Common Law Wife Asks Husband for 50K to Have Their Child

[Harmony]

Reddit relationship topic that I found interesting.  Curious as to what you all think.

I am [M34] and my wife is [F29]. She has asked me to pay her almost $50,000 to have our child, and I'm not quite sure what to do.

I have known/been dating my wife for 6 years, and we have been spiritually married for 2 years. We are not legally married, although at this point we are essentially common law.

We are both high earners (both earning over $175k a year after tax). We purchased our home together and we have agreed to split the finances 50-50. We paid for our wedding, honeymoon, everything 50-50, although I did pay for the cost of our rings and her engagement ring. Our mortgage payments were 50-50 and we comfortably own our home now, so much of our income goes to savings, investments, home improvements and discretionary spending.

Because of our incomes, we felt it would be best to keep our finances separate - we're both highly independent people and both very career driven. It's part of the reason I'm so attracted to her - she's amazing at what she does, and I'm so proud to be able to introduce her as my wife and explain what she does.

Unfortunately our first two years of marriage were hampered by COVID and lockdowns. We would have loved to have traveled and saved up quite a bit in order to do this. A couple months ago we had a talk and decided it might be a good time to have kids instead of continuously waiting for better or safer travel conditions. Without too serious discussion about it, we decided to stop using birth control and let things happen as they will.

Yesterday I came home and my wife was on the phone. She seemed like she was in a hurry to end her conversation and tried to evade my question when I asked who she was talking to. It was her sister. They don't talk a lot, so that was a bit weird. She still works from home, so she continued to do some work, then we had dinner and watched some news. Regular, pleasant evening. Then she says she wants to have a serious talk, and asks me to make us some tea and meet her upstairs at her work desk.

I make the tea, bring it up, and she starts talking financials.

Her work place allows for maternity leave for up to a year, but only provides 50% of her salary for up to 6 months. The remaining 6 months is unpaid. She was very direct, and said that while her insurance would cover the vast majority of hospital related costs during pregnancy and childbirth, taking a 6 month break from work would cost her almost $50,000 since her pay would be cut in half. She is asking me to compensate her for that $50,000, in addition to agreeing to split any related but unexpected costs to pregnancy and childbirth. Her stance is that she is doing something for us to start a family, but it is not a true 50-50 split if she is expected to take a financial hit for it and I am not, given that our finances are separate. She had a printed list of expectations in terms of what she expected financially, listed some things that her insurance may not cover.

I see the logic in that, but I am really very turned off by this because she is essentially asking me to pay her to have our child (or children?).

She saw my hesitation and just doubled down. While her ideal is to return to work after 6 months, she says it's a real possibility that she may require more time off and decide, as things happen, to take up to a year off. So, she had another plan drafted for that. For the first 6 months, her work will give her 50% of her salary, and I would compensate her for the rest, but for the next 6 months, since her work would not compensate her, and because this loss is something she is doing for the family, she is "comfortable splitting the loss of her income", and only asking me for 50% of her salary instead of 100% for the second 6 month period, and she will take the loss of 50% of her salary. The idea I guess is that both of us "suffer" half the loss of income for the second 6 month period. However, if she takes 7 to 11 months off, any months after the 6th can be prorated.

She expressed that she anticipates and hopes to return to work in 6 months, but that she wants a contingency plan in the event that she requires a year off. She said that taking more than a year off is something she is very unlikely to do as it would put her job at risk, but that she's open to exploring a third plan with me if I feel that it's necessary.

There are also detailed notes about how she wants to keep housework split, with plans to start saving for both childcare and additional housekeeper expenses for at least the first four years. I kid you not, it's a 16 page ring binder that she handed me with detailed notes, some explanations, and lists of expenses.

But the immediate and essential element here is that, she wants me to pay her $50,000 - $100,000 to compensate for the loss of her salary for 6-12 months as a result of her having our child.

