To think I shouldn't be paying maintenance as well as DH?

(469 Posts)
Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:31:22

My DH has a daughter with his exW aged 8 and we have two children together aged 2 and 4. His exW claims maintenance from him and he pays it every month without fail at £250.00. She has recently just become unemployed and whilst I sympathise with her I cannot understand why she is now claiming that he should be paying more and if needs be it should be paid through my earnings. (Her words)

She seems to think that because our household has two incomes coming in then we are wadded. We're not. From my earnings I have the mortgage to pay, bills to pay for this household, a food shop to pay for, a car to run, and 3 children to provide for, including DSD when she stays here.

And I have a family holiday to pay for. I'd like to think we can have some luxuries without some woman trying to screw money out of me just because I happen to be the partner of her exH.

Now don't get me wrong I know it is important that DSD is provided for, but that is where my DH's maintenance payments come in and I make sure she is ok when she is here. At the end of the day I'm not some meal ticket to this woman.


Shakey1500 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:32:53


Shellywelly1973 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:34:27

Definitely YANBU!

alienbanana Fri 26-Apr-13 21:34:27

Is maintenance worked out on joint salary then, or just your DHs?

HoHoHoNoYouDont Fri 26-Apr-13 21:34:58


AThingInYourLife Fri 26-Apr-13 21:35:12


You don't owe her a penny.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:35:28

Just DH's alienbanana

KatAndKit Fri 26-Apr-13 21:36:51

You anre not being unreasaonable - his maintenance payment is calculated as a percentage of his income and has nothing to do with anyone else. The CSA will not take your earnings into account. However if she has hit desperate times then surely you will not want to see your DSD go without essentials while you swan off on your holiday?
But, as a general rule, no, he should not be paying more maintenance because of your income - not least because you have your own children too.

FlightyAphrodite Fri 26-Apr-13 21:37:04

AFAIK maintenance is no longer based on household income, just the NRP'S, which is adjusted according to how many dependent children he has living at home.

BlackeyedSusan Fri 26-Apr-13 21:37:46


maintenance is the child's parents' earnings.

would be nice if you could get dsd an extra treat or two though sometimes, o dh pays for say shoes if mum is short... but demanding money from you is not the way to go about it.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 21:38:49

You're not unreasonable but as your husband already had a child by the time he married you and had two more, and as he's responsible for that child it's not unreasonable that he should where necessary pay a larger proportion of his salary to maintain that child - i.e. to feed, house and clothe her and to pay for her share of the heating/water/lighting bills.

If that means that there's less in your and your husband's family coffers for luxuries, so be it. Presumably you knew he had a child for whom he was responsible when you married him and before you both decided to have more children?

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 21:39:44

She has no claim to anything more than the 250 she gets.
I would presume that she would be more than happy to reduce your dh's payments and take a contribution from any future partner she may have?

landofsoapandglory Fri 26-Apr-13 21:39:45


VBisme Fri 26-Apr-13 21:39:50

No YANBU I am currently paying DHs maintenance because he is out of work and I don't want to see the kids suffer, but I won't deny that it irritates the hell out of me.

Softlysoftly Fri 26-Apr-13 21:42:09

£250 doesn't sound very much for a child to be provided for on sad

YANBU to think your salary is not for the ex and dsd but if he can afford it he shouldn't see his dsd go without and onlyppay what the csa say.

cryhavocandletslipthedogsofwar Fri 26-Apr-13 21:44:46

I'm torn.

On the one hand, if she is unemployed but she still needs somewhere to live, money so she and her DD can eat, be warm and be clothed, then this money if it is not coming from your DH will come from state benefits.

I am no benefit basher and don't object to people claiming but part of me does think to be honest that DH SHOULD be upping his contributions to ensure HIS child is fed, clothed, etc., not the state.

That said I can see where you're coming from so I've no idea!

FreudiansSlipper Fri 26-Apr-13 21:45:30

If she is claiming the it should be worked out on both your salaries then no yanbu

Saying that I have no idea how much your dh earns, £250 per month is not a high amount if he is in a good wage (50k+)

Queenofknickers Fri 26-Apr-13 21:46:56


KatAndKit Fri 26-Apr-13 21:48:10

It's not her DH's fault that his ex isn't working though. She could decide a life on benefits is pretty jolly nice if she got extra maintenance too and that would not be fair on the OP and her family, who would be working hard and not seeing much for it.

KatAndKit Fri 26-Apr-13 21:49:15

If he is paying £250 a month I imagine that he earns about 30k assuming he is paying CSA rates? if he is paying above the minimum then he could be earning less.

FlightyAphrodite Fri 26-Apr-13 21:50:38

£250 a month sounds like a fortune when you get a paltry £20 a month!

Not helpful, sorry.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:52:26

Well I just wanted to know people's opinions really because my initial thought was NO, as it cannot be my responsibility surely. Also my other thoughts were about the CSA, which has already been answered. I was thinking that my income would start being included if his ex requested for it to be, but that's not the case.

Like I said I do sympathise with her about her current position (been there done that!) but at the end of the day I do have my own bills to pay and things like that. It's the way she demanded that annoyed me.

cryhavocandletslipthedogsofwar Fri 26-Apr-13 21:54:13

Kat, no it isn't his fault she isn't working, but it is his responsibility to provide for his child, and that may mean contributing more money in times like this.

That said a demand would absolutely annoy me, I would be more sympathetic if she'd asked nicely.

letseatgrandma Fri 26-Apr-13 21:59:19

YADNBU. It's shite that she's lost her job-I'm sure we can all sympathise/empathise with that, but it's not your job to pick up the slack. Have the daughter round as you would normally and make sure she has a nice time at yours, but I'm pretty sure the CSA can't take your income into account.

If she gets a new job with a pay rise, will she be decreasing your DH's payments?

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 22:05:23

I think yabu to describe her as 'some woman', like she's a random passer by - she is the mother of your dh's child.

I also think that £250 is not a lot to contribute per month - could you raise your dc on that?

It's not your responsibility to financially support her or dsd, so yanbu in that sense, but if your income covers enough of the bills so that your dh has enough spare to up his child support, then I think he should do so, at least temporarily. Not because the ex wife has demanded it, but because it is for the benefit of his child, who needs it.

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 26-Apr-13 22:07:01

There shouldn't be any obligation, legal or otherwise, but as she's fallen on hard times I would hope he'd step up and try and help out as much as he can.
She's his child too, it's not her fault, but this is something you should discuss with your DH.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 22:07:03

You shouldn't pay a thing.
If your DH can afford to help more without it resulting in you having to pay for more than your fair share then I guess that's up to him.
But,, it's not his fault that she is out of a job, maybe you could have DSD to stay more frequently? You would have to reduce Maintenence and could share the cb and any TC fairly. But I'm guessing she wouldn't like that, you probably wouldn't either.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 26-Apr-13 22:07:20

Well, presumably it costs her more than £500 a month to keep a roof over her daughters head and pay all the bills and costs associated with being the main carer to her child, so your DH doesn't have a bad deal really.

What it comes down to is, does she need more money?

You make it sound as if you pay for absolutely everything in your household and your DH pays nothing. Is that actually the case?

Your DH has a responsibility to ensure his dd is provided for before anything else, and if you have to contribute to that by paying more towards the home you have so that he can do that, then so be it. That's part of the situation you created when you chose to have children with someone who already has a huge financial commitment.

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 26-Apr-13 22:11:17

Yanbu. I never understand why people think the new partner should contribute. I'm not saying they shouldn't at all as I'm sure if you needed to or were asked to help out you would (depending on how you're asked etc).....but say they had never split up in the first place and if the mother of the dc lost her job the two as a couple would have less money which obviously is not ideal but just because he has a new partner why should she be 'expected' to contribute?

allnewtaketwo Fri 26-Apr-13 22:11:31

Welljustcallhimdave - have you actually even read the OP? The NRP is not working therefore earns nothing. What proportion of zero do you think he should be paying?

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 22:11:41

Cheers CloudsAndTrees, that's what I was trying to say.

WellJustCallHimDave Fri 26-Apr-13 22:14:30

From the OP:
"She [the resident parent] seems to think that because our household has two incomes coming in... "

Um, what was it you were saying about the NRP (i.e. the OP's husband) having no job and no money, allnewtaketwo?

SinisterBuggyMonth Fri 26-Apr-13 22:14:51

£250 pm is astounding compaired to Fuck all me and DP get from his ExW.

Yanbu at all Op

allnewtaketwo Fri 26-Apr-13 22:16:46

Softly softly you do realise that the £250 is the NRP share only? Therefore presuming the PWC is also contributing equally then that reaches £500. Then with child benefit reaches say £580. Plus any tax credits the PWC receives. Personally I think that's more than adequate to raise a child

KatAndKit Fri 26-Apr-13 22:17:01

The costs of keeping a roof over your head and paying your bills are things that people have to pay even if they don't have a child. A non resident parent should not have to contribute half of the living costs of the parent with care

I bet if you lost your job she would not be suggesting that your DH temporaily stops paying maintenance.

LtEveDallas Fri 26-Apr-13 22:17:39

If mum is struggling could DSD live with you until mum gets back on her feet? That way DSD can be safe and provided for and mum can concentrate on gaining employment without having to worry about her DD.

