sounds like you are using your own money and any financial security you had from savings has depleted. The longer you do not work, the more you are at significant financial risk, and he is giving every indication that you cannot rely on him financially.

He, on the other hand, has the benefit of someone looking after his child and home for much less cost than if he had to pay a live in nanny and cleaner. He gets to continue to build financial wealth and security.

As it stands, he wants you to bear all the risk. I really don’t think this is fair. I also think there is something deeply unpleasant about how he has left you to use up your savings while telling you he wants you to stay at home with your child. There appears to be the underlying belief that he’s doing you a favour by letting you live in the house etc and your role is not significant in terms of building financial wealth when of course it is. I do not think he sees you as equal or value the work of looking after the home and children which is somewhat depressing.

I think you need more commitment from him. I don’t think he’s operating as part of a team. You need to make decisions here to protect yourself and your child because so far he is not showing himself to be someone you can count on. Good luck.

He creates an atmosphere when he doesn't get what he wants.
Controlling

It's not going to get better OP, you need financial security and to ignore him.

And all he’ll do if she “demands” that is kick her out and leave her homeless.

It highlights how poorly women and girls are being educated. They are not being taught the pitfuls of cohabiting and having children without a shred of legal protection. If OP’s child was disabled she would be absolutely screwed.

There needs to be a nation wide campaign that highlights the risks and dangers of cohabiting. So many people think living together for x number of years equals the same rights as married people. It really doesn’t.

Problem is in situations like this, the man often says "OK, go on then" and the woman simply can't do it.

He will just continue doing what he's doing and when it comes to it, she can't just physically leave the child at home. He knows that.

Except that's not what I asked. It's a separate question and doesn't help the OP now.

The OP presumed they would have fairer finances - naive but not deliberate. The partner has consciously set up their finances to benefit ONLY him. That's what I want her to see.

Are you much younger than your partner because you’re clearly very naive in giving him power over your life in this way!

YOU get to decide when to go back to work, not him.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you hope having another child will magically change his personality into being a supportive and sharing partner, but he has no reason to change his attitude because you always meekly acquiesce to all his demands.

He is already carefully controlling you and it is unheard of for a man like that to suddenly change type and start putting you first. IT NEVER HAPPENS!!

OP you partner wants the luxury of a SAHM for his child but he cannot afford it. You are paying for his preference. Stop it now.

Luckily for op we live in a country that would step in and provide a home for her, that is not a reason to stay in a controlling and abusive relationship.

She can leave altogether - which might be for the best.

Why do women continue to put themselves in vulnerable situations like this by having a child with someone they haven’t even discussed serious topics with like finances and future plans.

Your partner won’t put you on the deeds because you’re not contributing financially yet he also doesn’t want you to go back to work so you can contribute financially because he doesn’t want the baby in nursery. He can’t have it both ways.

Tell him youll go back to work so you can contribute financially towards the house meaning he puts you on the deeds and if he isn’t happy with your child going to nursery he can be the child who cuts their hours.

You have a child together you and now a family and a team. You’re all working together to create a better future for your family unit. He shouldn’t be viewing you as the enemy.

"screwed over" so if the man just believes the partner is out to do this why the hell would you a) go out with anyone b) have a baby with them?

You could just live alone and go to sleep with your cash as that sounds like the only relationship someone with the mentality you describe would want in their life.

Better that now when she's young than in her 50s with no assets and having to start again.

You have no choice, you have to work - you are totally fucked here. You have zero money, zero power or leverage in the situation.

Get a job ASAP and do not have any more children with him!

Firstly, good couples counselling to hopefully address the imbalance and help him understand your contribution.

But really, now is the time to get back to work - whether he likes it or not. Tell him you're not protected financially if anything were to happen to the relationship or him, and that puts your child at risk. So you're going back to work (as you're running out of money anyway), and he'll be expected to contribute 50% to childcare (time and money), 50% to the running of the house (cooking, cleaning, admin etc). It's up to him (and you) whether he then wants you to contribute financially and go on the mortgage/deeds.

Tbh, this would actually be a dealbreaker for me, unless he can start understanding pretty quickly.

He wants all the benefits of a stay at home wife without financially providing for one - he's not currently providing for you, it'd cost him more to have a live in au pair. Hes providing for his child.

I'm aware this is a contentious issue on MN, but for most, being a SAHM is too risky.

My mum ended up in poverty due to being a SAHM, as have friends of mine. I learned from their example and NEVER considered it.

I'd say 2 things @HannahXsanderson.

1. Get married ASAP.
2. Go back to work.

You can't trust that man.

That’s true but it’s not often the men who get left with the kids doing a PT minimum wage job. It’s not yet an equal playing field with men and women.

Actually, when you take the 30 free hours childcare for working parents, the financial cost of returning to work isn't so big. Think about things like pension contributions, which the OP wont be paying. She’s made a very poor personal decision to not return to work and be beholden to a man she is not legally linked to either through marriage of civil partnership.
‘Telling him you are in the deeds or you break up’ isn’t the persuasive argument you think it is!
OP, get a job!

I agree!