To expect financial support from my husband

[PoisedUmberCrab]

….during mat leave.

background - just finished mat leave with
DC2. Situation was the same with DC1.

both work full time typically and contribute 50/50 towards mortgage, bills and all other expenses.

during mat leave my salary was 46% of what I usually earn (ie less than half). DH expected me to continue paying 50% of mortgage, bills expenses. His rationale is that he was not earning any more than usual.

this has left me in a hard position financially whereby I borrowed from my family to get by.

AIBU to think that he should have increased his contributions whilst I was earning significantly less than usual (and looking after our child on mat leave for a year).

This is absolutely gold star advice. Lots of my female friends are on poverty line as cash is v v v easy to hide as business owners.

I agree. I suppose it depends on the situation. In my situation I’m divorced and my partner has a child to a previous relationship and so do I, however if we did have our own I would suggest a joint account for our bills and expenses for joint child.

Yes that is terrible.

I'm on maternity leave now, been on statutory pay since week 19. I saved a pot of money beforehand to give myself some spending money and to be able to contribute to the mortgage (my choice) once my enhanced mat pay came to an end.

We have around the same income if that's relevant.

DH also saved for the same amount of time so he can alone cover bills, nursery for elder DC and food/supplies for both DC whilst I'm on statutory.

Unless you are getting 100% pay on a decent salary throughout mat leave you need support (ime).

Divorce him and take more than 50%!!

@PoisedUmberCrab

You need to stop listening to him. Only listen to a solicitor or the courts.

You are married so ALL assets regardless of deposits etc are joint. Stop trying to be fair, as he won’t play fair with you or your DC.

This is very weird. You borrowed from family to get by? What the actual f? And your husband is sitting there just watching this?

I understand keeping some "individual money" for hobbies, presents etc. but as others have said once you've got children to me it should mostly be money in common.

I'm the lower earner by a lot and we borrowed money from his parents for our first deposit. When we bought our current house we stated that the deposit was coming 50/50 from both of us. Solicitors gave my husband a call and advice we did a 30/70 split or something like that, to which he said no thanks -it's our house, our family, our money. And when I'm on maternity leave he covers all our expenses including my spending money once I'm earning less or nothing.

What changed was that women started working and earning their own money. Women wanted a career, 2.4 children and a lovely home. Nothing wrong with this at all. Very much gone are the days when a woman stayed at home looking after the house and kids (yes, I know you still do the bulk of it), and you were fully supported by a single income. We still want to live by traditional roles in some elements of our lives, but are then aghast at some of the consequences of social changes over the last 30 years.

When you've had years of splitting everything 50/50, but then expect to be covered when life changes and you've not discussed what these changes may mean for finances, it's not hard to see why we see so many topics like this.

*disclaimer - expect is probably not the best choice of words, because the one who is still working and pulling in money while his or her partner is off work should expect to pay more. Sadly, marriage is treated like a business transaction for many people; everything is fair until it's not.

Joint finances in a single pot, with a fun budget for each person, regardless of income, is the only way forward when married. This is very much what I'd see as a traditional way to join finances.

It'd be interesting to see stats on ages and attitudes towards finances in relationships. The few younger people I know all have separate finances, while the older couples have joint accounts, and neither can see the benefit in how the other couples do it.

Sadly its not uncommon. I mentioned upthread that my ex was like this, I had to borrow petrol money off my Dad. On the odd occasion DH would also lend me money, and I had to pay back over several months. He was comfortable, I was permanently skint.

thats silly, having a joint account isn’t a sign of financial dependence.

Thank you for your judgement. It works for us, so saying it's "silly" is a bit unfair.

Mums judging other mums - perfect.

Why didn’t you pay the bulk of the bills? Just because he didn’t expect it, doesn’t make it the right thing for him to still have to pay 50% when he’s between jobs.

You guys really messed up the financial partnership of a marriage.

