Money Moral Dilemma: Should my partner pay more towards bills to cover his children in our new home?

pollym57

If you are serious about your relationship and moving in together then EVERYTHING should be 50/50. That includes his children as you could be their stepparent in years to come. My husband took on me with 4 children, I took him on with 2, but everything was split 50/50. That’s how partnerships work. Or maybe we’re just old fashioned. 

Marcon

If you disagree on something as fundamental as this, is there really a future for your relationship - especially if you don't have the protection of being married when you split up?

grassmarket

It’s not just the household bills & chores - what about all the trips/meals out/holidays you’ll have as a family of 5? Agree you should protect your investment by equal equity in house, but the rest of expenditure has potential to get very messy/divisive unless ground rules agreed up front.  

Uriziel

A house purchase is an investment and as it is an investment you should want a 50/50 split since you are also looking to capitalize on any gain. Let him pay more on bills and anything else that his kids use.

clarmstrong

The house should be 50/50 to safeguard in case they split in the future, Three children cost extra in food and fuel, also extra work for you and costs will go up as they get older. Just to let you know what it can cost.  My son left home at 26 and just in food and fuel I was spending 25 pounds a week less without him there. He was paying his way while at home so I was no better off but I was no worse off either and that is ok. 3 Young kids may not cost that at the moment but it is extra 

buttercup03

You are right, 100%. With what he's asking, he'd get payback for paying more of the mortgage - by owning more of the property as it rises in value. You'd just be subsidising his brats: The fuel/leccy/food/transport/refurbishment costs are going to be far higher than if there were just the two of you, leaving aside anything that is clearly attributable to the children, like clothing/treats/spending money/schooling costs. Further, you have no idea how long they'll be there. There are many parents now who have offspring in their 30's still living with them, such is the cost of housing. I'm a man, btw!

gloriouslyhappy

Standardize_Delay_Repay said:

You are right. 50/50 ownership/mortgage and he contributes more towards the bills. Anything else and I’d run a mile.

This ^^^ is the only fair way to do it. Plus, he does more than half of cooking, cleaning, laundry, and all the fetching and carrying for his children. 

And get it in writing!

gothvixen

You. Keep your interest in the property, which will hopefully bring profit eventually. Him paying extra for the bills is right as they are immediate costs. He's screwing you over. Think carefully and don't back down on this. His version rips you off. It would be a huge red flag for me.

0netfish

You are right. He should contribute more to the bills and you should own 50%. If he paid more mortgage and owned a larger percentage of the property, that wouldn't be a compensation to you, he would get value for his money. And at the same time if you paid half of the bills, you got nothing for the extra money you paid. So this arrangement would actually be very unfair, at your cost. 

Lowry1986

I think you both have a point but also that yours is stronger.  Investment in the property is important for you personally but should it not also reflect your shared investment in your relationship as well as the situation you will both find when the children are no longer around. Having said that should not the same criteria reflect a shared investment in the children.  Or cannot you begin to see his children as your own!?