A 38-year-old mom is second-guessing her future with her fiancé after he suggested using her teenage son’s Social Security survivor benefits to help cover the rent on a new home they plan to move into together. She turned to the AITAH subreddit to ask if she was wrong for saying no — or if this was the kind of financial red flag that shouldn’t be ignored.
Her son, 15, has been receiving $1,100 a month since his father passed away when the boy was five. The money is meant for the child’s welfare, and up to now, the mom says she’s managed it that way — giving her son $550 for personal use, and saving the other half for his future. But now that she and her 40-year-old fiancé are planning to share a home, the question of how that check gets used has sparked a major divide.
Don’t Miss:
“My boyfriend’s proposed budget is for him to pay $950, for me to pay $950, and for us to use $600 from my son’s check for the household,” she wrote.
According to her post, the rent on the home they’re considering is $2,500 per month, and only one of his three children would be living with them full-time. Her son, meanwhile, would be in the home full-time — and it’s his survivor benefits the fiancé wants to factor into the shared household expenses.
The mom explained that her boyfriend believes they should combine all income now that they’re forming a blended family.
“He thinks that since we are ‘going to be a family,’ all the money should be pooled together for shared expenses,” she wrote. “He thinks I’m wrong and selfish for not wanting to include the survivor benefits in the main budget.”
Trending: An EA Co-Founder Shapes This VC Backed Marketplace—Now You Can Invest in Gaming’s Next Big Platform
It’s that part — calling her selfish — that struck a nerve for many who read her post. Especially given how she’s already been handling the money: half for her son’s use, half saved for him. She emphasized that, as her son approaches adulthood, she wants him to have some control over funds meant for his care — not watch it be absorbed into rent payments and household bills.
“It feels like he’s trying to make me subsidize the household using money that was meant for my son’s care and future,” she said, “not to pay his own share of the bills.”
The story picked up steam on AITAH, where users didn’t hold back in the comments. One pointed out the math: with her paying $950 and her son’s $600 added in, her side is covering $1,550 a month, while her fiancé contributes only $950 — a difference of $600. And that’s before any conversations about groceries, utilities, or future repairs.
Another called out the double standard, asking: “Is your child going to be on the deed for his contributions to the mortgage? Is your fiancé’s kid going to kick in $550 a month too?”
Others focused on how this move could affect her son emotionally. Several warned that forcing a teenager to see his survivor benefits go toward rent — especially after he’s never been asked to give up the money before — could lead to lasting resentment. One commenter bluntly said, “Do you want your son to go no contact? Because this is how you get a son that goes NC.”
See Also: Backed by $300M+ in Assets and Microsoft’s Climate Fund, Farmland LP Opens Vital Farmland III to Accredited Investors
The bigger concern many voiced was what this behavior might signal long-term. If the fiancé is already angling to dip into a child’s survivor benefits before the relationship is even legally bound, what happens when bigger financial challenges arise?
“Yes, the roof will need to be redone and a new AC and boiler,” one person wrote. “Where do we think he’s going to want to take that money from? The kid’s savings.”
The mom clarified that up until now, she’s never used the benefits to cover adult expenses. And while she’s open to compromise in most areas of their relationship, this one has her rethinking the whole arrangement.
In an update tucked into the replies, she hinted at her next move:
“I’m probably just gonna go ahead and end it, even if he walks back his statements now.”
Whether or not she goes through with the breakup, most commenters agreed she isn’t wrong to draw the line — especially when that line involves money her child only receives because his father died. The issue isn’t just financial. It’s about respect, protection, and who gets prioritized when two families merge under one roof.
Read Next: Have $100k+ to invest? Charlie Munger says that’s the toughest milestone — don’t stall now. Get matched with a fiduciary advisor and keep building
Image: Shutterstock