Fiancé won’t put me on the title of our new house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prenup and marriage or dump him and hire a lawyer to for child support. Either way get daycare started and a job.

Daycare for a 7-year old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fiancé of many years?

Yea, what is that about? An engagement is time to plan a wedding and otherwise get things in order for marriage. Nobody should be a fiancé(e) for many years. Move on OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiancé of many years?

Yea, what is that about? An engagement is time to plan a wedding and otherwise get things in order for marriage. Nobody should be a fiancé(e) for many years. Move on OP.

He clearly does not want to be legally tied to OP. I think he has correctly sussed out that she is primarily interested in having someone take care of her financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

I could never understand this "market rate" business. First, as a matter of math, whatever housework and childcare she's doing, only half of that is for the sake of the husband because the rest is for her. In this case, the ratio goes even worse for her because her children (who are not the fiance's) are in the picture, and whatever she does for them, he has nothing to do with. And finally, you can never compare the housework and childcare at your own house with the market-rate service because the market-rate service provider does not stay around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. A housekeeper cleans and leaves. She doesn't get to enjoy the clean house. The chef cooks and leaves. He doesn't enjoy the food he made. So please don't compare what you do with a full-rate service provider.

Are you, or have you ever been, a stay at home parent handling both child care etc. and home care? I mean, really handling all aspects of it? Even when the kids are in school during the day?

Because there is much more to it than you picture. You are picturing a basic cook, cleaner and nanny. Those employees arrive, do those jobs, and leave.

A SAH parent often does vastly more than that, from all the household shopping (food, clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.) to booking and taking kids on doctor/dentist visits, sick child doctor visits, dealing with teachers, school administrative tasks (which can be considerable at certain times of year with multiple kids of varying ages), researching/booking/supervising everything from plumbers or electricians to any other service person you can imagine, getting the car (sometimes more than one car) maintained, serviced and repaired....This list goes on and varies greatly by family. And a lot of these parents also volunteer at school, or are involved in other volunteering that your kid benefits from, like scouting or church groups etc. Again. Your kid benefits from these parents' choices.

But your simplistic calculations about how "the rest is for her" as if the mom is cleaning up the house like a housecleaner would, then kicking back on the sofa and "enjoying the fruits of [her] labor" and, what, having a glass of wine and bonbons? -- what a crock. She's moving on to get the car inspected, tell the middle schoolers to rake the yard, drive another kid to a practice or lesson, pick up music at the music store before the lesson, and sign up to volunteer at a school event.

But sure, keep thinking her labor is worth less. And worthless.

It's people who think like you who make the work of SAH parents (moms or dads) devalued. And I do not mean monetarily devalued. I mean looked down on as somehow lazy. What complete and utter crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

I could never understand this "market rate" business. First, as a matter of math, whatever housework and childcare she's doing, only half of that is for the sake of the husband because the rest is for her. In this case, the ratio goes even worse for her because her children (who are not the fiance's) are in the picture, and whatever she does for them, he has nothing to do with. And finally, you can never compare the housework and childcare at your own house with the market-rate service because the market-rate service provider does not stay around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. A housekeeper cleans and leaves. She doesn't get to enjoy the clean house. The chef cooks and leaves. He doesn't enjoy the food he made. So please don't compare what you do with a full-rate service provider.

Are you, or have you ever been, a stay at home parent handling both child care etc. and home care? I mean, really handling all aspects of it? Even when the kids are in school during the day?

Because there is much more to it than you picture. You are picturing a basic cook, cleaner and nanny. Those employees arrive, do those jobs, and leave.

A SAH parent often does vastly more than that, from all the household shopping (food, clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.) to booking and taking kids on doctor/dentist visits, sick child doctor visits, dealing with teachers, school administrative tasks (which can be considerable at certain times of year with multiple kids of varying ages), researching/booking/supervising everything from plumbers or electricians to any other service person you can imagine, getting the car (sometimes more than one car) maintained, serviced and repaired....This list goes on and varies greatly by family. And a lot of these parents also volunteer at school, or are involved in other volunteering that your kid benefits from, like scouting or church groups etc. Again. Your kid benefits from these parents' choices.

