Money money money.

[Seraphim]

Then why do you describe it as only your marriage?

lol, I know what you mean.

 

Because what everyone does is different. If I say this happens IN marriage 19 people will argue me 19 ways to Tuesday.

[Kmart23]

Because what everyone does is different. If I say this happens IN marriage 19 people will argue me 19 ways to Tuesday.

 

Just busting your balls, sorry.

You are right, with the comment about needing counselling. Thanks!

[Seraphim]

Just busting your balls, sorry.

You are right, with the comment about needing counselling. Thanks!

 

I don’t have any balls ;)

[Kmart23]

I don’t have any balls ;)

 

From your replies it didn't take a genius to know that. I just meant it figuratively.

[Seraphim]

From your replies it didn't take a genius to know that. I just meant it figuratively.

 

I know. Hence the ;)

[Kmart23]

I know. Hence the ;)

 

Want to know how I knew?

[itsallgrand]

I never asked her to, but she had said it was her plan. There are three application forms on the table to various Childcare facilities within close proximity. The closest of which being 4 minutes away. She still is undecided and hasn't filled out a single word in any. I want her to work so that we can continue saving for a house. Currently I have stopped saving for the house deposit after she crashed our car.

She knows I want her to start working but she is happy staying at home with our son and going out with her friends with babies of a similar age to our son. It's impossible for me to tell her to stop this lifestyle of hers to bring in a bit more cash.

 

Why is it impossible for you to ask her to modify her lifestyle to bring in more cash?

[itsallgrand]

What a world where someone who hid 40 k in debt, who chooses not to work, who has no disability preventing them from working, who chose to create a child, is protected under the law to be provided for !

 

I'm not seeing how a woman in this scenario , having everything provided for her and her child, and a good chunk of mad money on top of it, could be considered a 'prisoner' or 'financial hostage'.

 

Sorry, this is just crazy to me.

[yatsue]

What a world where someone who hid 40 k in debt, who chooses not to work, who has no disability preventing them from working, who chose to create a child, is protected under the law to be provided for !

 

I'm not seeing how a woman in this scenario , having everything provided for her and her child, and a good chunk of mad money on top of it, could be considered a 'prisoner' or 'financial hostage'.

 

Sorry, this is just crazy to me.

 

Exactly. Putting a cap on putting money into a joint bank account is in no way financial abuse or consequence. It is called financial management. The wife has proven irresponsible with finances, in light of discovering this large debt that was hidden, and has a fit like a child when she doesn't receive money. With this behavior she has also proven she can't be reasoned with, so she has to be treated like a child if she is going to act like one. She can't be reasoned with apparently so he needs to put a cap on the amount allotted to her.

 

People need to realize, the more money she takes out of that account is less money spent on the needs of their child, after taking care of the family unit's needs. There are always financial road bumps that make its way into our lives, whether it is job loss/pay cut, bad economy, or just bad circumstances (ex: rates went up for any bills, an accident, medical bills, repairs, etc). They are apparently out on a car, which needs replacement, and funds are going to a large debt that may not necessarily need to be legally paid. Getting another car after that loss is a financial hit. They can't keep taking these hits. Eventually if they keep coming, it becomes too much, and then it may lead to not satisfying the child's needs. It does happen. It is a parent's job to not let that happen, even if it is their spouse that's doing it.

 

If her parents paid for the wife's schooling and have no legal agreement or contract, in which she has to pay it back, then it is essentially gifted money. The parents likely expect it to be paid back, or want it to be, but if there's no contract then it leaves it up to the wife to do it on her own conscience alone. The marriage doesn't make you entitled to have your spouse fund a "debt" that was given like a gift. I really doubt the parents drew out a contract, so this should be paid by the wife, not her husband. It wasn't even discussed with him and he shouldn't have to pay for it, especially when he is solely responsible for financing the family.

 

I do think it is a great idea to discuss with a lawyer about how much money you should legally give to your spouse, which I would deem as her "emergency" fund I mentioned. A fund the wife can use for daily needs, activities, and the children in general, not accounting for her large "debt".

[Wiseman2]

If it's not legally binding such as a bank loan, getting married doesn't make you responsible for it. You didn't "inherit debt". You are simply resentful and contemptuous of her because you do not respect her. That is apparent in your derogatory description of her education, which of course she can't use because you want her taking care of you, your house and your child.

 

She's not your nanny, she's your wife. Why not get proper information from accountants and attorneys regarding this? Have you even checked your credit report? Is this really about money or about control and contempt?

Shouldn't she have informed me of this debt prior to us getting married? I love our son to death and I love to see how well he is treated by his mom, which makes me feel really blessed. I am unwilling however to inherit a $40k debt.