Dahlen Fri 26-Apr-13 22:19:26

Where does it say the dad isn't working? THe OP says the mother has become unemployed and that the OP's household is a two-income household.

I sympathise OP. I've been in both sides of this debate - the parent who has no maintenance from the other parent, and the step-parent who's partner has a duty to a child. Not a value judgement but I ended up paying maintenance for my partner's child when he wasn't working because I passionately believed that as a married couple his responsibilities were my responsibilities and therefore his responsibilities towards his child were mine.

allnewtaketwo Fri 26-Apr-13 22:20:34

Are you accessing the OP of lying Welljust? She says the NRP is recently unemployed. Last time I heard, unemployed people don't receive salaries

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:20:59

Clouds no not at all. We both pay towards the household expenses. He has a lot of debts that he is paying off so I have to try and cover most of it. We had no idea about what the future had in store regarding his ex's employment status. DH might be able to up his payments by a small amount, obviously not through the csa but voluntarily.

MidniteScribbler Fri 26-Apr-13 22:22:26

No, I wouldn't be paying extra. The mother needs to take responsibility and find a new job, not just expect to put her hand out and have her ex husband pick up the slack in her lifestyle. The only thing I would do is to make sure the child has what they need (shoes, school uniforms, school excursions, or paying for any extracurricular activities she participates in), but I would be paying those things directly, not giving money to the ex.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:23:57

As much as it would be nice for DSD to stay with us more, I don't think her mum would allow it.

hopipolla Fri 26-Apr-13 22:24:14

YANBU she sounds like a real moneygrabber, why on earth should a penny of maintenence come out of the OPs income. The fact she has lost her job is sad but she will have to cut her cloth accordingly not demand extra from the OP and her husband.

allnewtaketwo Fri 26-Apr-13 22:24:42

Sorry I misread. But regardless, what had it got to do with the OP if the PWC is unemployed? Presumably there is redundancy pay and in any case, the state will treat the PWC as though no maintenance is being paid, so she's quids in from that perspective.

If it was the other way round and the NRP had lost his job, would the PWC be paying the NRP for maintaining the child while in his care? I think not

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 26-Apr-13 22:25:48

I just hope his dd gets the equal that your dc get, and she doesn't lose out in anyway.
Her mum may get a job again soon, until then think of her.
Oh, and why are you helping pay his debts?

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:26:11

No, I wouldn't be paying extra. The mother needs to take responsibility and find a new job, not just expect to put her hand out and have her ex husband pick up the slack in her lifestyle. The only thing I would do is to make sure the child has what they need (shoes, school uniforms, school excursions, or paying for any extracurricular activities she participates in), but I would be paying those things directly, not giving money to the ex.

That's my thoughts exactly. Anything that DSD needs such as the things you list above, I would be more than willing to pay directly for them.

allnewtaketwo Fri 26-Apr-13 22:28:25

Do you know, if this was a thread about an NRP becoming unemployed, posters would be advising the OP to go after his redundancy pay

Anonymous88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:28:43

I would never have my wages taken into account for partners children. He pays his maintenance (we have separate finances), all dealt with privately. As he's self employed they (they being partner and his ex) take each week as it comes as his wages can vary. Sometimes he can pay over what he would technically owe as he near enough has the kids 50/50, but then his ex buys everything such as clothing, toiletries etc...
The only way your wages could be taken into account is csa will assume as you're contributing to the household there's more disposable income on his part. For instance, partner's work has been very temperamental since Christmas because of winter, so some weeks he's earnt nothing. I haven't paid his maintenance as that's not upto me (besides, she's so dead set against me being a mother figure it'd be a bit cheeky to expect me to pay) but he has still paid more than he's had to (not ridiculously so) because I've contributed a bit more to the bills etc....which I don't mind.

Lj8893 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:31:29

Allnewtaketwo.....the OP clearly states that the EW has recently become unemployed, not her DH (the father).

YANU OP, yes you knew what situation you were getting into when you married your husband but that doesn't mean his daughter should become your financial responsibility (although I'm sure you do provide for her financially, but you shouldn't have to give that financial support to her mother).

Hope it all gets sorted soon and she is lucky in gaining employment quickly!

KatAndKit Fri 26-Apr-13 22:32:37

No, I don't think all posters would be saying go after his redundancy pay. There are plenty of people who have been on each side of this situation.
Anonymous 88, the csa no longer take household disposable income into account. They used to, but this is not the case now. It is purely calculated on the income of the non resident parent, regardless of what other money is coming into the house.

Dahlen Fri 26-Apr-13 22:33:10

How easy is it going to be for the mother to find a replacement job when she has DSD to worry about? What childcare (if any) was she using before she lost her job, and did your DH contribute to that in addition to any maintenance?

Lj8893 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:34:28

Sorry x post!

zippy539 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:35:36

No - your earning are nothing to do with the price of mince. However, your Dh seems like he has a lot of financial commitments - ie his debts and his dd (not only financial in that case obs). Financially, you are having to subsidise him because of his decision to get into debt etc? Could it be that you are directing your annoyance at the wrong person - ie his ex.

Is there a possibility that your Dh is a bit of a cocklodger and this is why you are feeling so annoyed about this?

Anonymous88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:40:05

kitandkat that's handy to know should partner and his ex choose to ever go through csa.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:40:12

Dahlen, my DH didn't pay towards childcare fees as there were no fees to pay. Luckily DSD's grandma (ex wife's mum) looked after her before and after school apart from 2 school nights when she was here, and then weekends she was off. She stays here every other weekend.

During school holidays that was different as DSD goes to a holiday club which they have always gone halves on. Now DH and I will be paying for it all.

bellablot Fri 26-Apr-13 22:40:38

YADNBU, tell her to fuck off, not your responsibility, it's hers and your husbands, end of!!!! confused

racmun Fri 26-Apr-13 22:47:58

Your salary is not counted. I would not pay a penny more.

The CSA maintenance is an amount calculated so that the child's lifestyle reflects the parent's earnings which is what would occur in a non split family. You are not the child's parent.

I am sure that she would not agree to a reduction if you lost your job for example and went down to one income.

For all the posters who say that the OP knew the situation- she did and she didn't have to pay. Why are the needs of the new children any less important.
If the mother can't house them then that is her issue. She should let the child live at the OP's until she is sorted.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 22:48:48

Your dh has been quite lucky up til now that his ex wife's mum has provided free child care - that would have cost him a lot more than he has been paying, so think of the holiday club costs as being offset against that.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 22:51:43

It also save the RP money as well, let's not forget that, mkay.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 22:52:07

New dc aren't less important,racmun, but OP and dh had them knowing he had a financial commitment to his first dc.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 22:52:55

Karma if the nrp pays the % the csa would ask for then they do not have to pay any more regardless of additional costs like childcare or clubs ect.

All they HAVE to pay is the % assessment.

Op yanbu granted if you choose to do more yourself that's lovely but for her to actually ask is cheeky and rude.

YoniBottsBumgina Fri 26-Apr-13 22:53:56

You took on the responsibility of your SD when you married your DH imo. It's not about the ex, it's about the little girl. If he had sole custody of her you'd expect to contribute towards her upbringing, it's no different just because she lives with her mum.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 22:54:23

And that assessment also gets reduced because the nrp has additional resident children.

GoSuckEggs Fri 26-Apr-13 22:54:51

god no, if i it was my DHs Ex she could go whistle.

she would not ever get a penny from me.

zippy539 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:55:05

So your Dh isn't having to cover his own daughters childcare, his current morgtage, his current household bills, his food, or the care of the three children he currently lives with (not sure whether they are his or not so possibly irrelevant). In short - he's fallen on his feet.

Honestly, I don't think it's his ex-wife you need to be worried about.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 22:55:22

That's shocking, sock. Child care should be a joint expense.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 22:58:29

Yes yoni, if they have DSD live FT with them then they wouldn't be paying maintenance, they would get CB and any TC due.
I'd guess (I'd be right) that the ex wouldn't agree to that at all, see wouldn't be getting any money at all.
She probably wouldn't agree to it even if it was best for her DD, even short term.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 23:00:11

Strange idea that if mum is skint she should just hand over her dc to the dad. Bet very few mothers on here would willingly do that.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:00:22

How were these debt acquired?
Whilst he was with the ex?

racmun Fri 26-Apr-13 23:01:34


The op's partner has maintained his financial commitment to the children that's not the issue. He's still paying what he always has
The exp wants more where does that money come from?

As I stated before if the op lost her job I doubt the exw would accept a reduction because of his other financial commitments.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:02:04

Zippy, I didn't say he isn't having to contribute towards anything. I said I have to cover most of it.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 26-Apr-13 23:02:14

She is probably not a money grabber - she is probably panicking like mad that she has no job and sees her ex having money for holidays and thinks he can afford to pay a bit more to support his daughter. She has probably just approached it badly out of panic at finding herself unemployed in a recession.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:03:19

It's not really is it?
If you can't afford them on a decent amount of money and benefits then let them stay with the parent that can for a while whilst you find a job.
That is preferable to go begging for money from someone who has no obligation to you.
I would be thouroughly ashamed to request what this ex has.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 26-Apr-13 23:04:06

Yes why would it be better for a child to go and live with nrp just because finances are tight hmm

racmun Fri 26-Apr-13 23:04:18

I don't think it's the ex that has the money for the holidays it's the op!
How she choses to spend her money is up to her.

dontsufferfools Fri 26-Apr-13 23:04:18

A change of circumstance is difficult but would the current resident parent be ok with no money if the estranged dad lost his job. Its a joint responsibility with BOTH parents of the children but definately not the responsibility of the new partner.