But your simplistic calculations about how "the rest is for her" as if the mom is cleaning up the house like a housecleaner would, then kicking back on the sofa and "enjoying the fruits of [her] labor" and, what, having a glass of wine and bonbons? -- what a crock. She's moving on to get the car inspected, tell the middle schoolers to rake the yard, drive another kid to a practice or lesson, pick up music at the music store before the lesson, and sign up to volunteer at a school event.

But sure, keep thinking her labor is worth less. And worthless.

It's people who think like you who make the work of SAH parents (moms or dads) devalued. And I do not mean monetarily devalued. I mean looked down on as somehow lazy. What complete and utter crap.

What is utter and complete crap is your ignorance that working parents do the bolded as well. Everything listed is called being an adult and parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

I could never understand this "market rate" business. First, as a matter of math, whatever housework and childcare she's doing, only half of that is for the sake of the husband because the rest is for her. In this case, the ratio goes even worse for her because her children (who are not the fiance's) are in the picture, and whatever she does for them, he has nothing to do with. And finally, you can never compare the housework and childcare at your own house with the market-rate service because the market-rate service provider does not stay around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. A housekeeper cleans and leaves. She doesn't get to enjoy the clean house. The chef cooks and leaves. He doesn't enjoy the food he made. So please don't compare what you do with a full-rate service provider.

Are you, or have you ever been, a stay at home parent handling both child care etc. and home care? I mean, really handling all aspects of it? Even when the kids are in school during the day?

Because there is much more to it than you picture. You are picturing a basic cook, cleaner and nanny. Those employees arrive, do those jobs, and leave.

A SAH parent often does vastly more than that, from all the household shopping (food, clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.) to booking and taking kids on doctor/dentist visits, sick child doctor visits, dealing with teachers, school administrative tasks (which can be considerable at certain times of year with multiple kids of varying ages), researching/booking/supervising everything from plumbers or electricians to any other service person you can imagine, getting the car (sometimes more than one car) maintained, serviced and repaired....This list goes on and varies greatly by family. And a lot of these parents also volunteer at school, or are involved in other volunteering that your kid benefits from, like scouting or church groups etc. Again. Your kid benefits from these parents' choices.

But your simplistic calculations about how "the rest is for her" as if the mom is cleaning up the house like a housecleaner would, then kicking back on the sofa and "enjoying the fruits of [her] labor" and, what, having a glass of wine and bonbons? -- what a crock. She's moving on to get the car inspected, tell the middle schoolers to rake the yard, drive another kid to a practice or lesson, pick up music at the music store before the lesson, and sign up to volunteer at a school event.

But sure, keep thinking her labor is worth less. And worthless.

It's people who think like you who make the work of SAH parents (moms or dads) devalued. And I do not mean monetarily devalued. I mean looked down on as somehow lazy. What complete and utter crap.

Everything you just listed mom benefits from just as well. Half of that is for her.

You don't have to volunteer anywhere if it's a burden. I haven't volunteered ever, with three school age children. I write a check during the first week of school, hand it to the teacher and tell them I don't have time but here's my share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

I could never understand this "market rate" business. First, as a matter of math, whatever housework and childcare she's doing, only half of that is for the sake of the husband because the rest is for her. In this case, the ratio goes even worse for her because her children (who are not the fiance's) are in the picture, and whatever she does for them, he has nothing to do with. And finally, you can never compare the housework and childcare at your own house with the market-rate service because the market-rate service provider does not stay around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. A housekeeper cleans and leaves. She doesn't get to enjoy the clean house. The chef cooks and leaves. He doesn't enjoy the food he made. So please don't compare what you do with a full-rate service provider.

Are you, or have you ever been, a stay at home parent handling both child care etc. and home care? I mean, really handling all aspects of it? Even when the kids are in school during the day?

Because there is much more to it than you picture. You are picturing a basic cook, cleaner and nanny. Those employees arrive, do those jobs, and leave.

A SAH parent often does vastly more than that, from all the household shopping (food, clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.) to booking and taking kids on doctor/dentist visits, sick child doctor visits, dealing with teachers, school administrative tasks (which can be considerable at certain times of year with multiple kids of varying ages), researching/booking/supervising everything from plumbers or electricians to any other service person you can imagine, getting the car (sometimes more than one car) maintained, serviced and repaired....This list goes on and varies greatly by family. And a lot of these parents also volunteer at school, or are involved in other volunteering that your kid benefits from, like scouting or church groups etc. Again. Your kid benefits from these parents' choices.