I really do not know how to process this. My first thought is shock, because, despite our salaries, $50k-$100k is a lot to demand. The idea of a payment plan to have a child is just gross. And many couples manage to do this without paying their wives to have children. But then, I suppose most couples are married legally and a loss to one person's income is a loss to everyone. So in our situation, it makes logical sense, but there's something so transactional about it that puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I didn't fight it or argue, and she's basically allowing me to think about it, but says if having kids is something we're going to do, she wants to write up an agreement and go to a lawyer (splitting the cost of that is ALSO in the binder).

What really hits me here is that she was talking to her sister on the same day she brings this up to me. Why on that day? On the same day she mentions this to me? They do not talk often. I am partially excited and scared that the timing of this means that she is actually currently pregnant and that my response to her will have real consequences if I disagree with her. She has previously had an abortion, and only told me after the fact (almost a year later), because it was early into dating. I was shocked to learn that when I did, but supported her choice as it's her body, and at the time having kids would have been the wrong decision for us. Still, the fact that she makes decisions like that so independently has me incredibly cautious right now.

I checked trash cans and such for a pregnancy test but didn't find anything. She also asked for tea instead of coffee, but maybe that is overthinking it because she likes both. I want to ask her if she's pregnant, but we both had busy days today, and I was processing and it didn't even occur to me on the day we first discussed this. Definitely a conversation to have, but I don't know whether that should influence my response here.

tl;dr: My wife and I both earn over $175k a year and we are considering having children. She is asking me to compensate her for 6 to 12 months as compensation for the time she will have to take off to have our child. I do not know whether she is pregnant.

I think I have his perfect response to her but will hold off posting for a bit to see what others have to say.

It is quite possible that it is entirely made up as the numbers don't really work if I'm doing the math right.  But I do find the topic fascinating.  And also amusing.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Stopped reading at "she killed my firstborn and didn't tell me until a year later". What a couple of clowns.

[Spiritus]

I read all that, and I am literally in a 6 years relationship, we are not married and we split everything 50 50. If we decided to have kids and she or I would spring this sort of thing up... well this isn't a relationship anymore. It's a .. what is that.. a business deal? Fuck that.

If this story is real, then I hope these 2 don't bring a child into that "relationship". Ughh

[XJDenton]

Their entire marriage sounds transactional tbh.

[TAC]

I love reading stories like this. I always find it so interesting how couples handle things like finances.

You know, the funny thing is, everytime my wife talks to her sister, there's a conversation about money.

Stopped reading at "she killed my firstborn and didn't tell me until a year later". 

 

[wolfking]

Stopped reading at "she killed my firstborn and didn't tell me until a year later". What a couple of clowns.

 


I fucking stopped reading at this;

I have known/been dating my wife for 6 years, and we have been spiritually married for 2 years

First fucking line. 

Please don't have children you couple of fuckwits!

[pg1067]

What a train wreck.  Not reading the whole thing, but...

"I have known/been dating my wife for 6 years, and we have been spiritually married for 2 years. We are not legally married, although at this point we are essentially common law."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ESSENTIALLY COMMON LAW"!  You either are or you aren't.

Assuming these folks are in the U.S., there are only about a dozen states in which it's legally possible to form a common law marriage.  Even if these idiots happen to be in one of those states, it's impossible to tell if they actually formed a common law marriage.  He writes that they're "spiritually married."  While that's a meaningless thing, it is evidence of an intent to be married.  However, he then goes on to acknowledge that they're "not legally married."  A common law marriage is ONLY possible if the two parties agree and intend to be married and hold themselves out to the public as spouses (the requirements vary a bit from state to state, but those are true in all common law marriage states).  The most common and best evidence of a common law marriage is filing tax returns as "married."

This sort of thing irritates me because there's so much nonsense out there about common law marriage (most pervasively, that simply living together for X years will create a common law marriage).

[TAC]

DTF is my common law facebook.

[wolfking]

DTF is my common law facebook.

It's all I fucking need.

[bosk1]

So many things wrong with this situation.  But I guess as most relevant to the point of the post:

Their entire marriage sounds transactional tbh.

This.  If you aren't willing/mature enough to co-mingle your finances and treat them as one, then you don't have any business playing at marriage or having kids. 

