Money disagreement post maternity leave

[KayleighMum1]

I’ve recently returned to work after having my first child. I was paid for most of my mat leave and my partner picked up a greater share when I went down to half pay.

We are now at loggerheads as I work PT and my partner thinks I don’t earn enough to do as ‘few’ a hours (still over 20 a week) and I feel he resents that he will need to pay more. I have made the childcare point but he says with the free hours the cost saving is minimal.

Can I please ask how you would look at splitting the below.

-House bills including Mortgage (c.£1200 a month)
-Food/child costs (c.£500 a month)
-Total - £1700 a month

Person 1 - take home c.£1000
Person 2 - take home c.£3000

Please yourself. My ex was happy for me to stay at home with our children and we shared everything we had. We were a family, we still are. Always there for each other. It’s ok to be a bit dependent sometimes If your partner is decent and will look out for you. Not be tallying everything up all the time. I had the opposite of ‘the ick’. He had his faults but he’s honoured his responsibilities in life.

@BeltaLodaLife I agree with the sentiment, but you keep saying that OP decided to go PT herself and didn’t consult her partner. So far, OP hasn’t disclosed how the decision was made so it’s probably best not to assume, and state it as fact!

No. Just no. He is NOT chipping in with drop offs and bed times FFS. It's his child. It is called parenting.

She said that her partner has said that she should go back full time, she tried to use childcare bill as a reason and he said the childcare cost isn’t a reason to stay off, they’ll get funded hours and split the bill. That means he wants her to work full time and she is saying no. So she did make the decision herself and is ignoring his opinion, and expecting him to just pay up.

It sounds like he’d probably have an issue with you not earning enough even if you went full time, because you still wouldn’t earn the same as him.

I think short term, the easiest (not necessarily fairest or sensible) solution, would be you pay 50/50 for everything, but on the condition that your “d”p steps up and does more around the house, and that it only applies until you go back full time. Then you reevaluate.

If he was a decent human being you’d both be paying everything into a joint account, which everything comes out of, and divvying up the leftovers however you both felt best.

But he’s ignoring her opinion too? Why is he automatically the one in the right?

OP has said they don’t actually need the extra money at this point.

My husband earns a lot, I earn nothing as I’m a SAHM. We both contribute hugely to family life, all the money is shared. I don’t understand your thinking as you are a couple with a mortgage and a child?! Surely it’s just both of yours? You have £4000 a month to pay bills, inc childcare and what’s left is divided between you both and savings?

Everyone on here is posting as though he is a financially abusive shitty dad, whilst acting like OP is totally correct. She isn’t.

They need an actual discussion and really, if they didn’t agree before the pregnancy then she doesn’t get to stop working and be funded by him. She can stop if she wants, or go part time if she wants, but she has to fund that.

This is what happens when you have a kid without discussing what will happen. If she wants to make this decision herself then she has to pay for it. You just cannot stop work or go part time and demand that someone else funds you, not if you don’t HAVE to go part time.

You can’t just decide to go PT and expect him to contribute more than if you were FT.
But then you should each contribute to all expenses (including childcare) from your FT salaries pro-rata (if you were married I would even say you should contribute in a way that you end up with the same amount leftover for personal spends).

Personally, I think you need to put all your salary into the bank and split whats left after bills. That way you have equal fun money. You are meant to be a team.

4000 - 1700 = 2300
2300/ 2= 1150

Alternatively, you pay 25% and he pays 75%. However, he'll have a much bigger disposable income than you. Also, because you are with the child more you will spend more on them for clothes, soft play and activities. I bet he won't reimburse you his 75% of those costs.

Also, I bet you haven't don't the sums properly. When you tally up these things you always miss stuff like clothes, toiletries, birthday party presents, clubs, entertainment etc.

She’s not asking him to fund her, she’s asking what’s a fair split of the bills given their current earnings.

I actually think it’s quite abusive to drop your hours then turn around and tell your partner that they now have to pay more towards costs because you don’t want to work much and want “the best of both worlds.”

This isn’t a necessity. They aren’t out of childcare options, they can afford it and still have more leftover, she will also stay in the workforce fully and have a better pension and career options. If it is a necessity then that’s one thing, but this is a choice. And if a choice he didn’t get any say in; his opinion has been ignored and he has been told to pay more. It’s just not ok.

Their current earnings… after she unilaterally decided to go part time whilst he is saying no.

So why should he pay for her drop in income? When she doesn’t need to reduce her hours, she wants to. He doesn’t. She cannot demand that he fund that. The split should be based on her full time earnings. You cannot reduce your hours without your partner agreeing and then demand he pay the shortfall.

Why not just have a shared pot?

Because she is expecting him to fund her going PT. If she had another source of income / a trust fund / generous parents / etc then yes, she could go PT without needing his agreement, but not if he will be the one paying more because of it.

My partner always knew from the first conversation we had about possibly having children one day that unless it was absolutely financially necessary, I would want to be PT if possible for the initial years. He always said he understood this.

More recently, he is worried about money (no need to be - we live well within our means and have healthy amount left over after bills) and wants to move house to somewhere bigger (requiring higher income as our Mortgage would be higher) and is struggling to progress in his own role, so I think he’s projecting on to me as going FT would increase our income but at the cost of time with my child.

What does he want his disproportionately high disposable income for? Does he not think you should have an equal amount?

You are both contributing to this family unit in your different ways - he is working FT to bring in money, you are working PT to bring in money (less) and look after child and home. I cannot get my head round this divisive attitude to money in what is supposed to be a true partnership.

He doesn’t really spend that much, his hobbies are relatively low cost so it’s just saved/invested (which he says we will all benefit from in the long run)

No, the OP has explained PT was always the plan.

Was this before the ridiculous cost of living changes in the last couple of years?

You may have the opinion that you are financially fine. He may not. Have you actually sat down and looked at this? And at the idea of moving/when that would be/how much you need?

IDK. You'd probably be in a better financial position as a single parent Have you checked what support you would get? You'd definitely get help towards childcare costs, child benifit as your the primary parent. Child maintenance of £350 + if he actually pays it. I'd imagine you'd get a UC top up on your wages as well. TBH, I'd prefer to be single and skint than with a " partner" that is balling while I'm skint.

Stick to your guns. Working PT whilst raising a child (if finances allow) is the best of both worlds.
His head really needs a finance wobble - if you are financially secure, have an adequate house for your needs, why chase more finance rather than a parent being at home with their child? And working more hours, paying for more childcare often means financially you aren't any better off than the setup you have.

I think it's fair enough to work part time if you are doing majority of the child care and stuff at home. Particularly if he is only "chipping in".

He should put in 1275 into the pot and you 425 totalling 1700 that's 42% of your income which seems fair enough to me?

This. Going part time has to be a joint decision.

work PT and my partner thinks I don’t earn enough to do as ‘few’ a hours

So, you've decided to work very part time hours on your own and he thinks you should work more.

I think it's not on when one person in a relationship just decides they'll go part time. It relies on the other to shoulder the financial burden.

You need to think about your pension as well-you are unmarried and in a very vulnerable position.