But your simplistic calculations about how "the rest is for her" as if the mom is cleaning up the house like a housecleaner would, then kicking back on the sofa and "enjoying the fruits of [her] labor" and, what, having a glass of wine and bonbons? -- what a crock. She's moving on to get the car inspected, tell the middle schoolers to rake the yard, drive another kid to a practice or lesson, pick up music at the music store before the lesson, and sign up to volunteer at a school event.

But sure, keep thinking her labor is worth less. And worthless.

It's people who think like you who make the work of SAH parents (moms or dads) devalued. And I do not mean monetarily devalued. I mean looked down on as somehow lazy. What complete and utter crap.

A working parent does the exact same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

I could never understand this "market rate" business. First, as a matter of math, whatever housework and childcare she's doing, only half of that is for the sake of the husband because the rest is for her. In this case, the ratio goes even worse for her because her children (who are not the fiance's) are in the picture, and whatever she does for them, he has nothing to do with. And finally, you can never compare the housework and childcare at your own house with the market-rate service because the market-rate service provider does not stay around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. A housekeeper cleans and leaves. She doesn't get to enjoy the clean house. The chef cooks and leaves. He doesn't enjoy the food he made. So please don't compare what you do with a full-rate service provider.

Are you, or have you ever been, a stay at home parent handling both child care etc. and home care? I mean, really handling all aspects of it? Even when the kids are in school during the day?

Because there is much more to it than you picture. You are picturing a basic cook, cleaner and nanny. Those employees arrive, do those jobs, and leave.

A SAH parent often does vastly more than that, from all the household shopping (food, clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.) to booking and taking kids on doctor/dentist visits, sick child doctor visits, dealing with teachers, school administrative tasks (which can be considerable at certain times of year with multiple kids of varying ages), researching/booking/supervising everything from plumbers or electricians to any other service person you can imagine, getting the car (sometimes more than one car) maintained, serviced and repaired....This list goes on and varies greatly by family. And a lot of these parents also volunteer at school, or are involved in other volunteering that your kid benefits from, like scouting or church groups etc. Again. Your kid benefits from these parents' choices.

But your simplistic calculations about how "the rest is for her" as if the mom is cleaning up the house like a housecleaner would, then kicking back on the sofa and "enjoying the fruits of [her] labor" and, what, having a glass of wine and bonbons? -- what a crock. She's moving on to get the car inspected, tell the middle schoolers to rake the yard, drive another kid to a practice or lesson, pick up music at the music store before the lesson, and sign up to volunteer at a school event.

But sure, keep thinking her labor is worth less. And worthless.

It's people who think like you who make the work of SAH parents (moms or dads) devalued. And I do not mean monetarily devalued. I mean looked down on as somehow lazy. What complete and utter crap.

A working parent does the exact same thing.

A parent with a job with a paycheck does a lot of those things, but not all of them and not with the same amount of time scheduled for them. There are only so many hours in the day and a parent with a paid job needs to prioritize. Some things inevitably don’t make the cut when a big chunk of the day is already spoken for.

[Anonymous]

My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

[Anonymous]

I don’t think OP’s partner is as big of a jerk as everyone is making him out to be. He is supporting OP and his child.

It would be smart of OP to start thinking about her financial future and her other children.

Does your ex pay child support for your other kids? Is it shared custody? Do you have college funds?

Paying for college is going to be around the corner and can see this becoming a large problem.

I don’t think OP necessarily has to force her boyfriend to marry her. It doesn’t seem like he will. That doesn’t mean they can’t be in a healthy and loving relationship and be good parents to their shared child.

I am married but if I ever divorced, I would never expect my new boyfriend/fiancé/husband to support my other kids or me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiancé of many years is buying a house (second home). He refuses to put me on the title and says it’s because I can’t pay the mortgage (I’m a stay at home mom and work part time). I’m not on the title of the house we reside in currently either. I guess if something happens to him, his older kids (he was married once before) will inherit the houses and I’ll be left with nothing. What happens in this situation? I am almost 50 and he’s five years older. I’m not money hungry but am very concerned that I won’t have a place to live with my kids (one of which is his) if something happens to him.

