The girlfriend of a worried mother’s son has been branded a ‘tramp’ by The Barefoot Investor after the frustrated mum saw disturbing red flags over the couple’s finances.
Fed-up mum Helen wrote to Barefoot Investor Scott Pape over her growing concerns after her son’s girlfriend moved in with him.
She suggested her son invest in a cohabitation agreement, a legal contract between unmarried partners living together which outlines the handling of finances and assets.
But her son ignored the advice and opted against the agreement, claiming the $2,000 legal contract was ‘too expensive’.
She added her son does not have any debt and drives an entry-level Suzuki, while his girlfriend has $71,000 in study debt and drives a 4×4 vehicle.
Her son’s girlfriend also has a five-year-old from a previous relationship and has opted not to accept any child maintenance from the father.
‘The young child’s father does not pay maintenance – Mum’s choice,’ Helen wrote.
‘My son earns more than her, but all expenses and debt are split 50/50. She is doing further study (thankfully her employer is paying for it), so she has limited time after a day’s work.
Fed-up mum wrote to the Barefoot Investor Scott Pape (pictured), about her son’s new girlfriend and suggested they organise a cohabitation agreement
‘So my son does the housework, cooks, bathes and feeds the child while working full-time.’
While labelling herself as a ‘pedantic mother’, Helen admitted that times had changed when it came to gender roles within the home but that she still saw ‘red flags’.
In his reply, Mr Pape claimed Helen was giving ‘smother-in-law vibes’.
And he added: ‘It sounds like you think your boy’s new girl is a tramp.
‘That being said, this is not her first rodeo, and she didn’t trample her baby’s daddy. So there’s that going for her,’ he wrote.
Mr Pape added that a cohabitation agreement was not necessarily needed, but that the legal document would prompt a discussion about what is ‘fair’ within the home.
‘It’s whether they’ve actually talked about what ‘fair’ means when one person brings debt, a child, and a 4×4 to a household where the other person brings income, a Suzuki, and all the cooking skills,’ he wrote.
‘A cohabitation agreement forces that conversation. Not just because it’s legally binding, but because sitting across from a solicitor makes it impossible to dodge the hard questions.’
Mr Pape said the couple would be forced to answer such questions as, what happens if they split? Who pays her debt? What is the son’s role with the child? And how will they divide assets when one person comes in with debts?
Mr Pape described her as a ‘smother-in-law’ and claimed, while a cohabitation agreement might not be necessary, it did prompt a conversation about the couple’s finances and assets
He then suggested Helen consider suggesting an analogy to her son, claiming to think about a conversation about the pair’s finances like getting insurance on a car.
‘You don’t expect to prang your Hilux but you still get insurance, because the financial and emotional ramifications could be catastrophic,’ he wrote.
‘The real power of hanging out with people who bill by the minute is getting clarity should things go from ‘I love you’ to ‘I’m in the dogbox’ to ‘I’m keeping the dog’.’
While Mr Pape suggested a cohabitation agreement is a good idea, he disclosed he chose not to get a prenup with his wife despite his lawyer’s advice.
The financial guru added he went ‘all-in’ with his marriage – something Helen’s son might be doing as well and a decision that is ultimately his and not his mother’s.
‘That’s his call to make, not yours. Even if watching him make it keeps you up at night,’ he wrote.
