'AITA for telling my fiancée she'll have to help pay for my son if she wants to be a SAHM?'

"AITA for telling my fiancée she will have to help pay expenses for my son if she wants to be a SAHM?"

I'm engaged to marry Beth and we've been talking a lot about money. Money is not an issue because we both work and make decent money. I also have an 8yo son named Tanner from a previous relationship and have full custody.

Beth said she didn't want to be on the hook for Tanner's expenses like extracurricular activities or private school tuition. I said I totally understand and it's reasonable. She then said that if and when we have kids (99.99% chance we will have kids if we marry), then she'd want to be a SAHM. I said that would put a lot of pressure on me as the sole financial provider.

I might have to get a second job and worst of all, Tanner would be devastated that my time went from his getting 100% to now sharing it with a wife, new kids and another job. In that arrangement, me and Tanner would have to sacrifice more than anyone. Beth tried to say it was a sacrifice for her too but I quickly shut that down by pointing out that being a SAHM is luxury and working two jobs isn't.

I told her the only way it would work is if she worked PT to ensure that Tanner could still go to private school, have his extracurricular activities and to keep his babysitter around (so that Tanner still has a guy to take him out to do guy stuff if I can't). Unfortunately that might mean that you don't get to shop or get your nails done as often as you like.

But everyone gets something and everyone sacrifices something. She said that was outrageous and I said we can't stop negotiating after she gets what she wants. I said if the roles were reversed then I would take it in a heartbeat because I'd gladly be a SAHD over going to work and having the sole responsibility of being the sole provider.

The commenters were quick to respond.

Sebscreen wrote:

NTA. Excuse me?! Your FIANCEE, someone who on paper will be in your son's life permanently, told you upfront that she doesn't want the responsibility to providing for him but will personally change her lifestyle to dote on any biological children you have with her... and you're fine with this? You are Tanner's only parent.

What do you think will happen even if she agrees to work part time? Tanner's half-sibling will obviously be favoured and he will be neglected and unloved all throughout his childhood. Did she even consider what would happen to Tanner if you started working two jobs; did you? He would have zero time and attention from you.

And you know for a fact he will receive none from Beth either, who will have her hands full with the baby (her "real" family). You better be crystal clear about how much she actually cares about your son before you marry this woman. You are his only parent, you cannot afford to fail him. By the way, I hope Tanner's biological mother is paying child support.

sixoo6 wrote:

I'm confused. How will Beth help pay for expenses for your son if she becomes a SAHM? She presumably won't be working at this point, so would that just come out of her personal savings or something - which would eventually dry up? Usually a working dad + SAHM situation means the dad pays for everything because the mom literally isn't making any income.

EDIT: OK, I see that what you mean by "she will have to pay expenses" is that she'll need a part-time job if she decides to become a SAHM, and that's how she's to contribute to Tanner's extracurriculars and such.

Honestly, this all seems so weird to me.

If she plans to be a SAHM, the main benefit would be that ALL the kids would have a parent around 24/7 to care for them and alleviate the need to hire outsiders to occupy their time and watch them while the parents are working... but from what you're telling us, Tanner's life is already built around not having that, so he goes to extracurriculars and gets babysitting instead.

On top of that, in your plans for after you have a kid together, Tanner will still get all of these things, and none of it will be alleviated by Beth being a SAHM. Does she intend to act as a SAHM only to the future child(ren) you both have together while leaving Tanner as an outsider to be taken care of by paid activities?

Information, please. IMO, being a SAHM only makes sense as a measure to remove things like babysitting expenses and ensure parentally-guided development in the children, so I'm not sure if the issue is that Beth specifically doesn't want to take that role for Tanner, or that you insist Tanner continue getting all the extra stuff when Beth becomes a SAHM.

ESH. OP and Beth have the exact same mentality that step-children aren't really their children, so there's no point in only blaming Beth for being a bad potential step-mom, you two both suck. Don't marry her until Tanner's grown and moved out.

Puzzleheaded-Food98 wrote:

Leaning towards ESH. It seems like what you’re saying is that you can’t really afford to have two kids and a stay-at-home-spouse, which is totally understandable. But you’re saying some pretty sexist stuff here, both generally and about SAHMs and that’s what leads me to think YTA — seems like there’s more to it than just the expenses.

Raising kids at home is not a “luxury,” it is back-fucking-breaking-work. Yes, it is a luxury to have that option, but it doesn’t mean exercising it as “luxurious.” And did you really make some sarcastic comment about nails and shopping? SMH.

To be fair, I also think Beth is the AH here for not being willing to help out on Tanner’s expenses, at least not once you’re married. Still, if you’re nearly certainly on that track, seems kind of an AH move. You and your son are a package deal, I hope she understands she will be his mom, too.

phantomdhalia wrote:

Your attitude is super weird. Saying her being a SAHM is a luxury, you sound extremely dismissive of her. Also the point of being a SAHM is to be stay at home… aka her job is taking care of the kids. That isn’t a luxury. If you have to work 2 jobs for her to stay at home it sounds like you guys can’t afford it.

She should understand your son has expenses you are not willing to compromise on, and yes if she insists on staying home then she might have to forgo some things she prefers since it’s not fair the kid has to give up his things, she’s the adult. But your attitude is suuuuper weird vibes, the way you talk about her. She’s not even your wife yet.

Pure-You9124 wrote:

ESH, but you more. I get it that right now only Tanner exists, but in the future, when you're talking about these kids which shall come in the scene, then also you're worried only about Tanner, his extra-curricular, his time with you, his nanny, his private school. Dude, would the future kids not be important?

Stay at home mothers also work, this nanny and all would be required for all the kids if the mother is going to be at work, but I see that you just want her to leave all luxuries and just give it up for TANNER. Your all focus is at him, maybe think again, do you even wanna marry? It'd be better to stay a single dad to him, just clarify to Beth.

Apart-Ad-6518 wrote:

NTA. OP I agree your post title is misleading because you aren't asking her to pay for Tanner's expenses. I read it as you saying she'd need to either spend less (not nothing) on non essentials while working P/Tso you can support your son & any kids you have together.

She needs to clearly understand your commitment to Tanner is always going to be equal to any kids you have together. If you have any doubts on that I wouldn't marry her if/until you're sure she does.