Obviously, a much more kind, gentle, and comprehensive approach would be called for if actually talking to these people.  But that is my concise, blunt take on it.

[MoraWintersoul]

FYI most posts on these subreddits are completely made up, someone's creative writing exercise and a waste of time to read. This reads as made up too. Everything is split transactionally to a point 99% of people would probably be uncomfortable with, but this would be a bridge too far? Don't buy it.

[hunnus2000]

Sounds like a Sheldon an Amy relationship. 

[Herrick]

This.  If you aren't willing/mature enough to co-mingle your finances and treat them as one, then you don't have any business playing at marriage or having kids. 

We don't co-mingle our finances and treat them as one but we also don't do anything nearly as extreme as the "spiritually married" couple. We don't have any kids together but The Wife came packaged with two kids of her own. It's worked out all right for the last 17 years *shrug*.

And I'm with the ones who think that story was fabricated.

[Ben_Jamin]

I'd feel sorry for the child and how their entire upbringing will be if their mother is that concerned about her finances. Imagine after they have the child and what she would expect from him financially.

I find it hilarious though how people could be that concerned about financial issues that it's like preventing them from being human.

[Herrick]

I'd feel sorry for the child and how their entire upbringing will be if their mother is that concerned about her finances. Imagine after they have the child and what she would expect from him financially.

I find it hilarious though how people could be that concerned about financial issues that it's like preventing them from being human.

When the kid gets old enough to work, his spiritually married parents will start charging the kid for all the diapers and baby clothes

[Ben_Jamin]

I'd feel sorry for the child and how their entire upbringing will be if their mother is that concerned about her finances. Imagine after they have the child and what she would expect from him financially.

I find it hilarious though how people could be that concerned about financial issues that it's like preventing them from being human.

When the kid gets old enough to work, his spiritually married parents will start charging the kid for all the diapers and baby clothes

Like when he can rake yards and shovel driveways.

[Harmony]

Yeah as I said in my OP, I don't believe this is real.  That said, I do think there are couples who think and behave this way out there.  Marriages and relationships are as varied and individualized as anything else involving humans.  We may think they are strange and odd in how they conducted their transactional marriage but that is only because or our own points of view being different than theirs.  Nobody truly knows what occurs inside of a marriage other than the 2 people engaged inside of it and the children who may be growing up observing it.

I do find it interesting the comment about co-mingling of finances being predictive for a successful marriage or parenting.  My spouse and I have his/hers/ours bank accounts and have for over 30 years of marriage.  We have raised 2 children very successfully in that time and don't believe that we were "playing" at anything there.

So let's operate under the assumption this is a made up scenario.  What do people think the point would be in posting it (outside of the 'look at me' aspect of social media posts)?  Is there any legitimacy in the woman's point that she is the one who would be taking the career and financial hit if she were assumed to be the stay-at-home parent?

I think the man's perfect response would be to offer to reverse the roles.  Obviously he cannot birth the child nor lactate if they make that choice.  So she will need to physically recover from her pregnancy and birth - which could potentially be lengthy if she were to have complications or the infant were born prematurely or with medical issues.  But let's say she has a 'normal' pregnancy and birth and can return to her job after the typical 12 week maternity leave.  Why couldn't he be the one to take over the role as primary parent and thus accordingly be the one financially compensated for taking that career hit?

[TAC]

I'm actually more interested in the separate bank accounts for those that have them.

How do you handle expenses? Retirement accounts? Who pays for dinner?
What impact does income have on this? Vacations?
Like if one spouse purchases the plane tickets, does the other have pay anything back?

And of course the question here is the loss of a woman's income during maternity?

[Elite]

I'm actually more interested in the separate bank accounts for those that have them.

How do you handle expenses? Retirement accounts? Who pays for dinner?
What impact does income have on this? Vacations?
Like if one spouse purchases the plane tickets, does the other have pay anything back?

