Sharing one-time maternity allowance payment with partner?

Siebrie

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

maman

It's commendable to know that all mothers and babies are protected in this way but the need for a safety net situation doesn't seem to apply in this case.

While I'm personally not a fan of a  'one pot' system for managing family finances in general, I do believe there's an exception to be made for a limited time when a couple have made a decision to have a child. This grant just seems to be for essential items and healthcare. There will be far more costs associated with a child, not least any drop in family income during maternity leave. 

I think it's far more important to discuss how, as a couple, you plan to manage your family finances in general during this time than worry about this one off grant.  Yes, these costs will need to be met but how do you plan to fund other costs associated with having the baby. 

sheramber

Does it matter of these expenses are  paid from the allowance or from a joint account that the money was placed in?

To say it is for the mother implies that the father will not contribute to the mother/baby expenses. That is a rather poor  opinion  of fathers.

Unless the OP suspects the father will spend the money on  personal things, but she doesn't say that.

I suppose it is is like child benefit was originally paid to the mother  but can now be  paid someone else.

Retireby40

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

tooldle

Maybe i’ve misunderstood, but is the allowance not a contribution towards medical costs incurred? 

Brie

Sounds to me that some people may not be aware of the inequities of finances between men and women that have persisted for centuries and that still prevail.  Not in every single couple of course but generally men are able to earn more than women and many men, more historically but there are some still, do not think that any additional money is required to rear children.  

74jax

tooldle said:

Maybe i’ve misunderstood, but is the allowance not a contribution towards medical costs incurred? 

The maternity allowance is granted to women who have undergone all compulsory medical examinations for the purpose of monitoring and following up their pregnancy, childbirth and newborn child up to the age of 2.

Luxemburg government website indicates so.  It's hard to know when it's such a different scheme to what we have here. 

maman

Brie said:

Sounds to me that some people may not be aware of the inequities of finances between men and women that have persisted for centuries and that still prevail.  Not in every single couple of course but generally men are able to earn more than women and many men, more historically but there are some still, do not think that any additional money is required to rear children.  

That may be true as a generalisation but we don't know the nature of finances in this case other than that they have financial discussions and that the OH's behaviour is 'cheap'. 

I'd be appalled if OP thought her DH would deprive her of medical care by taking the grant into a joint account. We need more information on how household money is arranged. 

74jax

maman said:

Brie said:

Sounds to me that some people may not be aware of the inequities of finances between men and women that have persisted for centuries and that still prevail.  Not in every single couple of course but generally men are able to earn more than women and many men, more historically but there are some still, do not think that any additional money is required to rear children.  

That may be true as a generalisation but we don't know the nature of finances in this case other than that they have financial discussions and that the OH's behaviour is 'cheap'. 

I'd be appalled if OP thought her DH would deprive her of medical care by taking the grant into a joint account. We need more information on how household money is arranged. 

Exactly. Plus he's wanting it in the joint account so he can help buying things for the baby from it. It's not to go on household bills or himself.

From what I gather 3 payments are made, 2 before birth for medical bills and 1 after birth for items. So I do kind of see where he is coming from. Its hard being in luxembourg and not knowing the 'norm' for these 3 payments.

It is only the last payment the op says he wants to help spend on the baby so I can't see why the first 2 can't go on medical bills as intended. 

maman

I suppose as most posters are UK based it's harder to understand how it works. 

The grants can't be ring fenced otherwise OP wouldn't be asking the question. 

For me this question about this particular grant seems minor. It's more a precursor discussion to how they plan to organise their family finances going forward. 🤔