A concerned mother's intervention in her son's living arrangements has sparked a fiery debate after financial expert Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor, labelled her a 'smother-in-law' and suggested she viewed her son's girlfriend as a 'tramp'.
A Mother's Financial Fears
Helen, the mother in question, wrote to Pape expressing serious worries after her son's girlfriend moved in with him. Her primary concern centred on a significant financial imbalance between the couple. Her son has no debt and drives an entry-level Suzuki, while his partner has $71,000 in study debt and drives a 4x4.
Further complicating the situation, the girlfriend has a five-year-old child from a previous relationship and has chosen not to accept child maintenance from the father. Helen noted that while her son earns more, all household expenses and debt repayments are split equally. She also revealed that her son handles the bulk of domestic duties, including cooking, cleaning, and caring for the child, despite working full-time.
The Cohabitation Agreement Controversy
Helen's key suggestion to her son was to invest in a cohabitation agreement, a legal contract for unmarried partners that outlines how finances and assets are managed. Her son dismissed the idea, deeming the potential $2,000 cost 'too expensive'.
In his characteristically blunt reply, Pape acknowledged Helen's 'pedantic' concerns but accused her of giving off 'smother-in-law vibes'. He directly stated, "It sounds like you think your boy’s new girl is a tramp." However, he tempered this by noting the girlfriend's responsible choice regarding the child's father.
The Barefoot Investor's Verdict
Pape argued that while a formal agreement might not be strictly necessary, its true value lies in forcing a crucial conversation. "A cohabitation agreement forces that conversation," he wrote. "Not just because it’s legally binding, but because sitting across from a solicitor makes it impossible to dodge the hard questions."
He listed the difficult topics it would address: what happens if they split, who assumes her debt, what is the son's role with the child, and how assets are divided when one partner brings substantial liabilities.
Pape suggested Helen use an analogy about car insurance: "You don’t expect to prang your Hilux but you still get insurance, because the financial and emotional ramifications could be catastrophic." Interestingly, Pape disclosed that he himself opted against a prenuptial agreement with his own wife, choosing to go 'all-in' on his marriage—a decision he respects Helen's son might also be making.
His final piece of advice was a stark reminder of boundaries: "That’s his call to make, not yours. Even if watching him make it keeps you up at night."