[Seraphim]

Come on guys. You KNOW that it not what I said. But what a world is it that people call for a woman to be cut down to subsistence level because she is a stay at home mom. And putting a cap on not on the money is not what was said . What was said was subsistence level . Go back and read post 13.

 

I am surprised people here are saying please force another woman into MY ideal of what the world is . Because my vision of the world is the only one . The feminist version of the world is the only version . And people can’t stray from that version or we should treat them like a child .

 

Wow. The feminist movement is no longer about women but only certain kinds of women . It is no longer inclusive but exclusive . That’s pretty sad .

[yatsue]

Come on guys. You KNOW that it not what I said. But what a world is it that people call for a woman to be cut down to subsistence level because she is a stay at home mom. And putting a cap on not on the money is not what was said . What was said was subsistence level . Go back and read post 13.

 

I am surprised people here are saying please force another woman into MY ideal of what the world is . Because my vision of the world is the only one . The feminist version of the world is the only version . And people can’t stray from that version or we should treat them like a child .

 

Wow. The feminist movement is no longer about women but only certain kinds of women . It is no longer inclusive but exclusive . That’s pretty sad .

 

What I meant by my post was to put essentially a cap on her spending, not to deprive her financially. I stated to provide her with what she needed for the bare essentials and have some money for her for emergencies. Emergencies I define as a buffer amount for anything she needed to take care of for herself and the kids. Not enough to pay off for a large loan. I am sure a lawyer would know how much to limit it to.

 

Yes, stop the joint account if they are linked directly to accessing his money. If not, then put a cap on her end of the joint account. It depends how it's set up. I am unsure how it is for them. I have a joint account with my parents, but they can only deposit money into my account. They cannot take any. However, my parents' joint account can be accessed by either one of my parents for money.

 

And yes, don't give her money to spend on her debt or enough she may irresponsibly spend with, other than the emergency funds I mentioned (the cap bank account). I think the point is being missed. She needs a limit. She has been proven to not be forthcoming and can really financially harm the family. It is a parent's job to provide and protect their children. The OP needs to be more careful with what he gives her, since he is the sole provider of income and his wife is making unprecedented large payments.

 

BTW, I had a stay at home dad. I don't state anything here out of feminism, for or against stay at home moms, or whatever. I state it from a place of upholding responsibility. The wife is being irresponsible and has shown she hides things, in terms of money expendature. Huge ones, at that. That alone, with a child in the mix, is a big red flag to me, in which this person should not freely spend money made by another person.

[Seraphim]

I have free access to my husband’s funds and he has free access to mine. Our version is we are all in . EVERYTHING is OURS. We are a team first and individuals second . Marriage is what the two people want it to be. Not what others want it to be . Counselling would probably be better for them so they find a happy version of what they want their marriage to be . Everybody’s marriage is going to be different . And I’m not saying she was 100% right she should have stated her debt load in the beginning . And the fact she wanted to be a stay at home mom she should’ve stated that before they got married . Counselling would probably work far better than financial punishments .

[Wiseman2]

Marriage carries certain legal implications with respect to property, money, and debt. Becoming legally married in the eyes of your state means your spouse's income and debt are now yours, as well.

 

If this is a real loan from a bank and is legally considered debt then there's an issue. But trying to pay back her parents from Marital Property money is different. How can she steal from her own money? It seems she knows about tyrannical dynamics here and decided to try to repay her parents from whatever "allowance" quietly and secretly to avoid the wrath of a financial dictator. If anyone would even call this a marriage.

[RainyCoast]

i get the feeling people are making this thread about what they want it to be about, and not what it is. for example, i "like" how so may jumped on OP for "forbidding his wife to work". while it's a question worth raising, the number of posts that claim and then continue to advise on the ground of the false assumption that he is locking her up and restricitng her finances and that he has forced off out of the workforce is strange. it has been clearly stated she is choosing not to work or contribute to the family life financially in any way. not saying that she isn't contributing in other ways and that that isn't a legitimate arrangement at all, but that her chronically deceitful behavior throws a completely different light on the situation. she never has been a team with her husband. she never said, before the marriage, or during, look, i borrowed 40 k from my parents, them and i feel it would be right to pay them back, let's get advice and forge a plan on paying it back. she never said would you agree i gradually pay them back from our money. yall saying well it's "their" money and somehow "their money" means she gets to do what she wants with it without even discussing it but if he cares where it's going he's out of line. is it both of theirs or not? and why is everyone talking about it like he is restricting her financial freedom? he has written that there's plenty of money available on both the joint account which she uses with no limitation, as well as regular transfers to her personal account and she is likewise not restricted in how she spends that.

