Opinions about paying college living expenses if cohabitating (girl, play, son)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My DH and I are having a hypothetical discussion about whether or not we would help pay college living expenses if our 20 year old daughter decided to share an apartment with her boyfriend. Both are full time students, work part time jobs and have been dating for a while.
Our opinions are totally opposite on this subject and am curious what others think or have done in this situation.
I would not have a problem with it. The way I see it we are paying a set amount for our children's living expenses while they are in college. It makes no difference to us f they choose living with a girlfriend (our kids are all boys) over same gender friends.
My oldest son contemplated living with his girlfriend for one semester (his last). She is a grad student in the same city. The reason he did not do it is that he is graduating in December and she needs a room mate for the entire year. We are paying for his living expenses while he is in school but not once he graduates. He can come home and live with us once he is graduated (or pay for his own living expenses). He is unsure whether he will be attending grad school or working once he graduates. He is leaning towards grad school so he will have 6-8 months between graduating from college and going to grad school if he chooses that so we will let him stay with us rent free for that time. He is easy to live with (doesn't do drugs or drink excessively).
If one of you disapproves, you shouldn't pay for it. This isn't a matter of if cohabitation is right or wrong, but rather that I don't think either parent should be coerced into giving financial support for anything they don't like.
Getting financial help from parents as an adult is a privilege, not a right. I intend to help my DD out when she's old enough for college, but I wouldn't force other parents to support theirs.
FWIW, my dad wouldn't pay my living expenses during college unless I lived in the dorm.
I agree that getting financial help from parents is a privilege. However, living in the dorms is much more expensive than living in an off campus apartment. I am paying $5,400 for my son to live in student housing for 4 months ($1,350 per month) with 5 other guys. He was originally going to live with his girlfriend who has a regular apartment that costs under $1,500 per month (we would have paid half). Food costs would be the same.
The reason he didn't move in with her isn't because we said he couldn't but because she needs a room mate to share expenses for the entire year and he will only be in town for 4 months. She wound up getting a room mate from her grad school.
If he had been intending to stay in town for a year we would not have had a problem with him living with his girlfriend as it would have cost us less money than living in a student apartment. I don't see why parents would insist on paying more money to support their child. It seems overly controlling for no reason at all. Living separately doesn't prevent sex. It just increases expenses.
Paying university expenses won't be necessary where I live but hypothetically speaking, if I was paying my kid's expenses then that wouldn't change whether she lives with a partner or lives with friends. Seems quite controlling and petty to me to stop paying just because they want to live with their boy/girlfriend.
I would think if we are already supporting the kid, that wouldn't change because they moved into an apt with their bf/gf. What if the kid is gay? Are they only allowed to live with opposite gender roommates? Or what if a platonic potential roommate seems like a poor choice for your kid? Do you cut them off then?
I think, therefore, the rule should be broader: like another poster said "I'll pay as long as you live on campus" or "we'll give you $1000 a month towards living expenses." Otherwise it seems like you're setting them up to lie.
My agreement with my parents was: they paid rent, auto and health insurance. I covered all other expenses. This was the same when I was in dorms, apt with friends, and apt with bf.
I would think if we are already supporting the kid, that wouldn't change because they moved into an apt with their bf/gf. What if the kid is gay? Are they only allowed to live with opposite gender roommates? Or what if a platonic potential roommate seems like a poor choice for your kid? Do you cut them off then?
I think, therefore, the rule should be broader: like another poster said "I'll pay as long as you live on campus" or "we'll give you $1000 a month towards living expenses." Otherwise it seems like you're setting them up to lie.
My agreement with my parents was: they paid rent, auto and health insurance. I covered all other expenses. This was the same when I was in dorms, apt with friends, and apt with bf.
The people that are so anti cohabitation/birth control would probably be freaked out if their child was gay. Maybe not all of them, but a large portion.
My husband and I lived together our last year of college. We were engaged at that point. It was as much a financial decision as it was an emotional decision. His parents provided minimal support. Mine provided no financial support at that time. We were able to share a 1 bedroom apartment for less than the total cost we had been paying the previous year. The place we paid rent was irrelevant. We spent most nights together. BTW--the apartment was far from the luxury place one poster seemed to think people in this situation live in.
It would have been very hypocritical, in a similar situation, for us to tell our children they couldn't live with a BF/GF in college even though we were paying for it. We would certainly question them about it, but we saved the money for their college expenses. They did their part by getting scholarships for full tuition and working part-time.
D currently lives with her BF of 3 years. Not much we can say since she's fully financially independent.
When I was in college I moved into an apartment with my boyfriend for the last 2 years of school. We also had other roommates as we couldn't afford it otherwise. All of our parents had agreed to pay the same amount that they would have paid if we had continued living in dorms. This worked out fine for us. We got married 2 weeks after graduating college, and 15 years later we are still happy with 2 kids of our own. So I think it all worked out great, and certainly would agree to do the same with my kids when the time comes.