I would not pay towards my DH's children because they are not my financial responsibility, they are his. And he provides accordingly.

I work bloody hard to provide for my own. I am not about to pay for children that are not my own. Sorry.

Ledkr Fri 26-Apr-13 23:04:46

My dh pays along with me for my daughters upkeep and helps out my adult sons. He married me knowing I had them and they couldn't be brushed aside.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:06:01

OTTMummA, yes the debts are from his previous relationship with his exW.

Dahlen Fri 26-Apr-13 23:06:54

CSA percentage is set at an amount the NRP is able to afford. It is not an accurate reflection of what it costs to care for a child. Truth is that £250 nowhere near covers half of what the child at the centre of this needs.

IMO the OP's bugbear should be with her DH.

One of my friends has a child who lives with her XP. I have known her go without food in order to pay maintenance because she believes her child comes first. I certainly have never known her go on holiday while her child goes without.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:06:57

Ledkr, I have never implied that DSD will be brushed aside.

Ledkr Fri 26-Apr-13 23:08:37

No but for example if I lost my job dh would have to feed and clothe dd wouldn't he? He wouldn't be able to say no sorry she's not mine.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:09:25

It should be karma but its not, it works a bit like this.

Nrp's ( and only nrp's) wages,

Remove protected income ( a set sum for each resident child) then asses the rest

Off the top of my head its 15% for one dc 20% for two or more.

That % is what should be paid after a deduction is also made to account for nrp's who have a child they see overnight more than once a week ish.

Nrp can apply for additional deductions if they travel significant distance to get child for contact and if they have a disabled child residing with them.

If nrp gets any means tested benefits ( inc some army pensions) they get a flat £5 pw assessment.

Pwc cannot obtain a increase in payments if the child the assessment s made for is disabled.

The remaining sum is then split between each pwc dependant on how many children they have with the nrp.

I.e 2 pwc's one child each by the same nrp he gets a say army disablement pension ( not a disability benefit) assessment is £5 pw so each pwc gets £2.50 pw.

No matter what the csa asses as the amount to be paid even if its nil that's all the nrp has to pay and they cannot be compelled to contribute anything on top of that.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:10:17

The ex will have to cut her cloth then won't she?!
Like everyone else who has had to.
Op has said they would pay for shoes/clothes etc if needed and the dad hadnt missed a payment, he shouldn't be subbing the ex for her share of raising their child, she could have taken out employment protection insurance to cover wages or tried to save a little each month, but nope clearly the answer is to wait until it all goes tits up and demand money from the op.
She could let the DD stay with her dad for a while, but she won't want to lose the minimum 330pm she gets.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:12:58

Does the ex pay towards the debts at all?
Doubt it.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:15:29

OTT if the debts were incurred during the relationship and the nrp no longer has the assets obtained by the debt he can get a csa reduction. ( not all debt is covered but lots is)

BruthasTortoise Fri 26-Apr-13 23:18:02

How is anybody working out that it costs more than £580 per month to keep one child? The government has set as a basic for one child approx £60 per week so by my reckoning the child in question is getting more than double that.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:19:36

I suspect It would probably be more hassle than it's worth in some cases?

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:20:10

Because that's the absolute minimum it costs,we all know that it costs more than that

JaquelineHyde Fri 26-Apr-13 23:20:26

I would ask DSD's Mum whether she would be happy for your DH to reduce his payments if she gets a pay rise or if she got a new partner would your DH be able to stop paying all together.

Because if you reverse this situation this is exactly what she is asking/expecting of you.

You sound like you will contribute where you can and not see DSD go without which is fab but do you have to do this...No you don't and DSD's Mum has no right to make demands from you.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:20:48

OTT is filling out 1 form and posting it.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:21:10

Even on the maintenance and cb that makes £76 pw.
This money she is demanding is not for the DD really, it's for her lifestyle.

BruthasTortoise Fri 26-Apr-13 23:21:56

It doesn't cost more than £580 per month per child unless you have an extravagant lifestyle especially if necessities such as shoes are being provided above that amount though.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 26-Apr-13 23:22:03

OTT the daughter may not want to live with her father ds would not want to live with his dad because this is his home

and employment insurance only covers you in certain circumstances

Do you have a partner with an ex partner and child by any chance

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:22:18

I meant the relationship side of things, trying to keep things amicable etc between disgruntled ex's.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:23:59

I completely agree with the op and think she shouldn't fund anything she prefers not to.

But 70 odd quid being excessive money for a child's upkeep and obviously for mums lifestyle?


GreenEggsAndNichts Fri 26-Apr-13 23:24:34

YANBU. I am sure her 'demanding' your income would be particularly grating!

However, agree that he's getting off easy with £250 a month. I am 36 yrs old. My father paid more than that per month when my parents divorced in the early 80s! And that was with them both having decent jobs. The RP (I'm assuming this means resident parent or so?) has to maintain a larger house than they'd need without the child, etc etc expenses, I'm just surprised at this assessment.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:24:37

No, I have a 5yr old and 9month old with my husband (the father to both wink)
I could never get involved with someone who had children already though, not my cup of tea.
I am a step child though, do I am not completely unaware of these types of situations.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:27:19

Green according to gingerbread the most frequent assessment made by the csa is £5 pw.

Something to do with nrp's who are decent not needing to use the csa.

BruthasTortoise Fri 26-Apr-13 23:27:36

Greeneggs both parents have to maintain a larger household because of their children unless the NRP has no contact or is willing to let the children sleep on the floor in a one bed flat. The starting point for most separating couples (barring abuse) is that there should be some degree of shared care and the children should be comfortable in both houses.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 26-Apr-13 23:27:41

if you and your dh lost your jobs would you expect your children to go and live with aunts/uncles/grandparents I doubt it because they would want to be at home and you would want them there too

BenjaminButton172 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:30:58

I think a lot of you are being very harsh.

I agree with Karma. The ex is probably just worried because she is now unemployed.

There is so much judging of the ex w. She should get a job, she wants the csa to fund her lifestyle, she should let the dd stay with exh oh but she wouldnt do that coz she wouldnt want to lose her money.

Id be pretty pissed off and annoyed if i found myself unemployed and saw my ex going off on holidays.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:32:27

I didn't say it was excessive at all, but I do think it's enough to live on and provide clothing with etc.
When jobs get cut and money is tight you have to cut your cloth and make do.
What the ex is asking for is not hers to ask! Because it isn't for the DDs benefit, it's so the ex doesn't have to be too concerned about providing for herself.
She is getting a fair amount IMHO, I would be telling her that she should be putting more effort into getting a job than demanding money she isn't entitled to.

GreenEggsAndNichts Fri 26-Apr-13 23:32:54

Brutha well it doesn't mean sleeping on the floor, I recall sleeping on a sofa bed at my father's first apartment. He did eventually get his own house and did make an effort to have a room for me. Point taken, though.

Still think the figure is low.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 26-Apr-13 23:34:23

I think she is probably in a panic too

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 26-Apr-13 23:35:22

Benjamin, why would you be pissed off and annoyed about your ex going on holidays? It's not his fault his ex has lost her job. Yes it's a horrid situation and I think the main thing is making sure the child is looked after. He's still paying what's expected, why shouldn't he have a holiday? Would she stop all her plans if he was made redundant?

grumpyinthemorning Fri 26-Apr-13 23:36:21

Yanbu, £250 a month is a fortune! I would love it if xp gave me that much!

Much as it is your dp's responsibility to provide for his child, it is also her responsibility as a mother to do the same. How would she manage if he didn't contribute? It is not his responsibility to keep a roof over his ex's head, only his child's.

olgaga Fri 26-Apr-13 23:36:30

She has just lost her job and I suspect she's in a bit of a panic. Ultimately there are two of you earning, while she's on her own. That's how it's going to look from her perspective.

Your earnings are obviously not taken into account in the calculation of child maintenance which DH alone is responsible for, but his financial obligation to his other two children is. However, if she is worrying about how she is going to manage and is worried she will be too skint to replace necessities like shoes, school uniforms etc surely you wouldn't object to your DH providing them?

I don't really understand all this his money/my money stuff anyway. Going by what you say you seem to be paying for just about everything - mortgage, household bills, groceries, a car, your two children (having an extra child every other weekend surely can't add that much to your expenses), family holiday. So you are already contributing by alleviating your DH of these financial responsibilities.

It does make me wonder, what on earth does your DH contribute to the household if you are paying for all of the above?

Perhaps that's the real reason for your anger - and the fact that your DH's ex has pointed out that she might now need some extra help is simply the last straw.

At the end of the day I'm not some meal ticket to this woman.