Get a job

DP. I think all of you knee-jerk "Get a job" PPs failed reading comprehension. She already works a part time job. And we do not know if there are reasons (financial or any other type) why she might need to work ONLY part time and be available for the kids. Hers, his and theirs. So much judgement and reflexive "get a job" response on this thread when you don't know all the circumstances. The bottom line of any answer is quite siimply, OP and her fiance need to go together to consult an experienced attorney who has handled a lot of real estate and estate business and who can lay out what they should do for maxiumum protection in the event the fiance dies or they split up. That's all she needs to know: Consult a real expert, not DCUM's judgemental ninnies.

His children are adults. I'm very sure she doesn't need to be available to them.

The answer "get a job" is reflexive because OP is here complaining about financial insecurity. Getting a job is the shortest path to that.

Your "quite simply" answer is ridiculous. It is not what they "should" do. It is what her fiance is willing to do. He is the one holding the cards. He already declined to put her on the deed. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what he is willing to do. And in these circumstances, getting a job (which is fully within her control) is a much safer bet than begging a man for financial security (which is entirely at his mercy). Relying on yourself is the best strategy.

DP. I don’t think anyone here has disagreed that OP needs to become more financially independent by getting a better and FT job. But it’s also important for her not to lose sight of the fact that she is being mistreated by her “fiance” and it has resulted in her being financially vulnerable. She needs to know that in order to take next steps.

Don't you think she knows that already? she posted, after all.

I disagree that her financial vulnerability is the result of being mistreated. He supported her stay-at-home lifestyle as well as two children who are not his. I'd say that's pretty generous.

It is absolutely mistreating a woman to string her along promising to marry her for 7 years, while she stays home caring for your house and your children, then never marry her and also refuse to put any assets in her name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiancé of many years is buying a house (second home). He refuses to put me on the title and says it’s because I can’t pay the mortgage (I’m a stay at home mom and work part time). I’m not on the title of the house we reside in currently either. I guess if something happens to him, his older kids (he was married once before) will inherit the houses and I’ll be left with nothing. What happens in this situation? I am almost 50 and he’s five years older. I’m not money hungry but am very concerned that I won’t have a place to live with my kids (one of which is his) if something happens to him.

Get a job

DP. I think all of you knee-jerk "Get a job" PPs failed reading comprehension. She already works a part time job. And we do not know if there are reasons (financial or any other type) why she might need to work ONLY part time and be available for the kids. Hers, his and theirs. So much judgement and reflexive "get a job" response on this thread when you don't know all the circumstances. The bottom line of any answer is quite siimply, OP and her fiance need to go together to consult an experienced attorney who has handled a lot of real estate and estate business and who can lay out what they should do for maxiumum protection in the event the fiance dies or they split up. That's all she needs to know: Consult a real expert, not DCUM's judgemental ninnies.

His children are adults. I'm very sure she doesn't need to be available to them.

The answer "get a job" is reflexive because OP is here complaining about financial insecurity. Getting a job is the shortest path to that.

Your "quite simply" answer is ridiculous. It is not what they "should" do. It is what her fiance is willing to do. He is the one holding the cards. He already declined to put her on the deed. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what he is willing to do. And in these circumstances, getting a job (which is fully within her control) is a much safer bet than begging a man for financial security (which is entirely at his mercy). Relying on yourself is the best strategy.

DP. I don’t think anyone here has disagreed that OP needs to become more financially independent by getting a better and FT job. But it’s also important for her not to lose sight of the fact that she is being mistreated by her “fiance” and it has resulted in her being financially vulnerable. She needs to know that in order to take next steps.

Don't you think she knows that already? she posted, after all.

I disagree that her financial vulnerability is the result of being mistreated. He supported her stay-at-home lifestyle as well as two children who are not his. I'd say that's pretty generous.

It is absolutely mistreating a woman to string her along promising to marry her for 7 years, while she stays home caring for your house and your children, then never marry her and also refuse to put any assets in her name.

Don't you think a 43-year old would be accountable for her choices? Did he lock her in the basement and force her to stay home?

They have only one child together. Her boyfriend is not the father of her other two children so whatever she does for them is 100% on her. His children are adults.

Also, in return for caring for his house and their child, she got to live in that house and receive support for herself, their child and her children (which, again, are not his and he's not responsible for).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

Isn't the child half hers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.