We have a shared bank account and a shared savings account, as well as our own ones. We deposit the same amount onto our shared account every month and everything gets payed from there (mortgage, electricity, food, activities). For holidays we both add whatever is needed. Our personal bank accounts are for our own personal use. We have roughly the same income, but different personal expenses. We are not married and have been living together for almost 4 years.

[Harmony]

I find that having separate bank accounts forces us (in a good way) to have more productive conversations about money in our relationship.

When we first started doing this we made a loose rule that if one of us wanted to buy something that cost more than a certain amount (I think it was $500) we had to 'check it out' with each other.  We don't really do that so much any more but we've learned to trust that if some major financial outlay is going to happen, we don't act first and discuss later.  That has been a good thing as we have complete trust in each other about money.

We have divided up the bills in what we believe to be an equitable way.  When major unplanned for expenses hit, we negotiate how to pay for it.  Vacations and home remodels?  We're having discussions about who is paying for what.  Retirement planning hasn't been an issue, we both have retirement accounts and we are both listed as beneficiaries on each others documents and on the mortgage and vehicles.  We also made a point to put each other on our separate bank accounts so that if - god forbid - one of us dies, we can easily gain access to all of the accounts without having to wait for the probate circus that locks everything down.  We also have a trust set up for our kids.

It was something we began early in our marriage and it just seemed to work for us so we never changed it.  I grew up in a very chaotic home where finances were frequently a source of stress and arguments between my parents.  When one left the marriage and took most of the finances with them, I vowed I would never put myself in that position so it was something I wanted when we entered into marriage and I'm lucky that my husband was willing to accommodate my wishes.  We could easily just combine everything now and I'd be find with it.  But I tend to be of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality so here we are.

[Herrick]

I'm actually more interested in the separate bank accounts for those that have them.

How do you handle expenses? Retirement accounts? Who pays for dinner?
What impact does income have on this? Vacations?
Like if one spouse purchases the plane tickets, does the other have pay anything back?

And of course the question here is the loss of a woman's income during maternity?

I make much more than The Wife so I pay for everything (including her car payments over the years but that's no more) and she pays for all the grocery shopping, cleaning products, toilet paper etc. Sometimes I'll buy some of the cleaning stuff but I don't ask her to pay me back. I usually pay for dinner but she occasionally pays. I pay for plane tickets except for extreme circumstances in which she'll pay for her own. When I want to buy something for myself, I buy it. Same for her.

As far as paternity leave, if one of the parents chooses to take 6 months off, then I don't think the other parent should have to reimburse them. Most people who aren't making big bucks take the standard paternity leave that's offered by their employer or whatever.

[King Postwhore]

That sounds like time and money to me.  Either you're all in or have a prenup.

Too much to worry decades later.

[Cool Chris]

Is it me, or is marital finances the most frequent non-music related discussion point on this forum?

[hefdaddy42]

So this couple didn't want to get legally married, but they DID want the expense of an engagement ring, wedding rings, an actual wedding, and a honeymoon?

Fuck these morons.

[Stadler]

Yeah as I said in my OP, I don't believe this is real.  That said, I do think there are couples who think and behave this way out there.  Marriages and relationships are as varied and individualized as anything else involving humans.  We may think they are strange and odd in how they conducted their transactional marriage but that is only because or our own points of view being different than theirs.  Nobody truly knows what occurs inside of a marriage other than the 2 people engaged inside of it and the children who may be growing up observing it.

I do find it interesting the comment about co-mingling of finances being predictive for a successful marriage or parenting.  My spouse and I have his/hers/ours bank accounts and have for over 30 years of marriage.  We have raised 2 children very successfully in that time and don't believe that we were "playing" at anything there.

So let's operate under the assumption this is a made up scenario.  What do people think the point would be in posting it (outside of the 'look at me' aspect of social media posts)?  Is there any legitimacy in the woman's point that she is the one who would be taking the career and financial hit if she were assumed to be the stay-at-home parent?