 

they never sat down and agreed that he would be the sole earner. if they did, i'd call it a different ball game. instead, she has been making endless "promises", perpetually postponed, that she will start contributing. if she chose to be a housewife, she certainly never made him aware of that and has been quite deceitful/conning in avoiding employment. i'll fill out the form....when pigs fly...

 

people have different ideas about what marriages ought to be...which is kinda why marriage is an agreement between the two future spouses, innit? you make false promises to marry someone, trap them with a kid, figure when everything is "ours" he'll be legally helpless in what happens to "ours" and "forget" to mention you want 40k of that for your debt, i'm sorry, you're a $hi!!y con. he trapped her?

 

i don't know to what extent OP initiated disucussions about what he wants out of this marriage and i wish he'd had a pre-nup but then i can imagine when one is about to marry someone they trust them and don't think to mention "btw in case you had 40 k debt you wanted to pay off from our money i'd not agree unless you were contributing some yourself". this was on her to divulge, but she didn't, and continued to lie, thus, she's been plain fradulent.

 

maybe next time everyone talks about the importance of open communication and honesty in a relationship add "unless you'd like them to help you pay off a debt without them being aware of it, in which case, don't say anything, just do it, it's yours anyway and whoever is about to marry you should just assume you may have 40k to pay off and are free to use your together money to do so without so much as a word. oh, and if you never planned to contribute financially, just keep promising you will but don't actually do it. that should cut it".

 

he had a right to know what he was getting into, and decide for himself whether he was okay with it, not whether other people would choose a marriage like that. he didn't think it through at the time and she certainly didn't care to remind him.

 

there are couples who genuinely agree only one will work and earn, and by extension cover any expense or financial obligations of the other, but to agree to anything, one firstly has to be aware what they're agreeing to. that fact that someone can legally do something once they're married to you, does not mean you would've married them in the first place had you known what their plan was. just get someone to sign a legally binding contract, right.

 

guess i can just accrue debt, marry someone who is unaware of it and unaware of the fact i'm going to pay it off from our money and also unaware of the fact i'm going to resign from my job, never get a new one, or ever contribute a penny. they should just know i can and might do it and that's what they're getting themselves into and they can't complain because i'm just going to call it being a housewife or stay at home mom and people do that and it's allright, even if it isn't for them. everything is really wrong with that picture to me, and while it apparently isn't for everyone, it is wrong for OP as well. i don't feel it's okay to disregard that and just tell him she has every right to it. he has a right to a marriage that is okay for him, and he's been tricked out of it. i hope he lawyers up, and that the relationship, not just the financial part of it, is salvageable through expert help as just sucking up and accepting both the practical and emotional aspect are far removed from how one hoped the single most important partnership of their life will pan out is just cruel. for both of them.

[yatsue]

I have free access to my husband’s funds and he has free access to mine. Our version is we are all in . EVERYTHING is OURS. We are a team first and individuals second . Marriage is what the two people want it to be. Not what others want it to be . Counselling would probably be better for them so they find a happy version of what they want their marriage to be . Everybody’s marriage is going to be different . And I’m not saying she was 100% right she should have stated her debt load in the beginning . And the fact she wanted to be a stay at home mom she should’ve stated that before they got married . Counselling would probably work far better than financial punishments .

 

Having separate accounts is not a financial punishment if there is one your spouse can access for their needs, set at a certain amount, given there is only one sole income provider. If, back in the day, your husband was irresponsible with large sums of money like this guy's wife has been, could not be reasoned with, you are the only provider of income, and you both had a young child, then you would keep depositing all of your money into an account he can fully spend? What if he starts spending even more, enough that makes you begin to worry about your finances? If you and your husband are a team first, where does that put your child? I would like to think you would have some reservations about that motto, being subjected to this unfortunate circumstance, and would consider limiting the account you put all your money into. I think counselling is a good idea, but limiting access until you can establish financial trust again would be the smart move. Especially since it is child abuse if you cannot financially provide for your child's essential needs and could lose custody.

 

To be legally married doesn't mean your spouse can access your separate bank account. In terms of state law, your spouse can only access accounts with both names on file. However, if the OP's wife wracks up any debts, in terms of credit cards or loans to pay off to her parents instead, then that is a loophole in which the OP will be held responsible to pay while married. A separate bank account only limits their ability to do this, but it makes it harder to do so. It's not wise to hurt your own credit just so you can get your spouse to pay a debt you aren't legally entitled to pay anyway.