I'd be more worried, if I were you, about being a meal ticket for your DH.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 26-Apr-13 23:37:17

Of course its not hers to ask,and its very wrong to just expect it from a nrp's partner or to rudely ask. But I wouldn't blame her for asking the child's dad for a bit more.

The dc could do clubs or other stuff she wants to continue you don't know its to fund mum so its a bit unfair to just assume that.

Arisbottle Fri 26-Apr-13 23:39:02

Legally you should not have to pay however you have chosen to make a life with a man who already has a child by another woman, you have therefore chosen a life of compromise. I am a stepmother and would not feel comfortable having a holiday that my stepchild could not afford to have. If I needed to chip in to support my stepson, I would happily do so.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:39:19

Benjamin, what if that holiday was one that your child was going on?

Should we just cancel it because his ex is now unemployed? What about if we want to go on a day out? Should we now stay at home every day because the ex isn't working?

I'm sorry but why should we put our lives on hold?

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 26-Apr-13 23:39:47

olgaga, if that's the situation I totally agree.

Arisbottle Fri 26-Apr-13 23:40:46

You are very unreasonable to speak about the mother of your husband,s child as that woman. My husband would never have married me if I had spoken of his ex like that and he would be furious if I ever did it now.

OTTMummA Fri 26-Apr-13 23:42:26

Lots of people all over the world send their children to other family members because they can not afford them during unemployment.
There is nothing new or unusual about it.
People that do so usually have no choice about it as they are in abject poverty, that's the key really, they want the best for their children and try their best to find a solution (get jobs)
The ex seemingly would not agree to this, I would guess because in reality she probably can make do with what she's getting, she just doesn't like the prospect of having a lean few months out of work for herself which I can't blame her for, been there done that etc, but that doesn't mean she can request money as she pleases just because it's an easy way to supplement herself.
Op has said she would buy shoes/clothes etc so why should she expect more?

Arisbottle Fri 26-Apr-13 23:42:54

It is not putting your life on hold but it is acknowledging that fact that hour husband have commitments that were there before you came along and therefore you cannot live in a vacuum. I would not Swan off on holiday if my stepson's mother was struggling, I would want to see that she too could have a break and if he wanted to stepson would be coming with us. In fact we have all gone on holiday together, DH, I, our children , stepson and his mother.

SinisterBuggyMonth Fri 26-Apr-13 23:43:10

It irks it me a bit when people say you should have considered all these potential problems before starting a relationship with someones with children from a previous relationship. We are not all carry ing crystal balls around, and some of us fall in love without adearing to a strict checklist. It doesn't mean that because were are accepting and open to step children, we must remain essentially mute there after.

Arisbottle Fri 26-Apr-13 23:44:59

You don't need a crystal ball to realise that if you enter a relationship with someone who has children you will be needed to constantly compromise.

Bridgetbidet Fri 26-Apr-13 23:46:23

YANBU but I can understand that it might be difficult for the ex (and more importantly her DD) to live in very straitened circumstances while his 'new' family are going off on holidays etc.

Rather than you actually giving her money can you make sure that DSD is not overtly excluded from the better off lifestyle that your children enjoy? For example include her in the holidays, if your children have iPads, make sure she has one, make sure she can afford to go on school trips if you can, things like that? Perhaps make sure that she is clothed to the same standard as your children e.g. she's not in Primark while they're in John Lewis.

Little things, but it would make the differences less noticeable and therefore the whole situation less fraught.

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 26-Apr-13 23:49:09

Thing is though Aris, all situations are different and compromise is fine if its compromise on both sides and not just one dictating to the other. My personal experience, and I know this isn't right across the board, has been that me and my dh were mostly told when and what we could do with dsd which made things very difficult. Compromise I would have been ok with.
As long as the child isn't going without essentials that's the main thing in this situation.

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:49:48

DSD is coming with us on holiday. We are going on a family holiday. It's not me and DH swanning off together on a luxury break. It's a holiday for all 3 of the children to enjoy.

Booked pre current situation on ex's part.

And I think you will find I do acknowledge that my DH has prior commitments there were here before I came along. His ex receives £250.00 a month from DH, that is a lot compared to some. I have said that I will pay towards additional expenses, and I hope this will help alleviate the pressure off DSD's mum a little bit. But I shouldn't be handing over cash no way.

BruthasTortoise Fri 26-Apr-13 23:49:56

Arisbottle does the same apply the other way round? If the child's mother find employment and the OP was made redundant would you expect the the child's mum not to go on holiday or treat herself and her child because her ex, the OP and their children were struggling?

Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 23:52:20

Hmmm, double standards eh? sigh

BruthasTortoise Fri 26-Apr-13 23:55:28

Also the reality is that one of the child's parents has been made unemployed, the same thing is happening to families up and down the country and as a result they are having to tighten their spending. £580 + extras per month is enough to maintain a child to an adequate standard of living. If DH and I were spending anywhere near that per month on each of our children we would be in serious financial difficulties and both of us are in full time employment.

AmberLeaf Sat 27-Apr-13 00:00:26

Its odd, because I can see why the second wife in this scenario wouldn't want to pay towards the childs upkeep, however, when the DH and 2ndDW have their children, the DHs CSA contribution goes down so effectively the first DW is subsidising the 2ndDWs children as she then has to cover the shortfall from the DH.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 00:00:33

It's not just direct spending on the child though - it's maintaining a suitable home, possibly in an area that is good for schools, which might mean increased rent/travel costs to work or close to family for the free child care (seeing as how ex h isn't obliged to pay for that). Being a RP seems to bring with it a lot of indirect costs that nrp doesn't have to factor into their lives.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:00:47

OTT I think you're being a little OTT about this with your suggestion that the child should be sent away because her mum has lost her job and might need some extra help!

What leads you to believe that this request for extra help from the ex is because she is looking for "an easy way to supplement herself"?

The OP has given no indication that is the case. All the OP has indicated is that she is angry about the level of her own financial contribution to her own household!

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:02:33

£580 + extras per month is enough to maintain a child to an adequate standard of living.

The ex has just lost her job. How do we know that this is enough when we have no idea what her outgoings and financial commitments are in relation to housing, utilities etc?

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 00:03:15

Bruthas is a man or woman has left their child and then gone on to set up a new home they should ensure that the lifestyle of their existing children remains constant - or improves and that that they can give all of their children the same standard of living,

It is not up to stepson's mother to provide for my children, they are not hers and she has not chosen to set up home with their father. However my husband has children that all need to be treated equally and I have chosen to marry a man who already has children and therefore I need to accept that I will be the be to compromise

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 00:03:46

BruthasTortoise, if the OPs ex was made redundant and the OP was really suffering financially I would certainly hope that she would try and ease the financial pressure on him by lessening the maintenance payments for her DC if she was in a position to be buying holidays and luxuries.

If that was me and I was in a situation where I could afford that sort of thing and my ex and his new family were really suffering I would refuse to take a penny off him till he was sorted out, even if that did involve forgoing a holiday myself.

I wouldn't want to go on holiday paid for with my exes money if his kids were struggling for new shoes, that would be disgusting.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:03:53


Like I said, any direct spending I make, I hope would help alleviate a bit of the pressure so that she can maintain her home for DSD without having to worry about the other bits like clothes. At least I'm doing something. The money she does receive can go towards her bills surely?

zippy539 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:04:31

Arg - sorry Op - I know I seem down on your Dh but you do seem to be paying for absolutely everything. So taking that further - just wondered whether the demand for extra money came directly from her to you, or via your DH. If it came from your Dh - do you know whether she has actually asked for the money or whether he is using it an excuse to service his debts. Sorry if over dramatic but good to be certain. (Off to plot latest novel....)

WhatTheWaterGaveMe Sat 27-Apr-13 00:05:04

Not sure why people are scoffing about "is £250 really enough anyway?"
It's not just £250 is it - the child's mother provides for her too. It's two parents contributions that are bringing her up so we can rightly assume the child is allocated more than £250 a month.

I think the right thing to do would be provide things DSD needs - school stuff, shoes etc but I don't see why the CSA payments should go up.
We assume(?) the mum will be looking for another job so hopefully this won't be a permanent situation for her, so just help out as and when needed in the meantime.

I don't think YABU.
I do think it was unreasonable to call her 'that woman' though.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:06:10

His ex receives £250.00 a month from DH, that is a lot compared to some.

It's not about whether it's a lot or a little compared to some. It's what he is required to pay as a proportion of his earnings.

Presumably he is on around £40k to be paying maintenance of £250pm with two resident children.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 00:06:53

Maintenance is for the child, not to sub the ex's cost of living.
She made choices of where to live based on the current maintenance she recieves as well as her own salary, the ops DH is not responsible for the ex's shortfall.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 00:08:13

Olgaga that's a fair point but if the ex has outgoings which dramatically exceed that figure then she is going to have to make rapid adjustments. If £580 wont cover the child's share of expenses then there's no way that the £240 she will get from JSA will cover her share.

