Someecards Logo
'AITA for saying I'll only be a SAHM if my partner pays for everything?' UPDATED

'AITA for saying I'll only be a SAHM if my partner pays for everything?' UPDATED


"AITA for saying I'll be a stay at home mom if my partner pays for everything?"

My partner and I (engaged, had to push back wedding with the current crisis). We have a 20 month old son and we're talking about having a second kid soon-ish. We're hopefully going to start trying for our second next year.

When my son was born, I took about 6 weeks of maternity leave, which was full pay, and then went back to work because I was earning 1.5x what my partner was earning. During this time we split expenses 50/50 because we were both working. Also during this time, we were able to enrol our son in nursery, but my mum also really helped us out with childcare as we worked long hours.

My partner now has a new job that pays about the same rate as mine. As maternity leave can extend for up to a year, he has suggested that when we have our second child, I take a full year off of work as maternity leave, and then we enrol the baby in nursery when they're a year old.

His reasoning for this is that I no longer want my mother helping out (long story) and his job is fairly new so while he's entitled to paternity leave, he is hesitant to take it, and it will be far easier for me to request maternity leave at a place I've worked at for 6 years, especially as I'll get up to a full year.

This seems like a fair enough plan, except he has also said that during this time, if I took maternity leave, he would want me to continue paying for things 50/50, the way we've always done.

However, I would only get my full pay for the first 6 weeks, then I would get £150-ish for the next 33 weeks, then no pay at all after week 39. This means that from weeks 39-52, I would be paying out of my savings, which I already don't have a lot of.

My side is that I feel he shouldn't be expecting me to pay 50/50 when I am voluntarily not earning a full pay for our child, and we're both working better hours than we were a couple years ago so with nursery, we won't need that much help.

His side is that we've always paid 50/50 and it's unfair of me to expect him to pay double, and that we wouldn't need to even consider this if I would just let mum babysit. I then said I'd only be a stay at home if he pays 100% of everything, or at least the majority (80% or above).

He said this was ridiculous as our regular 50/50 split takes up exactly half of our paychecks, so 100% would mean his entire pay every month for a year. This caused an argument. It wasn't a screaming match or anything like that, but we are disagreeing and both sides feel that the other is being unreasonable/irrational/just plain stupid. I need an objective third party to provide some perspective. AITA?

What do you think? AITA? This is what top commenters had to say:

Update: I'll be taking 4 months off, and he'll be paying 100% during that time, aside from the first 6 weeks, which he will also be taking off, during which time we'll stick with 50/50.

Also, since some people were confused, though I doubt anyone is still on this thread, we can afford our current lifestyle and another child. If, for example, all of our expenses came to £1000 per month, we are each earning £1000, meaning we both pay £500 per month and save most of the other £500 (aside from the odd bit of "fun money" or unseen expenses eg car repairs).

We have savings, but if I was on a reduced income and still had to pay for half of everything, I would be taking money from my savings every month. We have a joint savings account for our son and will be getting a joint account for expenses after we get married.

Sources: Reddit
© Copyright 2024 Someecards, Inc

Featured Content