is my husband hiding money?

pmlindyloo

Guest101 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said. And really just a general point. It seems these days that relationships are either 'good' or 'abusive'

Has the word dysfunctional been removed from the dictionary? It seems that a relationship is abusive as soon as one party isnt happy with the other party.

In this case it's financial - though i agree the split could be better i did highlight my point earlier regarding that. But this seems someway off of what i would describe as an abusive relationship.

Domestic abuse is about control.

I do not think we should get too hung up on words. It is how the poster feels about the situation.

There must still be many marriages where the man controls the money and gives his wife an allowance. No one is saying that every case is financial abuse. Many women, for one reason or another, are happy about such an arrangement.

When one half of the partnership is unhappy about the situation and has no control over changing things then this can termed an abusive relationship.

The OP has already said that her OH refuses to discuss finances with her despite her asking. He has also said that you can't get me out of the house - this sounds like control.

Of course no one knows all the details of this particular relationship but at the very least the replies given have served for the poster to examine her relationship. If things can be worked out then that would be great. If they can't then the OP has been given options and can choose whether to act on them or not.

Guest101

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Domestic abuse is about control.

I do not think we should get too hung up on words. It is how the poster feels about the situation.

There must still be many marriages where the man controls the money and gives his wife an allowance. No one is saying that every case is financial abuse. Many women, for one reason or another, are happy about such an arrangement.

When one half of the partnership is unhappy about the situation and has no control over changing things then this can termed an abusive relationship.

The OP has already said that her OH refuses to discuss finances with her despite her asking. He has also said that you can't get me out of the house - this sounds like control.

Of course no one knows all the details of this particular relationship but at the very least the replies given have served for the poster to examine her relationship. If things can be worked out then that would be great. If they can't then the OP has been given options and can choose whether to act on them or not.

interesting. 2 things jump out at me:

1: But the OP can change the situation by increasing her working hours. Certainly to fit around school time it would be possible to increase to 20-25 hours. Or possibly evenings. Equally I dont see the OPs obligation to provide 'cleaning' services to her husband if he behaves that way.

2: The saying 'you cant get me out the house'. Well seems quite right, he cant get her out either. It would be equally controlling to tell him to get out. If we want to move towards true equality then this is only fair.

pmlindyloo

We don't know how old the children are. According to her other thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5244020

she works in the evenings so it could be that the children are quite young.

Guest101

pmlindyloo wrote: »

We don't know how old the children are. According to her other thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5244020

she works in the evenings so it could be that the children are quite young.

Yes i noticed this too, but the OP also said:

For the record he does nothing around the home. When he gets in from work he just lays on the sofa and falls asleep while I cook, wash up, tidy and get our 4 children ready for bed.even at the weekend he does no household chores ever.

Which confuses me, as she cant be at two places at once.

BigAunty

pmlindyloo wrote: »

When one half of the partnership is unhappy about the situation and has no control over changing things then this can termed an abusive relationship.

.

The actual term of Domestic Abuse does have a concrete definition so its not about how one party feels about it.

I agree with other posters that the negative elements that the OP is experiencing in the relationship does not automatically make it a DA situation. However, as there is limited information about the extent of the negative behaviour, we can't rule it out either. The Womens Aid website has a checklist for victims or concerned parties to review to help them identify it.

DA is about a pattern of controlling behaviour. It does include financial control and disrespectful behaviour but that's not the sole criteria.

We've seen examples on this forum where women have been forced to be virtually housebound and tied to the kitchen sink, tracking software installed on their phones, emails hacked into, forced to handover their wages and all their benefits, cooerced into taking out loans, beaten up, forced not to take up college places, and so forth.

BigAunty

Guest101 wrote: »

interesting. 2 things jump out at me:

1: But the OP can change the situation by increasing her working hours. Certainly to fit around school time it would be possible to increase to 20-25 hours. Or possibly evenings. Equally I dont see the OPs obligation to provide 'cleaning' services to her husband if he behaves that way.

2: The saying 'you cant get me out the house'. Well seems quite right, he cant get her out either. It would be equally controlling to tell him to get out. If we want to move towards true equality then this is only fair.