[Seraphim]

Having separate accounts is not a financial punishment if there is one your spouse can access for their needs, set at a certain amount, given there is only one sole income provider. If, back in the day, your husband was irresponsible with large sums of money like this guy's wife has been, could not be reasoned with, you are the only provider of income, and you both had a young child, then you would keep depositing all of your money into an account he can fully spend? What if he starts spending even more, enough that makes you begin to worry about your finances? If you and your husband are a team first, where does that put your child? I would like to think you would have some reservations about that motto, being subjected to this unfortunate circumstance, and would consider limiting the account you put all your money into. I think counselling is a good idea, but limiting access until you can establish financial trust again would be the smart move. Especially since it is child abuse if you cannot financially provide for your child's essential needs and could lose custody.

 

To be legally married doesn't mean your spouse can access your separate bank account. In terms of state law, your spouse can only access accounts with both names on file. However, if the OP's wife wracks up any debts, in terms of credit cards or loans to pay off to her parents instead, then that is a loophole in which the OP will be held responsible to pay while married. A separate bank account only limits their ability to do this, but it makes it harder to do so. It's not wise to hurt your own credit just so you can get your spouse to pay a debt you aren't legally entitled to pay anyway.

 

Well, we trust each other. We see everything the other does financially as I pay all the bills. It is our money but I pay everything. And he trusts that I do that. But I realize my version of being married is not everybody’s version .

 

Also try not to think of everything as a “state “ not everybody lives in the US . The OP may be American or he may not be. But not everybody on here is . In fact the site is actually Canadian.

[yatsue]

Well, we trust each other. We see everything the other does financially as I pay all the bills. It is our money but I pay everything. And he trusts that I do that. But I realize my version of being married is not everybody’s version .

 

Also try not to think of everything as a “state “ not everybody lives in the US . The OP may be American or he may not be. But not everybody on here is . In fact the site is actually Canadian.

 

I am glad you trust your spouse. The OP clearly has good reason not to financially, so I offer my perspective based on that senario.

 

I was referencing Wiseman's post about the state portion, hence why I used it as an attempt to try to be clear in the response separation. I am unaware what goes on outside the US, but if the OP lives in the states or in a region with a similar setup then this information will be useful to him. Hence, why I mentioned consulting a lawyer would be best and the way your bank account is set up can vary.

[catfeeder]

When you can't trust your spouse, it's time to seek legal advice from an attorney to learn all of your options.

[itsallgrand]

Come on guys. You KNOW that it not what I said. But what a world is it that people call for a woman to be cut down to subsistence level because she is a stay at home mom. And putting a cap on not on the money is not what was said . What was said was subsistence level . Go back and read post 13.

 

I am surprised people here are saying please force another woman into MY ideal of what the world is . Because my vision of the world is the only one . The feminist version of the world is the only version . And people can’t stray from that version or we should treat them like a child .

 

Wow. The feminist movement is no longer about women but only certain kinds of women . It is no longer inclusive but exclusive . That’s pretty sad .

 

I was not approaching it as a feminist issue. I was approaching it as a marriage and parental issue.

 

It comes down to whether you believe it a right to be a stay at home wife and mother ( or husband and father) or if it is a luxury.

[Seraphim]

I was not approaching it as a feminist issue. I was approaching it as a marriage and parental issue.

 

It comes down to whether you believe it a right to be a stay at home wife and mother ( or husband and father) or if it is a luxury.

 

It is the right of everyone to live the life that makes them happy . (Within legal limits)Life is SHORT. As I get older I realize exactly how short. If someone wants to be with their kids and makes that arrangement zero is wrong with it.

[Seraphim]

And think about it..... your time with your child as a small person is extremely limited . This year in two months time my son will be 21 ,yes 21 !! When I joined this forum he was eight so more than half of his life has gone by! Just in that amount of time he went from little kid to adult . Andinfant to little kid is even shorter . You don’t ever get that time back . But you can work any old time .

 

When I think about my life now less than half is left . Three months I will be 52 . There is no way in god’s green creation I’m going to make it to 100 . And even if I did what part of that would be enjoyable and worth living ? I have watched people get older , it ain’t pretty . Even now I have a chronic severe pain condition which is incurable ,bad knees and a bad hip . When do I get to enjoy my life exactly ? When I stop busting my hump and maybe I might have the physical ability left enjoyed who knows . But in one’s 20s and 30s and sometimes even for early 40s you have no concept of your own mortality . Most of the time it is just not an issue . Don’t even give it two thoughts . But it is coming and coming fast . There is a lot of work work work work work work work and no enjoyment . People should be happy and the vast majority aren’t .