Five years ago his stepdaughter, now 19, started dating a boy who used to hide in closets and under beds when his wife said he couldn’t spend the night, break into vacant apartments in their building, and eventually get arrested for trespassing. He lives about 100 miles away. His stepdaughter moved to another state after graduating specifically to get away from him, telling her mother she knew she’d never escape if she stayed because he would hold her back.
Then she came home, met up with him to exchange belongings, described it as strictly professional, returned to the other state, and came back pregnant two months later. The baby is due in August.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
He agreed to a 30-day arrangement in March. They could stay while they saved money and found a place, and in exchange he wasn’t going to be responsible for dishes or trash. The dishes pile up for days. The trash piles up for days. Four months have passed. His stepdaughter says they can’t save money because she’s paying for her baby shower. Together she and her boyfriend make at least $1,000 a week.
He works full time, runs a side hustle bringing in $300 a month, and delivers Instacart on his day off. This week he used two PTO days to drive Instacart to cover rent. He has sold plasma for extra cash and asked his parents for financial help. He proposed that all four adults contribute $150 a week into a household fund to cover rent and utilities. His wife threatened to take their daughter and move out, despite not making enough to support herself without his income.
The 30-day agreement is the clearest part of this situation
He made a specific, time-limited offer with specific conditions attached. Four months later neither the timeline nor the conditions have been honored. His stepdaughter and her boyfriend have jobs and income. The money isn’t going toward household expenses or savings. It’s going toward a baby shower while he sells plasma and burns PTO to cover rent. The arrangement that was supposed to be temporary has become permanent by default, and his wife’s position has shifted from agreeing they’d leave before the baby to threatening to leave if he asks them to contribute $150 a week.
The fact that his wife originally agreed to the terms and has since reversed that position under emotional pressure is the core of what makes this situation difficult to resolve through conversation alone. He’s not dealing with a disagreement about what’s fair. He’s dealing with a partner who uses the threat of leaving as a response to reasonable financial requests.
$150 a week per adult is not an unreasonable ask
Four adults living in a household where one person is using PTO and selling plasma to cover rent while two of the other adults bring in $1,000 a week between them is a financial arrangement that doesn’t hold up under any standard of fairness. His proposal of $150 a week per adult toward shared household costs is modest by most measures. It’s also exactly the kind of structural contribution that would allow the household to function without him absorbing costs he can’t cover.
His wife’s rejection of the proposal and the immediate escalation to threatening to leave suggests the objection isn’t really about the amount. It’s about whether her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend are expected to operate under any financial expectations at all while living in someone else’s home.
The baby arriving changes the practical timeline
His wife’s new position, that she’s not kicking out her daughter and a newborn, is emotionally understandable and practically difficult to argue against in the moment. It’s also a position that, left unaddressed, converts what was supposed to be a 30-day stay into an indefinite arrangement with no exit date and no financial contribution from the people who have income.
The baby’s arrival doesn’t eliminate the financial reality he’s managing. It adds to it. A newborn in the household means additional costs, additional noise, additional space requirements, and an even more emotionally charged environment in which to have a conversation about who pays for what. Having that conversation now, before August, with specific numbers and a specific timeline for when the couple moves out, gives everyone more time to prepare than waiting until the baby is home.
His wife’s threat deserves a direct response
Threatening to move out in response to a request for $150 a week from household members who earn $1,000 a week is a negotiating position, not a plan. She has acknowledged, implicitly, that she can’t support herself without his income. The threat functions as a way to end the conversation rather than engage with the substance of it. Taking it seriously as a real possibility while also not abandoning a reasonable financial position is the difficult middle ground he’s navigating.
He’s not asking his stepdaughter and her boyfriend to leave. He’s asking them to contribute to a household he’s struggling to afford on their behalf. Those are very different requests, and the one he’s actually making is the more reasonable of the two.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: