Money Moral Dilemma: Should I ask my partner to pay me for childcare?

Ames

TBagpuss wrote: »

Exactly. This is why I thought the question was badly worded rather than stupid. It's not really about being 'paid' as if you were a child minder, it's about how you, as a couple, manage your finanaces and the care of your child.

I'm quite shocked that there are people attacking the OP yet not in anyway criticising the Partner who (by inference) neither helps with the child's care nor increases his contributions to household outgoigns

Exactly. When we get the regular questions along the lines of 'I stopped work/cut my hours to stay at home and bring up the kids but I'm really struggling financially' there's loads of constructive advice about pooling income, paying proportionately into the pot etc.

MSE have taken a common situation and raised it in the most inflammatory way.

bunnybunnyrabbit

Errr no! I work part time and feel incredibly lucky to be able to spend that extra time with my daughter while my husband has to work full time.

We pay all joint bills (including childcare) from our joint account and we pay in a proportion each based on our individual wages as a % of our total income. We then have our own accounts for our own bills (e.g mobile phone) and spending. It works really well and saves any arguments over spending habits.

I wouldn't dream of asking for payment for those extra days I'm at home. My view is that marriage/cohabitation is a partnership with give and take. My husband does most of the cooking but I do most of the cleaning. He works two days a week more than me while I get to play with our daughter, go on nice days out and often sneak in an afternoon nap 😉 Not that I'm saying it isn't bloody hard work at times!!

RubyStar3

I am saddened by the replies to this post. It is surely not essential to loose all financial independence when entering into a relationship. I think an ideal solution is to have a separate bank account from which all household bills, including childcare are paid. Having added up what is required to fund this account each month, you can then agree how much each of you contributes to it from your respective incomes. If your incomes are equal then presumably you would contribute equally, or you may want to do that anyway. Otherwise a contribution proportional to income might be OK. Any money you each had left over would be yours to spend as you each saw fit, large extra joint purchases would need to be agreed.

Volbeat1!

So are you left with no money for yourself whilst your partner has loads? My parents pooled all their money, sorted out money for savings (when they had it) and they had the same amount of 'pocket money' (which they could spend how they liked with no nagging from the other!) regardless of how much each person was bringing in. My mum was a stay at home mum and then worked part-time for a while to be there for me and my sister. This is of course extremely valuable work which was valued by my dad and she always had (and still does) the same amount of personal money to spend each. If your money is separate and you are still putting as much money into the household pot as when you were working full time I think that this is unfair and should be adjusted on a percentage scale as has been suggested, thus leaving you with more money. The partner working full time shouldering that extra financial responsibility shows a respect for the job the stay at home parent is doing and should be the only way you are 'paid' for the child care. Household responsibilities should be shared whether they are earning money, caring for children, doing the housework and gardening and laundry and washing the car, putting up shelves, etc, etc, etc,! What I am seeing behind this bizarre question is a dislike with the organisation of household responsibilities and finance!
Towards the end of my relationship with my son's father (who I didn't live with for reasons I won't go into here) I wanted to go out (something I rarely did) for my birthday and he said he wasn't going to babysit! Having persuaded him to 'babysit' he phoned me half an hour before I was going out and said he wasn't going to come unless his tea was on the table when I arrived!

SandraDJ

I'm not sure the dilemma is as odd as first perceived.

I resigned from fulltime employment before my first child was born, and went into a part time job when my second child was 3. Later on I went back into part-time employment when the kids were at school.

Because I had time out of employment, and some of the jobs weren't pensionable I am now in the predicament of having a very small occupational pension.

My pension, along with my state pension, would allow me to exist. In order to have a life I need to carry on working when I would dearly love to retire. My ex-husband has a very good pension - I know that when I saw his finances during the divorce his projected pension was more than I was earning in a fulltime post.

That time out of employment or working part-time will have an impact on the future.

fatpiggy

Back in the 1960s it was normal for mums to stay home and raise their children at least until they were in full time education. My Dad's wages were a fraction of what my Mum could earn as a teacher, but she felt it was her job to bring us up so we cut our cloth accordingly and practiced every money-saving tactic there was to be had. I can remember one spring Mum was really short of money so we went potato picking for a few days - I remember because it was FREEZING and blowing a gale across the open field! I must have been about 4. Mum and Dad always pooled their money into a joint account although they had separate ones as well for their pocket money. It was never an issue between them that Mum earned a lot more than Dad. Dad did a lot of the money managing because he worked near a bank. He would withdraw a sum every Friday and then they would divvy it up for petrol, housekeeping, bills etc. Very good life lessons for me.

duchy

Which is why pensions are supposed to be taken into account when couples divorce as they are a part of the marital pot even though they aren't a liquid asset. When you divorced your settlement should have reflected that pension inequality.

SandraDJ wrote: »

I'm not sure the dilemma is as odd as first perceived.

I resigned from fulltime employment before my first child was born, and went into a part time job when my second child was 3. Later on I went back into part-time employment when the kids were at school.

Because I had time out of employment, and some of the jobs weren't pensionable I am now in the predicament of having a very small occupational pension.

My pension, along with my state pension, would allow me to exist. In order to have a life I need to carry on working when I would dearly love to retire. My ex-husband has a very good pension - I know that when I saw his finances during the divorce his projected pension was more than I was earning in a fulltime post.

That time out of employment or working part-time will have an impact on the future.

JimmyTheWig

Mojisola wrote: »

The real dilemma is probably one step back from this question.

If one partner is free to work all week and keeps the extra money they earn while the other is sacrificing a couple of days' work to do child care but is consequently financially struggling, then I can see how the thought of getting paid for childcare might have arisen.

The parents need to discuss money and possibly change how they share out the family's income.

Spot on.

Personally I don't understand the concept of being in a partnership (whether married or not) and not pooling all income and expenditure.
But I accept that some couples don't agree with me there.

If he earns £500 a week and she earns £300 a week, as she only works three days in order to look after their child for the other two, then it would be terribly unfair for him to have £200 a week more money than she has.
If you want to call redressing that difference being paid for childcare then so be it, but it is a very odd phrase.

If, on the other hand, all money is split and they have £100 a week each to spend, for her to ask for some of his £100 as she is providing childcare is crazy.

duchy

Surely the root of all of this is a control issue

If one half of the couple feel that as they earn more they have more say, more control , more spending money then it isn't a partnership .

If a couple regard all incomings as equal and view the budget as joint -then these issues don't arise.

I've being both the higher, lower and non wage earner - at various times. I genuinely couldn't be with a partner who didn't regard a relationship as equal in all ways.

I dont think much of the controlling partner is these cases but I feel the controlled partner also bears responsibility for allowing the situation to exist too.

kboss2010

ravilious_fan wrote: »

It's probably better to put all your money in together if you are a family, rather than thinking of it as 'my money' and 'his money'.

Nope, that's the absolute worst thing to do. I used to work in finance, good luck sorting out that unholy mess if you split up when all of your money is pooled together in joint accounts and one party gets difficult!

As for the OP, seriously? Only if you you would be willing to pay him if the situation was reversed. I doubt it.