AmberLeaf Sat 27-Apr-13 00:08:57

the ops DH is not responsible for the ex's shortfall

But if the ops DH didn't work, the EX would be responsible for his shortfall.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 00:11:40

Arisbottle you are suggesting that the children of separated parents should be shielded from the realities of life in a way which no other children are. It is sad and unfortunate but when one parent is made redundant there are very few children who won't find that their lifestyle changes to a certain extent.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:13:56

Bruthas we don't know anything about the ex's situation, other than she has just lost her job and was reliant on one income and maintenance of £250pm.

If she is no longer able to contribute what she previously did because her income is severely reduced, then quite obviously that will have an impact on her child's quality of life.

The question is, is the child's father happy to sit back and allow that to happen?

Does the child's father think he should give some extra help to the ex at this time in order to protect the DD's standard of living?

It's not actually about the OP handing over cash to the ex, despite the fact that's how OP feels about it.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 27-Apr-13 00:14:04

well she needed to be near her family as they helped with child care, should they live in the poorest area just because they are now a single parent family or maybe move town/city to the otherside of the country up root their daughter

I get more than £250 a month, still all my earning go on our living costs it is it a lot if your rent/mortgage is high

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 00:16:53

The reality here though is that someone has to meet the full costs of raising this child and if the mum is unemployed and the dad has over committed himself by having more kids he cannot afford, then it is likely to be the state. Personally I think he should be doing more.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:17:00

Another point is that if she is now unemployed she will receive housing benefits for her rent costs? That should help her in the mean time shouldn't it?

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 00:18:31

Amber, what the ex gets is enough for a child to live on.
If the DH stopped working and couldn't pay maintenance she would have to cut back on things, that is a reality when being a main carer.
Same is happening now when she is out of work but still getting the maintenance for the DD.
she just doesn't want to scrimp.
If they were to increase Maintenance now and reduce it when the ex found work they wouldn't get a back payment such as what happens when the NRP starts working again.
They also get cb and CTC if applicable.
If she really wanted to she could go for 50/50 care if he stopped working, things a bit fairer then.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:20:56

But the point is though Karma, we CAN afford our children hmm

Just because his exW is now unemployed doesn't mean we can't afford the children we have together. Should we just have not had them just in case exW loses her job in the future and demands more money?


olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:22:47

If the DH stopped working and couldn't pay maintenance she would have to cut back on things

Yes but that's not the case!

If she really wanted to she could go for 50/50 care if he stopped working, things a bit fairer then

Are you quite mad? How on earth would that help the OP!

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 00:24:01

karma surely the same applies to the ex then? Maybe she shouldn't have had a child she couldn't afford? hmm
At the time the ex's child and the OP's children were born they could afford them as all the parents were working.

imour Sat 27-Apr-13 00:26:25

i expect when she was working she was claiming working tax credits or child tax credits unless she was a very high earner , as well as child benefit and getting the 250 a month , so im assuming she will now go and claim income support , she wont have council tax to pay if claiming or rent if renting , will still get child credit and benefit , if you make life too comfortable for her then she might not bother going back to work ,lots of dads dont pay a bean so its good he always has .

FreudiansSlipper Sat 27-Apr-13 00:28:59

It is not good that he has always paid it is what he should do he ia a parent hmm it is shit that some nrp choose to pay nothing or very very little

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:34:37

Oh yes it's really marvellous that he has paid what he should as a parent.

As does his ex.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 00:36:08

Olgaga I think you are reading out of context.

DH is responsible for the DD, so he pays a fair amount required of him. This together with cb is enough to keep a child.
This is the only money that is in question, he is not responsible for the ex's living expenses for herself.
If he lost his job she would have to cut back through no choice wouldn't she?
Well what's the difference now? She has less money, she needs to get appropriate help for HER living expenses like HB.
She would have to apply for JSA or whatever it's called now to help pay HER share of bills and food.
IMO she gets enough maintenance to feed and clothe a child.
If she wasnt happy with no maintenance if the DH lost his job then to share costs equally 50/50 custody could be requested, I don't see a problem with that so long as distance isn't a problem.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:36:56

Well then she shouldn't be expecting me to foot the bill for her then should she?

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:38:04

^^ above post was in response to Olgaga saying the ex pays what she should as a parent as well as my DH.

FreudiansSlipper Sat 27-Apr-13 00:42:16

Maintenance is paid to maintain costs of not just clothing but providing a home/food for a child and all the other expenses travel, school trips and so on

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:42:27

I think both of you are missing the point.

If the ex's income is severely reduced then the standard of living for her and the DD will be affected.

You are both looking at this as though it's only the ex. It's not. The DD is the main consideration here.

I find it intriguing, Mum, that you haven't mentioned what your DH thinks about this situation and what he plans to do about it.

Or is it all down to you?

Mimishimi Sat 27-Apr-13 00:44:02

YANBU, maintenance is based on a percentage of his income, not her varying needs. However, if she is having a really hard time financially, I do think your DH should offer to have primary custody of your DSD for a while.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 00:45:29

she shouldn't be expecting me to foot the bill for her then should she

I think there is a world of difference between tackling you personally and asking you to foot the bill, and pointing out to your DH that he lives in a dual income household, while she is on her own and has lost her job.

LadyBeagleEyes Sat 27-Apr-13 00:50:14

Imour, that's a big assumption.
From what I've gathered she was a working mum who unfortunately lost her job.
Very possibly she is desperate for another and doesn't want to be on benefits but meanwhile would like to see her dd maintain the same lifestyle as her stepsisters.
I'd also like to know what your dp thinks Op, though I'm a bit hmm about you taking on his debts.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:53:12

No it's not all down to me Olgaga. My DH is in the process of weighing things up. It's the fact that she mentioned me that's why I have expressed my own thoughts about the situation on here.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 00:55:03

Not stepsisters Lady. They aren't her stepsisters. They are DP's children as well.

imour Sat 27-Apr-13 00:58:18

why is that a big assumption , if she worked and lost her job , she will be entitled to income support , no one likes being on benefits but if you need to then so be it to help you through , im sure every one wants to maintain a decent life style but everyone has ups and downs , wonder if she would still demand the 250 if they both lost their jobs , some exes not all but some are grabby and bitter lets not make out otherwise .

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:01:43

But I doubt if she has mentioned you in anything but an oblique way. The fact is, her ex is in a pretty comfortable dual income household. She currently has no earned income because she has lost her job. Of course she is going to factor your dual income into her consideration.

It isn't about taking money out of your purse. It's about the ex's reasonable expectation that the the DD's father will step up and help out in a time of crisis.

You do sound incredibly angry, but it's not as though she has never worked and only sought to extract money from your DH. He is only paying the CM that he is required to.

Her circumstances have changed and she has asked for help.

Why take it so personally? Why make it such a battle? Ultimately the welfare and interests of the child are the most important things.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:05:17

wonder if she would still demand the 250 if they both lost their jobs,some exes not all but some are grabby and bitter lets not make out otherwise

That's a bit irrelevant. He has a job, and he is either required to pay or has agreed to pay £250pm.

If he lost his job he would be paying a nominal sum, whether she "demanded" more and was "grabby and bitter" or not.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 01:08:31

I've stated what I am willing to do to help out, but that's all I can offer.

Think about it. Her rent and council tax will be paid in full. She will receive JSA income based which ensures that she will receive full rent and council tax benefit. She will also receive free school meals, ctc and cb. And then the 250 on top of that. The holiday club will be paid for as well as any additional expenses that DSD needs like clothes, school trips etc.. Any bills that need paying are simply not my responsibility and she has more than enough there to pay for them with the temporary help she is getting.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 01:12:47

Can I also point out that whilst the holiday club is not a necessity at the moment as DSD's mum isn't working, DSD loves going and it would be a shame for that to stop.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:15:47

I've stated what I am willing to do to help out, but that's all I can offer.

It's getting a bit late but you must know that housing benefit won't necessarily cover all her rent.

But yet again this is all about what you want to/are prepared to do.

What is dad prepared to do?

imour Sat 27-Apr-13 01:17:24

forgot to add YANBU at all , unfortunately there is always someone on here who goes on and tries to wind you up , you dont have to justify anything at the end of the day i think you are being very fair.

Mumoftwo88 Sat 27-Apr-13 01:18:53

If she is receiving JSA IB then it will cover the whole rent.

I don't know what he is prepared to do just yet. Like you say it's getting late now so I will pop back on here tomorrow.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:20:17

imour is that directed at me? I am not trying to wind OP up, I am simply having a conversation and putting my point of view across.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:22:33

Yes me too - night night.

FWIW I do think you are trying to do the right thing by DD but you are obviously angry about the situation, and it makes me think there must be more to this!

imour Sat 27-Apr-13 01:25:23

i dont like to name and shame...but if the cap fits and all that ,you are putting your views across yes , copying and pasting then nit picking through it yes , but having a conversation you were not .

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:30:47

WTF are you on about? Copying and pasting particular points you wish to address is part of having a conversation online. I am not "nit-picking", there are broad issues being discussed.

What have you brought to this thread except your apparent knowledge of the benefit system and evident bitterness?

imour Sat 27-Apr-13 01:37:29

its getting late think some people are getting tired and throwing their toys out the pram , hope my knowledge of the benefit system has helped let you know op that the ex and daughter will not lose the roof over their head and will not starve , and what you said you are doing to help sounds very fair .