On the other side of things, my sister got no monetary support from parents for college and had to pay for everything herself. Their decision was not related to her living with a boyfriend, but for another decision she made that they didn't approve of. She couldn't afford it and didn't finish college (for lack of money, not grades). And I think that my parents were wrong for that. My sister now lives in a situation similar to how I did when I was in college - with her boyfriend plus other roommates - with the exception that none of them finished or are still in college (they do all work full-time).
If your goal in paying for college is to help your child finish her education, then I would pay for it as long as she is meeting scholastic goals.
[quote=. Seems quite controlling and petty to me to stop paying just because they want to live with their boy/girlfriend.[/QUOTE]
[quote=. If my kid was holding up their end of the deal, full time student, good grades etc, who they slept/lived with would not influence my funding. I am not a fan of teenagers/young college kid playing house but no way would I do something to endanger my kid getting their education, especially something as provincial as whom they sleep with.[/QUOTE]
Exactly...I feel like my DH is just being punitive in his stance. We've set aside money with the intention of paying for her living expenses, most likely an apartment, and I honestly don't see from a financial standpoint why it matters whether her roommate happens to be her boyfriend vs someone else. We're still paying 1/2. My DH is realistic about sex, so that's not really the issue. It boils down to his mindset that you need to "man/woman up" if you want to live together. I'd absolutely agree if they weren't working hard and applying themselves in school. I know some of you agree with his logic, but I just don't get why we would want to throw obstacles up for our kids when there are enough out in the world already. My ultimate goal is that she gets her degree!
It's interesting reading other's perspectives, and I'm trying to stay open minded, so for those supporting my DH's views, I'd really like to hear more of the rationale behind your opinions. What I get from him is, "well if they think they're so grown up, let them support themselves". Is that all there is to it?
Last edited by Drift Away; 07-01-2015 at 08:56 AM..
Cohabitation is good idea because you might realized that you are or not compatible as couple.
I call B.S. on this logic. Here's the problem with co-habitating: A girl usually goes into the situation with the thought that the next step is engagement/marriage. A guy usually goes into it to avoid having to make a decision on whether or not the next step is marriage. So right there, you have two totally conflicting reasons for living together. All the stuff about "saving money" and "getting to know each other" is just window dressing. When people say "getting to know each other", I just laugh -- as if people were perfect strangers when they married in the past.
Also, living together tends to promote the mindset of "if the trial run doesn't work out, we can call it quits." That's a mindset that is hard to put aside, even when you go into marriage. I don't think it's a coincidence that the divorce numbers rose when people started co-habitating. Plus, why do people think it's easier to break up when you have only been living with someone? You have the same issues -- buying furniture together has to be split up, she helped pay his car payment when he ran short one month, etc., etc. Acting as "roommates" isn't a test of marriage. Marriage is a very different partnership.
If you want to determine if you are compatible as a couple, take the time to develop the relationship outside of sex (I'm not against pre-marital sex, but it's true that sex changes the dynamics of a relationship -- I think a lot of people substitute sex for intimacy.) If she's a slob, she's not going to change significantly. If he's under his mother's thumb, that's not going to change a lot. If he's always running short at the end of the month and is resistant to budgeting, well, that's not going to change, either. Etc.
To the OP's question: I was very clear with my kids that if they reached the point where they felt were financially able to co-habit, that they would no longer need our assistance. They were free to do whatever they liked, but that didn't mean I had to support it financially.
It depends. Is it more important to you to "vote with your dollars" on your daughter's life choices, or that she finish her college education and that you maintain a positive relationship with her, her potential future spouse, and her potential future children?
The folks who are recommending cutting her off, including her tuition and birth control (!) would be setting up a situation where she stops speaking to you, drops out of college, and gets pregnant--not all necessarily in that order.
I think it would absolutely be acceptable to limit support to HER--tuition paid directly to the college/university, insurance payments ditto, maybe even her part of the rent, but not spending money that might get spent on him or lump sums that might not go to tuition or other approved expenses.
For the record, I do not think it's a good idea to live with a romantic partner without a permanent commitment--either marriage, or an engagement with a date set. Statistically this is one of the worst things you can do to your relationship (the relationship is less likely to lead to marriage, and marriages following this kind of cohabiting are more likely to end in divorce).
It's especially bad for women, since they are more likely to bear the negative consequences of a broken relationship in the form of single parenthood and STDs from cheating spouses. (Stereotypically, they may also be more likely to be hoping for a permanent, successful relationship, and "auditioning for" rather than evaluating their partner, but I don't know about stats on that.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