1. Unfortunately, as we see time and time again on the benefits forum, working longer doesn't always result in income that reflects the effort. This can be because of the steep withdrawal of benefits, entry into taxation, cost and inconvenience of child care and travel to work. If the OP works x hours more she won't necesarily be £x better off as expected. In fact, her CTC will sink even more.

2. In some relationship breakdowns, the parent who doesn't want primary care of the children often volunteers to leave the family home in order to reduce the stress on the children and ex partner.

In the case of the OP, it may be that as she is on a low income with very little disposable income and as her husband comes across as a bit stingy, she has no means to move out. It's the kind of obstacle that actual victims of domestic abuse suffer that makes them stay with the abuser - where can they go? how can they pay for it?

Anyway, the other thread indicates that the OP believes her partner would be happy to see his children go homeless rather than pay more towards the cost of the upkeep of the home, so he's unlikely to fall in the category of an ex that wants to put his children first.

BigAunty

Guest101 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said. And really just a general point. It seems these days that relationships are either 'good' or 'abusive'

Has the word dysfunctional been removed from the dictionary? It seems that a relationship is abusive as soon as one party isnt happy with the other party.

.

How about the term 'disrespectful'? It seems she is unable to influence his rather hard point of view around what rights and responsibilities each should have in the relationship.

I wonder if the OPs partner is supportive about her physical and mental illnesses.

Lunar_Eclipse

mumof4littleguys wrote: »

He said he has 'roughly' £250 a month for himself but thats ok as he works full time and I only work part time.

Perhaps he's confusing paid work, with time spent working overall (i.e. for the benefit of the family of which paid income is one component.) I could be wrong, but I suspect you might work longer hours than he does.

In our family, personal spending has always been equal, regardless of who earnt the money, who was earning more at the time etc. We haven't had our own money since we moved in together.

I am also fairly confident that he has more than £250/month for personal spending, on the basis that he said he doesn't know how much he earns. Why did he not go and get a pay slip when you sat down to discuss this?...

Guest101

BigAunty wrote: »

1. Unfortunately, as we see time and time again on the benefits forum, working longer doesn't always result in income that reflects the effort. This can be because of the steep withdrawal of benefits, entry into taxation, cost and inconvenience of child care and travel to work. If the OP works x hours more she won't necesarily be £x better off as expected. In fact, her CTC will sink even more.

2. In some relationship breakdowns, the parent who doesn't want primary care of the children often volunteers to leave the family home in order to reduce the stress on the children and ex partner.

In the case of the OP, it may be that as she is on a low income with very little disposable income and as her husband comes across as a bit stingy, she has no means to move out. It's the kind of obstacle that actual victims of domestic abuse suffer that makes them stay with the abuser - where can they go? how can they pay for it?

Anyway, the other thread indicates that the OP believes her partner would be happy to see his children go homeless rather than pay more towards the cost of the upkeep of the home, so he's unlikely to fall in the category of an ex that wants to put his children first.

1: I wasn't suggesting it suitable for everyone. But perhaps in this case. I'm not going to debate the benefits cutting down as I can't really see how it should stay the same if income increases. It does rely on husband taking on a more active role. But that is his job so if he refuses that I would back the OP 100%.

2: if there is a parent who doesn't 'want' primary care. Normally it's not that straight forward.

3: I agree the OP believes this. But that doesn't necessarily make it the case. But I don't know to be honest, it does seem a strange dynamic. I can kind of see both sides to some degree.

Guest101

BigAunty wrote: »

How about the term 'disrespectful'? It seems she is unable to influence his rather hard point of view around what rights and responsibilities each should have in the relationship.

I wonder if the OPs partner is supportive about her physical and mental illnesses.

That places the blame in him. I don't think it's that simple.

We have our views, but equally he has his. And he does have a say in his life. It's his view that matters most.

Dysfunctional describes the relationship as a whole.

We don't know his job, which could be physically exhausting.

If the parties could walk in each other's shoes for a week, I suspect both would have a new respect for each other.