AmberLeaf Sat 27-Apr-13 01:39:02

No such thing as council tax benefit anymore!

she would be liable for some % even if unemployed.

So, if NRP loses their job....the RP picks up the slack

If the RP loses their job...the RP picks up the slack.

filthypig Sat 27-Apr-13 01:40:00

I was on IS and the housing benefit didn't cover the whole of my rent. But I rented privately as no council stock.

GoshAnneGorilla Sat 27-Apr-13 01:41:09

Olgaga - Thanks for your contributions. I've been a bit baffled by some of the responses on here.

O.P, you are coming across as very bitter and I'm not sure it's aimed at the right person. Your DH is sounding very passive in all this.

NatashaBee Sat 27-Apr-13 01:47:30

OP, I would do exactly what you're doing - provide holiday clubs, clothes, treats, holidays, in addition to the maintenance. I wouldn't want to hand over cash - my priority would be making sure that DSD didn't miss out due to her mother's unemployment. Other posters have raised valid points about what your DH is paying for though. It seems like you're covering the majority of the bills.

LadyBeagleEyes Sat 27-Apr-13 01:50:24

I'm interested in your Dh's response too OP.
So far it's all about you.
And no, I don't think you should be paying for Dsd, but surely you can cut her mum some slack at a time of hardship, it might just be a short time till she's employed again.
You do seem to have a huge financial responsibility in your relationship, what does your DH actually contribute?

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 01:59:55

Thank you Gosh.

I can assure you imour that my toys are all still in my pram and under control.

There are much bigger issues here which seem to have gone straight over your head.

Welfare reform means the safety net is not quite as straightforward as it once was. DD's standard of living is likely to be affected and there is no simplistic solution along the lines you suggest in relation to "handing over" her care.

OP seems to be having to take on a far greater share of responsibility for this situation than she should.

Those are the important issues here and I think exploring them will assist the OP if she wants to come back.

You may have good reason for your bitterness and axe-grinding, but in my view it's unhelpful and misplaced on this thread.

ThePlatypusAlwaysTriumphs Sat 27-Apr-13 02:07:54

I think YANBU

We;ve been on the other side of this- DH's ex GF got a new bloke and subsequently married him. He seems to make a lot of money. we were struggling at the time, but would never have dreamed of trying to get DHs contributions down-scaled because she had a new well-off partner confused It would surely have to work both ways, wouldn't it?

Ouchmyhead Sat 27-Apr-13 02:13:28

IMO YANBU. Your DP pays what is expected and looks after your DSD, I think it's unfair for her mum to expect more money from you because she has become unemployed. Maybe I'm a bit sceptical because of personal experiences, but she shouldn't be relying on DP's money and benefits to provide for their child, she should be getting another job. If she's struggling that badly couldn't you have DSD over more? That may keep the peace in terms of, you don't have to give her any more money, but the financial strain whilst she is unemployed is reduced as she will be with you, and you will be providing for her whilst she is with you.

wreckitralph Sat 27-Apr-13 02:18:36

I think it's unreasonable that she only receives 250 pounds a month for a child that he is 50% responsible for. YANBU to not want to contribute to that yourself.

McNewPants2013 Sat 27-Apr-13 02:30:15

Yabu, you knew that your partner had a child before commiting to a relationship.

The needs of the child comes 1st.

If your partner was still in a relationship with his child's mother then the home would have 100% the income from him.

MidniteScribbler Sat 27-Apr-13 02:56:48

If the ex's income is severely reduced then the standard of living for her and the DD will be affected.

That is simply a fact for children when a parent loses their job, regardless of whether the parents are still together or not. The OP's DH is providing the same amount as he has always done, and they have said they are prepared to pay extra to make sure her schooling is covered, that she is clothed and she still gets to participate in her holiday club. She will still get to attend holidays with her father, the OP and her siblings, and participate fully in their activities. But the mother will simply have to tighten her belt until she is able to find herself a new job, just like everyone else does, and it's not up to the OP and her DH to provide 'luxuries' for the mother and by extension the daughter when she is with the mother. Mum might have to skip the weekly mother and daughter movie trips or days out to the theme park for now, but as long as the child is fed, clothed, educated and cared for (all of which the OP has said they will ensure), then making sure that the mother maintains her standard of living is no longer the responsibility of her former partner. They are no longer in a relationship, and he is not responsible for her financial situation. She needs to take responsibility for her own life now, and not go running to her former partner whenever things are tough. People break up for a reason. You remain civil for the benefit of your children, but ex partners do not get to control the spending of their ex's new partners, and they don't get to expect their ex to pick up any slack in their standard of living, apart from making sure that their mutual child is well cared for.

niceguy2 Sat 27-Apr-13 07:05:51

Ha ha. Those ppl saying OP is being unreasonable have no clue.


Giving her more maintenance is the WRONG thing to do.

The govt have a welfare system for those who lose their jobs. No need for you to supplement the benefits she will receive.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 07:15:57

I think you should be able to rely on the father of the child to pay 50%. I also think that itches is only paying £250 per month then perhaps he couldn't afford to have 2 more dc. There are a lot of assumptions that ex wants to maintain lavish lifestyle.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 07:16:35

itches?. Should say if he is

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 07:48:27

I am not assuming she wants to keep a lavish lifestyle at all.
I do think that she doesn't want to lose or change anything that would affect her way of life though.
The amount she gets is what the government have deemed reasonable and fair, if you don't like it then try and change that.
I certainly do not spend 500 or any where near that on each of our DC soni think she is getting enough for her child.
She is an adult who has to pay her own way or accept the assistance of benefits.
It's not the place of the DH to provide the ex with money to replace her lost wages.
If she wants to share 50/50 residency than she will save on food and heating etc but she won't do that,, well that's tough luck then!

feelingdizzy Sat 27-Apr-13 08:04:09

Legally no he doesn't have to pay more, perhaps maybe he should want to help out.Perhaps offer to pay for classes she attends buy her some new clothes.

My childrens father has 4 older children (all adults) and another younger child with someone else-he is a knob in many ways but he never has played silly buggers about money.Currently I am doing my masters and am a bit short he buys the kids clothes takes them to see his other kid,out for day trips.

He is the father to 7 children (5 grandchildren) he is responsible for them ,buying them clothes when they need them is for them, the children he created.

Yes she is an adult and needs to make her way like I do but it makes me ponder how this system is set up,leglaly set amounts and discussion about how much 'she' deserves.What about kindness some flexibility a simple gesture?

AThingInYourLife Sat 27-Apr-13 08:33:17

"I think you should be able to rely on the father of the child to pay 50%."

It's likely that he is.

He's paying £250 to his ex plus the costs of maintaining his daughter when she is at his house.

It's not only the child's mother that has costs associated with the child.

It's very hard to isolate the costs of a child in a household, but both parents have costs to meet.

It's also impossible to be absolute about 50% of costs across two households, since they will make different decisions about what is a necessity, what is affordable etc.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 08:49:03

Why do both parents have to meet the costs equally, in many homes where couples remain together this does not happen . It could be argued that children affected by divorce need a parent at home more than a child lucky enough to have two parents who have stayed together

ItsOkayItsJustMyBreath Sat 27-Apr-13 08:52:43

No, OP, you shouldn't be paying maintenance but as your DH is then it comes out of your family budget.

I really hope that your DH and his ex can sit down together and go through what is happening and what needs to be done and hopefully amicably.

It sounds as if you are both doing all the things expected of a NRP (maintenance, visits, holidays, new clothes etc) so his ex needn't worry but maybe you could reassure her of this. She is probably freaking out about what is going to happen to DD and her. Honestly, if you can just try to reassure her now then things will be a lot easier in the future.

Remember that the amount set by the CSA is the MINIMUM payment.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 08:54:30

I agree if my husband just paid what the CSA asked for I would have little respect for him as a potential husband and father and we would not be together.

Dahlen Sat 27-Apr-13 08:56:31

I think the truth is that there is no easy solution to this. I can really see both sides to the argument.

It would stick in my throat to have lost my job and be panicking about supporting my child while I see my X swan off on holiday.

I would also find it difficult to see why I should have to sacrifice my own lifestyle and that of my own children for someone else's child.

I think the spotlight in this situation should be shone on the child's father. He has responsibilities to his first child and his subsequent ones that he seems to be failing to meet. The resentment the OP feels towards the X should actually be directed to her DH IMO.

Children come first. Sadly, that often means adults have to suck up unfair circumstances. When you marry someone who has a child from a previous relationship, you implicitly consent to that deal. It's not easy or fair, but if you're not prepared for that you have to walk away.

BenjaminButton172 Sat 27-Apr-13 09:09:52

OP how did this all come about?

Did the exw say this to you & ur husband or did ur husband tell u what she said?

midori1999 Sat 27-Apr-13 09:14:12

OP you are making a lot of assumptions about the benefits your DH's ex will get. She will not neccesarily get all her rent paid and is very likely to have to contribute to some of the council tax too.

Of course, the OP shouldn't have ot subsidise maintenance with her own wages, but whether the DH is being unreasonable or not we do not know. The OP hasn't said the £250 is CSA ordered maintenance or how much her DH earns, he could be on £100,000 a year for all we know. Whether he is being unreasonable depends entirely on how much he earns, but if the ex is on benefits while she looks for further employment, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to help out so his DD can still have a decent standard of living.