I think the man's perfect response would be to offer to reverse the roles.  Obviously he cannot birth the child nor lactate if they make that choice.  So she will need to physically recover from her pregnancy and birth - which could potentially be lengthy if she were to have complications or the infant were born prematurely or with medical issues.  But let's say she has a 'normal' pregnancy and birth and can return to her job after the typical 12 week maternity leave.  Why couldn't he be the one to take over the role as primary parent and thus accordingly be the one financially compensated for taking that career hit?

Harmony, I'm only replying to you because you posited a couple questions I want to answer.   I know that some of the things I might say DON'T follow from your post, and I beg your indulgence on that.

Your questions:  I definitely think this is made up (no one mentioned it, but it seems like there are a LOT of contradictions, including the marriage part; I'm assuming that all that "wedding" stuff they jointly paid for was just a "spiritual party"?) and I definitely think you are right that this is about "look at me" scenario.  Then again, I'm a social media skeptic; there's a lot of crap out there.   Having said that, I have also realized that in this world, there is someone for everyone.  I don't have much doubt that there is, to a point, someone out there who fits this scenario.

Look, how two people conduct their lives together is their business.  Separate accounts, joint accounts... I have been married twice, and both times I have had a joint account and virtually all of my income goes into that joint account.  If I want to buy something, I buy it.  Over a certain amount - no hard rules - I run it by my PARTNER.  That's the key word for me:  PARTNER.  If I wanted a roommate, I'd have one.  If I wanted to run everything solo, I would.   But I don't; I got married (and married again) because I want a PARTNER.   And in a partnership, things are supposed to be equal; that doesn't mean that we have to make the same money, or wash the same dishes, or each take a bathroom to scrub.  It means - to me - that on whole, at the end of the day, we're each carrying our weight in the way we can, so that the sum is greater than the individual parts.  Money is just one aspect of that.  I make more than my wife, her dad, and her kids COMBINED, so that's not an equal carry there; but there are other things that she does that I can't/don't (there's little I WON'T, so that's not a real factor).  I think if you're at the point of carrying a scorecard around, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

And I haven't even GOTTEN to the kids yet; I think everyone here that has kids can tell you that "man plans, and God laughs".  I defy anyone here to claim that having kids and raising kids went 100% according to plan.  I've been BLESSED with my children; I have four (three step) that are wonderful, productive people, but they are human.  They are prone to the same randomness of life that we all are, and on top of that, they make their own brand of mistakes as well, some of which I feel an obligation to help them solve.  This is like anything else as far as I am concerned:  when it involves YOU, do whatever the fuck you want.   You have no one to answer to but you.  But the MINUTE it now involves someone else, the calculus is different.  Now, that may mean you can still do what you want, but as I said, the calculus is different.   And when that "other" is a child, who at least for the first 16 years is dependent on you, your glorious ideas of "spiritual marriage" and "almost common law" bullshit is just that.   I don't know them, I've never spoken to them, but based on that essay alone, they are in no way, shape, or form prepared to be parents, and to bring new life into this world. I hope, not for them, but for the kid's sake, that he rejects her claim.

[hefdaddy42]

Look, how two people conduct their lives together is their business.  Separate accounts, joint accounts... I have been married twice, and both times I have had a joint account and virtually all of my income goes into that joint account.  If I want to buy something, I buy it.  Over a certain amount - no hard rules - I run it by my PARTNER.  That's the key word for me:  PARTNER.  If I wanted a roommate, I'd have one.  If I wanted to run everything solo, I would.   But I don't; I got married (and married again) because I want a PARTNER.   And in a partnership, things are supposed to be equal; that doesn't mean that we have to make the same money, or wash the same dishes, or each take a bathroom to scrub.  It means - to me - that on whole, at the end of the day, we're each carrying our weight in the way we can, so that the sum is greater than the individual parts.  Money is just one aspect of that.  I make more than my wife, her dad, and her kids COMBINED, so that's not an equal carry there; but there are other things that she does that I can't/don't (there's little I WON'T, so that's not a real factor).  I think if you're at the point of carrying a scorecard around, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

That's how we handle it too, although my wife definitely makes more money than me lol

[MinistroRaven]