It is very similar except being made redundant is not a choice. Getting pregnant is. The precedent set by this is what is making him see it as a tit for tat situation. OP didn’t support him when he was between jobs for 9mos so why should he support her when she is on maternity leave? Maternity leave that she can choose to end earlier than 1yr+

I’m saying that thinking having a joint account means you’re not financially independent is a silly view to have. I’m not saying your financial set up is silly or unworkable, but rather your judgement of mums with joint accounts as not being financially independent is what is silly.

Where did I say that?

You're reading between the lines and getting it wrong.

Sorry but that is what you did to my comment.

The difference being, I didn't launch straight into insults 😊

Anyway, you take care hun

I have always had joint accounts and never been financially dependent.

I never insulted you, only called your opinion of mums like me with joint accounts as financially dependent “silly”

You then called me judgemental of other mums- which was a direct insult to me.

You take care too.

Err can the in fighting stop? @PoisedUmberCrab has posted for advice.

Find yourself a damn good family solicitor now. And don't stress, it will work out albeit in time and do not leave the family home or be frightened if he threatens you. It's what the solicitor/courts say that hold weight. Keep strong

You’re asking for too little. Don’t do yourself out. If he is this mean when you’re married, he won’t reliably contribute when you’re divorced which is all the more reason to ensure for your children’s sake you are financially secure.

It's horrific reading some of the downright wrong advice given on here. Pre-marital homes are not automatically included in a divorce, nor is his business.

Let's assume that all these are and always have been solely in his name, and going by how they split money, it's probably safe to assume that all costs, etc, have been serviced by him. This will play a significant role in how a court decides on a split.

We have no idea how long they have been married, could be 3 years, could be 20, apologies if I've missed it. this makes a big difference also.

OP, it sounds like your mind was made up well before you came here, but don't be led down the garden path into thinking you will automatically get 50% of everything. Going by previous figures, it's not that much in any case. You'd then have all the expenses with selling, CGT, etc, which would reduce these values even more.

Speak to a family solicitor. Ignore the hype, mine included. Good luck.

Shes also not automatically NOT entitled to 50% just because they were pre marriage.
The properties are mortgaged, he may be affording to keep these properties on because of OPs contributions elsewhere.
He might have the emotional bandwidth to deal with these because of the sacrifices OP is making and work shes doing.
Would his business be in the same place without OPs support in the background?

I'm not saying anything is guaranteed, and there's not enough info from OP to determine anyway. But start high and prepare to be knocked down. Starting low is never going to help.

Her husband wants 60% equity on top of his deposit, despite OP contributing 50% AND taking the financial hit with mat leave etc. He's not going to be reasonable.

I never said she wasn't either, just the tirade of comments saying she basically gets 50% or more are like it's a given, and it's just not the case. He supported himself for 9 months while out of work; they clearly split everything 50/50. I'd say the chances of the OP helping to pay for his rentals or pulling a day in the office, or whatever he does, are slim.

He's clearly being unreasonable on the deposit and equity front; this was earned together. But it's a cake and eat it situation. He doesn't sound like the best partner in the world, but then neither does the OP (sorry). If this happened the first time round, what did she expect this time? You could argue she knew precisely what was going to happen, she'd get zero support and be expected to finance her MAT leave herself.

Don't question what I'm saying here as support for her husband because he's a man, far from it IMO, but the history of their finances at the start of their marriage and how he supported himself and their first child laid the foundations for the present-day problems.

Any person who doesn't play nice in divorce, i.e., hiding money, as suggested to the OP, not supporting their kids when they can, or using children as some weapon, is reprehensible and deserves a swift kick in the bollocks or lady bollocks.

'Very honestly if divorce is on the horizon just stop paying and say you have no money any cash you do have keep or give to your family.'

'This guy is going to do EVERYTHING he can do dodge maintenance and as he isn't paye he can do a lot....so you should squirrel any cash and assets now while you can' - The irony all in one post.

You make a very big assumption that anyone in the family wants to take in a mother and her two kids indefinitely! You can't just force yourself on people in these situations and she can't afford to live on just her salary can she! They both could have had the conversation about what another pregnancy would do to their finances.