Suggestions that the DD be 'sent' to live with her father during this period are ludicrous.

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 27-Apr-13 09:15:52

I think your husband has a lot to answer for OP. This is not up to you to rectify, he needs to take more responsibility for all of his children.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 09:19:23

If the NRP loses the job the resident parent had to pay more to make up the shortfall. She can't say , sorry child number two I am not going to feed, clothe,house and do your activities because I am not willing to pay more than 50%.

Surely the NRP should pay more if the RP has no job.

IneedAyoniNickname Sat 27-Apr-13 09:38:22

This is such a tricky situation. Imo, and legally, no you/your dp shouldn't/don't have to pay more as the ex has lost her job. Neither should your income be taken into account.

Otoh, my ex has been assessed as only having to pay £50 pcm towards our 2dc, this is after a reduction has been made for his new gfs dc. (they are not his children) in this particular situation, it seems unfair that the gfs income isn't taken into account for my dc, but that her dc are iyswim.

And when I look at this situation from the exs side, it must sting slightly. For example, I can only just afford my bills, but in the last 2 months, ex has done his motorbike test and bought a bike and everything that he needs for that.

madonnawhore Sat 27-Apr-13 09:39:32

Can't believe all the people who think the OP is BU.

No way should she have to pay anything towards his ex.

DH pays what the CSA have calculated. DH and OP pay for DD/DSD when she's staying with them. And OP has offered to pay for any extras to make sure DSD doesn't miss out on swimming lessons school trips, etc.

That seems totally fair enough to me. The rest is the exW's problem, sorry.

And the posters saying they shouldn't go on holiday are being ridiculous. If you read TFT properly you'll see that the DSD is going on that holiday too. Should she suffer the cancelled holiday because her mum is demanding OP's money and will be 'jealous' if they all go?


IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 09:39:48

Op, you have your info about benefits wrong.

She will not be reciving full council tax payments as they do not exist any more unless she lives in a LA house its also unlikely she will have her full rent paid because she will only be able to get the LHA.

Whilst I don't think you shoud have to pay her anything personally you appear to have forgotten that your actions in having more children with her ex has reduced her income.and I think its pretty pisspoor from your dh's side that going by your posts he has very limited financial responsibility towards your children yet uses them to reduce his lability to his ex.

If your dh lost his job and claimed anything benefit wise she would only get £5 pw if he couldn't or didnt claim she would get nil,so she is expected to subsidise his choices and any more children he has.

madonnawhore Sat 27-Apr-13 09:43:31

Also, the DH is paying off all the debt that was accrued during his marriage to the ex. E ex isn't paying towards any of that. So if she feels hard done by the DH she should take into consideration that the reason he can't afford any more is because he's paying off her share of the debt.

And in the meantime the OP is subsidising the shortfall.

OP I'm totally on your side with this. Pay for whatever DSD might need but don't give any money to the ex.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 27-Apr-13 09:52:18

YANBU, his ex cannnot expect you to pay just because she has lost her job. If she didnt have redundancy insurance then she will have to claim JSA and find another job quickly.

£250 is more than adequate to feed, clothe and pay school trips on a month. Given the PWC should be matching that payment and then adding tax credits and child benefit on top there should be ample over. Rent, bills etc would have to be paid by the PWC regardless of children or not.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 09:55:16

For all we know his payments could well have been reduced because of the previous debt because the csa do that as well.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 09:56:48

Maybe the debt he is paying off is his debt. Just because it was accrued during the marriage, it doesn't automatically follow that it is the ex wife's debt too.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 09:58:52

That's correct karma. But we know bugger all about the debt so using it slate the ex is silly

DrCoconut Sat 27-Apr-13 11:09:24

I get no maintenance for DS1 but I don't consider myself to be subsidising my ex. He has nothing to give me and its not worth the aggro of applying. We have gone our spectate ways and I got myself qualified and in a job where I can support DS myself. If I lost my job I still would not find my ex and ask for money. On the flip side DH pays for things for DS1 even though he's not his father. It's difficult and up to the adults to be adults and sort it out amicably. But £250 on top of wages, tax credits and CB seems fine to me for one child.

LtEveDallas Sat 27-Apr-13 11:32:44

As much as it would be nice for DSD to stay with us more, I don't think her mum would allow it

Well that is a shame OP, but ultimately if Ex is suffering due to a lack of money, rather than ask you for more money, she should be looking at the bigger picture. If DSD were to live with you and her dad it would free mum up to look for or train for another job. She could stop worrying about her DD and concentrate on herself and her future. Asking you to give more money is just a quick fix that helps no-one in the long run. It doesn't have to be forever, just until she is employed again.

It is incumbent on ALL members of the family to ensure that the children don't 'suffer' when something like this happens. You can provide stability for this child whilst mum is going through a bad patch and that is what matters.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 11:46:58

So who would look after this child if she were to live with OP and her dh? They both work and I'm betting child care will come in at more than £250 per month, plus cost of feeding/clothing her. The ex could then, quite rightly in terms of the law, refuse to contribute more than the minimum csa requires and bugger all for cc. The OP will be worse off than if her dh just contributes a bit more now.

LtEveDallas Sat 27-Apr-13 11:58:23

DSD is 8, so (depending on where OP lives) before and after school childcare could easily be covered by £250 a month.

If mum truly only wants what is best for her child, and is asking for more money just for her child - then why on earth would she ^ refuse to contribute more than the minimum csa requires and bugger all for cc^ ? She wants what is best for her child.

Giving mum more money will cost OP more money (obviously grin) but won't solve any long term employment issues. Having DSD living with OP will cost OP more money, but will hopefully solve long term employment issues.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 12:04:28

The ex is currently unemployed, so might not be able to afford to pay her share.

I very much doubt if the people saying to hand over dd to her dad, would agree to do the same with their dc if they lost their jobs.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 12:11:18

I think what people are saying, karma, is that the child has two parents. If the ex believes the most important thing is that the child's standard of living is maintained, despite the fact that the family has suffered a redundancy, then she should consider letting her child live with her other parent who can maintain the standard of living. Most families who go through redundancies accept that their standard of living may have to alter due to changes in their finances, they do not expect their standard of living to be the same.

LtEveDallas Sat 27-Apr-13 12:15:59

No Karma, of course not. I wouldn't want my DD to live with anyone else, but that would be my choice if doing so would alleviate my money issues, but I didn't want it to happen.

Sometimes people have to make hard choices for the greater good. If OP's care isn't considered an option, then neither should her money be.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 12:25:55

In this situation, I would think that my dd's care isn't best served by going to live with a man who would be willing to take her away from the mother's home (the primary carer for that child) rather than pay a bit more in child support. And that's before you get to the idea of potentially changing schools/being away from gps.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 12:36:52

I don't think the idea of her going to live somewhere else is even an issue here so I don't know why it's being discussed.

But what the OP has said, not particularly clearly is that she and her husband are making sure that the DSD does not suffer as much as possible, they are buying her clothes, taking her on holiday and paying for activities. It's not like they're sitting pretty with their kids while she has nothing.

The issue here is that the ex actually wants cash, she wants money in her hand that she can spend as she wishes. That in itself does make it seem to me that she is expecting her exes new partner to lob out cash to support her own lifestyle, not necessarily that of her child.

The OP and her DH are already doing what they can to minimize the impact that the EXP will have on her daughter with the things they are funding directly for her. I think the issue of cash is another quite separate one and it's there that the EXP is in the wrong.

mumandboys123 Sat 27-Apr-13 12:50:01

£250 a month is 'enough' to bring up a child? I pay £201 a week in childcare costs, let alone feeding, clothing, entertaining that goes on with having a child. So in my case, £250 wouldn't be enough to cover even half the childcare costs without considering the contribution both parents should be making towards the upbringing of their children.

So much is dependent on individual circumstances. If the ex in this case has even a small mortgage, she will struggle if she can't find work quickly. Who knows, she may have been trying for months to find a new job as it is likely she has known about this situation for some time. I don't blame her for looking to her ex for some additional support, even if I agree she has done it in a cack-handed kind of way.

And for those of you who think it acceptable to just 'give' the child to her father whilst mum 'sorts herself out' you really need to see the bigger picture. We don't live in a society where this is common (I have lived abroad for many years and know that in some societies this is more common place) and we should surely consider the psychological impact of such a move on the child. Leaving her established ties behind, knowing mum is struggling and worrying, not seeing mum as often as she did, having to fit into a household where there are sibings when she is not used to it, having different routines and rules, different journeys to school, potentially different attitudes to afterschool activities and being able to fit them in, not being able to have friends for tea (potentially) etc. would all be incredibly distressing for the average child. And of course, status quo is everything - an unscrpulous parent in this situation would refuse to 'give back' the child, leaving the mother to fight in court to see her child (and yes, I know this happens to plenty of parents regardless). There is so much to consider in these cirucumstances which have nothing at all to do with being 'money grabbing' which so few people seem to want to acknowledge.

