NSW Coercive Control financial abuse, how to cooperate with money?

[Peter James]

Hello,

Let's consider the situation, a husband earns all income while the wife stays at home and does some online TAFE study and looks after the baby.
The wife buys many things online that are not really useful to the home and it really uses up most of the available money, how can the husband get the situation improved such that excessive spending is reduced without causing financial abuse on the wife? It seems to me that if the husband gives her a buget to be within then it could be financial abuse as that would be restrictive.

In the general sense, how can a cooperation be obtained between the husband and wife such that saving goals can be achieved and excessive spending prevented, without causing financial abuse to occur?
Then what if the wife spends excessively on un-needed things, how to fix the situation as a husband without causing financial abuse?

Thanks

 

[lostinspace]

I think these new laws will be abused and messy.

I know of a situation similar to what you say, but no baby and no study, just refusal to work or contribute, the male must make sure the bills etc are all paid, during court proceedings, lawyers tried to use this coercive control angle and any other angle to try and fish for more money and likely to force acceptance of un unfair settlement offer. If the law is now involved and a person is charged, even when there is little or no evidence, then that could be considered in the family law court.

Things were already complex enough.
The way I see it, depending on how things play out now, if someone has a reckless partner, a partner who does not understand finances, or a partner that does not contribute properly, then instead of standing by them and supporting them, I think you really have to walk before it turns into this kind of show that will likely follow.


The real irony for us in the west, is we were brain washed about communism, but we now have so much govt control and interference in our personal lives that it is unreasonable.