Look, how two people conduct their lives together is their business.  Separate accounts, joint accounts... I have been married twice, and both times I have had a joint account and virtually all of my income goes into that joint account.  If I want to buy something, I buy it.  Over a certain amount - no hard rules - I run it by my PARTNER.  That's the key word for me:  PARTNER.  If I wanted a roommate, I'd have one.  If I wanted to run everything solo, I would.   But I don't; I got married (and married again) because I want a PARTNER.   And in a partnership, things are supposed to be equal; that doesn't mean that we have to make the same money, or wash the same dishes, or each take a bathroom to scrub.  It means - to me - that on whole, at the end of the day, we're each carrying our weight in the way we can, so that the sum is greater than the individual parts.  Money is just one aspect of that.  I make more than my wife, her dad, and her kids COMBINED, so that's not an equal carry there; but there are other things that she does that I can't/don't (there's little I WON'T, so that's not a real factor).  I think if you're at the point of carrying a scorecard around, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

That's how we handle it too, although my wife definitely makes more money than me lol

That's how we do it too.

[jingle.boy]

Look, how two people conduct their lives together is their business.  Separate accounts, joint accounts... I have been married twice, and both times I have had a joint account and virtually all of my income goes into that joint account.  If I want to buy something, I buy it.  Over a certain amount - no hard rules - I run it by my PARTNER.  That's the key word for me:  PARTNER.  If I wanted a roommate, I'd have one.  If I wanted to run everything solo, I would.   But I don't; I got married (and married again) because I want a PARTNER.   And in a partnership, things are supposed to be equal; that doesn't mean that we have to make the same money, or wash the same dishes, or each take a bathroom to scrub.  It means - to me - that on whole, at the end of the day, we're each carrying our weight in the way we can, so that the sum is greater than the individual parts.  Money is just one aspect of that.  I make more than my wife, her dad, and her kids COMBINED, so that's not an equal carry there; but there are other things that she does that I can't/don't (there's little I WON'T, so that's not a real factor).  I think if you're at the point of carrying a scorecard around, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

POTY.   

Spot on all around, and mirrors the jingle.family.

I got nothing additional to add about the couple in the OP.  Seems more like a Friends-With-Benefits relationship imo.  Maybe that's what "spiritual marriage" means. 

[XJDenton]

This seems like a problem that only presents itself in countries with crappy or non-existent parental benefit schemes.

[Stadler]

This seems like a problem that only presents itself in countries with crappy or non-existent parental benefit schemes.

But I thought the OP were Americans?

[XJDenton]

Exactly my point.

[Stadler]

Exactly my point.

I know.  Your derision was pretty clear. 

[XJDenton]

I was aiming for despair/exasperation, but no matter. Just pointing out that in a country where both a parents would be guaranteed a decent percentage of salary while one/both take time for parental leave for the first year or so (as is the case in several countries with strong parental leave and benefit systems) then this kind of discussion would not be necessary for this couple to have. Hence, one may view this case as symptomatic of a systemic problem rather than purely judging the individuals involved.

Just food for thought.

[Stadler]

I was aiming for despair/exasperation, but no matter. Just pointing out that in a country where both a parents would be guaranteed a decent percentage of salary while one/both take time for parental leave for the first year or so (as is the case in several countries with strong parental leave and benefit systems) then this kind of discussion would not be necessary for this couple to have. Hence, one may view this case as symptomatic of a systemic problem rather than purely judging the individuals involved.

Just food for thought.

Of course; and surely to be an informative and spirited discussion.  I would probably start with the assumption that it's a "problem" and that the "strong parental leave and benefit systems" are optimal.   For me, it's never as simple as just "give the entitlement", and I'm not really sure that we WANT to take away the discussion in cases like these. These people need MORE discussion - at least real discussion - not less.   Regardless of whether there was a system in place, it's incumbent on the parents to meet the challenges in front of them while the children can't.  I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate, but the overall tenor of the post suggests that in that arrangement, there will be conflict whether on this issue or another.

[TAC]

Other than low income or perhaps a single mother parent, what's wrong with two parents "making it work"?