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 12:58:40

Ok- o the op has already said they are willing to contribute to shoes. School excursions etc ppl aren't reading that! Exw will get some form of help with benefits! What exactly is. 8 year old to do with her 250 plus TC and benefits that r meant for her?

mumandboys123 Sat 27-Apr-13 12:59:54

jeez, and how many just assume that the 'single parent' is automatically topped up with a small fortune in tax credits etc. etc. so she has a ton of money and can afford everything! Not all single parents get full tax credits, and some of us don't receive any at all. And then we're told that we 'should be able to manage' on the one salary and are just 'greedy' or 'money grabbing' for expecting the father of their children to make even a token contribution. Every single parent I know (myself included) balances their budget with very, very little 'give' in it for emergencies. I certainly have struggled to 'save for a rainy day' and I sure as hell couldn't afford to pay for income protection insurance that someone suggested the ex in this case should have taken out if she was a decent parent 'cos of course, she should have done everything possible to protect her child. It's really that simple, isn't it?!

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 13:04:29

Unfortunately I have to go out and find school shoes today but this caught my eye:

The issue here is that the ex actually wants cash, she wants money in her hand that she can spend as she wishes.

That is not correct. Nowhere has the OP said the ex wants cash in her hand!

OP says the ex has said that he (DH) he should be paying more and if needs be it should be paid through (OP's) earnings

Which I take to mean that the ex has pointed out that DH and OP have two incomes, while she currently has no income.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:07:14

mumandboys123 if the ex is unemployed and getting JSA she will qualify for full tax credits, free school meals, etc. it's not about her being a single parent, it's about her employment status. Also worth noting that hold maintenance is not included in tax credit calculation, if the ex was on a low income she would've qualified for assistance no matter what was being contributed from the father.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:08:48

*child maintenance

mumandboys123 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:12:48

bruthastortoise- yes, I understand that. I was commenting on the general feeling of this thread that £250 is 'enough' and there are a couple of posts that say she should be adding £250 to that and why on earth isn't £500 a month enough to bring up a child when she also gets tax credits on top (eg when she was in work, not the situation she is in now). Sorry, I have confused the issue. I just get entirely fed up with this assumption that all single parents receive a ton of money regardless - when the truth is many of us don't. And many of us get no maintenance either.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 13:14:53

Surely a loving father would not want to see his children's lifestyle take a hit if he could afford to do something about it.

As others have said, it is likely that the ex receives less maintenance because the OP and her husband decided to have more children. So their lifestyle may have been already affected because of the OP. I find it odd that she thinks her finances are irrelevant to her step children

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:17:46

Fair point smile. Yea it's likely that if the ex was on any sort of a reasonable wage she may not have received any tax credit support at all for one child. In my opinion, I think RPs should be cautious about depending on maintenance to pay essentials in their household. I know it's not fair and you should be able to rely on the child's other parent to contribute consistently but sadly that's not how the world works. My DH receives maintenance for his DC, the money is used for them but we know our budget could be stretched to cover the loss of this money hence we're not dependent on it.

HildaOgden Sat 27-Apr-13 13:21:25

I hate way it's usually the women in these situations that end up n met stressed and at loggerheads.From what you've posted,the man in this situation (your dh) seems to be the one who has landed on his feet.His current wife (you) pays the majority of his living expenses,and a holiday to boot,while he spends 'his' money paying off debts he ran up before he even met you.His ex does the majority of the day-to-day child rearing,and up until now has only received 250 per month towards the financial cost of the childs' living expenses.His ex mother in law has,up until now,provided childcare free of charge.

Seems to me that he has a lot of women covering his ass in relation to his responsibilities.I wouldn't direct my anger towards the woman who is raising his child,I'd direct it at him.

But that's just me.The slighest whiff of cocklodger makes me nauseous.

mumandboys123 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:22:38

I agree bruthas - I have managed for over 4 years now with no maintenance (my ex is self employed) and I sometimes wonder how I do it but I've had no choice, so that's how it's worked out! If he suddenly started paying (flying pig, anyone?!), I would simply put it to one side to build a better emergency fund. But had he paid from day one, I would probably have incorporated it into my household income and would have therefore been reliant on it.

mumandboys123 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:23:38

HildaOgden - gosh, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Very true!

dayshiftdoris Sat 27-Apr-13 13:30:40

Exactly what Hilda says

Wow! When I think of it that what my ex is doing!!! And he pays me half of what the OP's DH is paying!!

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:33:19

I assume you knew that your DH had a child before you married him - for this reason YABU. Poor little girl - why should she miss out because her daddy has a new family now sad

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:34:45

Hilda, that is a very good point - he has it easy doesn't he! I hope that his first DD gets to go on holidays too. It seems the person who will ulitmately be suffering here is the DD

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 13:36:17

Lucy did U not read the part that said dsd is going on the family holiday?

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 13:37:04

If if op is willing to contribute to extras without giving the money directly to dsd mum. How exactly is she missing out?

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:37:36

WTAF??? Has someone suggested that the mother has to let the child come and live with her father because she is finding herself in financial difficulties - really????? angry Maybe she would prefer to be with her MOTHER - the one that didn't walk away from her in the first place - unfuckingbelievable

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:38:34

£250 a month to raise a child??? wow - i mean, the greedy bitch

FoxyRoxy Sat 27-Apr-13 13:39:50

Yanbu he is the father of their child and she is the mother, it is their responsibility to provide for her, not yours. I would never expect my xh's wife to pay towards ds upkeep.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:40:21

Lucy we have no idea what the circumstances of the split are, we have no idea how much contact the DF has or whether the child is equally happy in both homes so how do you get the the DF walked away from his child?

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 13:40:22

My husband has always paid way in excess of £250 a month and has not mortgage to pay, would never call her a greedy bitch. Being a good father he wants his son to have the same standard of living that we enjoy.

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:40:30

maybe the ex is struggling to keep a roof over her and her DD's head - so it is pretty obvious to me that she will be missing out, so the OP and her DH take the child on holidays and buy her shoes - maybe her mother is struggling to meet every day needs.

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:41:34

Well i assume the DH earns more than £250 a month - i think that is a paltry amount to contribute to his child.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:41:36

And £580 per month is a sum most people would consider as reasonable for a child's expenses.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 27-Apr-13 13:43:24

The other thing to remember is that none of us are immune from divorce and ending up a single parent. OP, potentially you could one day be where the ex wife is now. Can you honestly say you would be happy if the father of your children one day has more dc with someone else, thereby affecting the level of child support he has to pay for the dc he had with you and that you would just accept raising your kids on benefits, while he pays you the minimum he has to?

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 13:44:50

We don't know what effort exw is making to get another job or is she just interested in getting more money from exh? She could be bitter over split n not happy exh has moved on! While its sad she lost job, she has to be seen to make effort and not expect step mum to make up the odds

GirlOutNumbered Sat 27-Apr-13 13:46:04

Why are people shouting about £250. It's only his share, she is actually expected to provide the other half! DHpays his share of a child's expenses, not for all of it.

GirlOutNumbered Sat 27-Apr-13 13:47:27

My husband pays about that for DSS. It's worked out because he spends nearly half of the year with us too, whereby we obviously provide for him.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:48:03

Karma the OPs children have probably resulted in about a £10 per week deduction in the maintenance payments. If the OP is receiving CTC for her DC they would be taken in to account in the maintenance equation as income, it could well balance out

SoupDragon Sat 27-Apr-13 13:50:37

The mother lost her job she did not simply jack it all in with the intention of sponging off her XH and his new family. It's not like she made a choice!

Madmum24 Sat 27-Apr-13 13:54:43

I was the child in this situation; I can remember my Mum not having enough money to get my glasses fixed, and my Dad saying "Your Mother will just have to learn to manage her money better".........

I think when people get together and one already has children, a financial agreement has to be worked out. That way no hard feelings will arise when an emergency like this occurs. eg OP your finances should be split with your husband, he pays X into the kitty and you pay Y. If he cannot meet the payments he should be looking for extra ways to get more money, second job etc it shouldn't fall back onto you to meet HIS shortfall. It really is up to him to step up to the plate.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 13:59:05

Madmum the shortfall is the child's expenses are coming from the ex, should the onus not be on her to meet her share?

dayshiftdoris Sat 27-Apr-13 14:00:11

Sorry to hijack...

But I get £126 a month yet my ex works full time, his wife works full time and their house is paid for... They are having a fucking laugh arent they?

greendental Sat 27-Apr-13 14:01:00

We don't know what effort exw is making to get another job or is she just interested in getting more money from exh?

I'm sure she's just relishing finding herself unemployed and the worry and uncertainty it brings. Why should she bother getting a job when she can live on jsa and a whopping £250 a month maintenance - she's got it made!

Seriously, I wonder what planet some posters live on.

classifiedinformation Sat 27-Apr-13 14:02:02

£250 not much?? I only get £200 pm for my 8 yr old dd, this is despite the fact that my exh has recently had a large pay rise!

However, all CSA claims end in Oct when things are changing, maintenance will have to be organised between parents and if a mediator is required the NRP has to pay the fee. So any claims the xw makes now will have to be rearranged come Oct. (I found this out from the CAB btw).

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 14:06:15

Some people are happier not working!!!! Like I said who knows what exw is thinking or doing! For all we know she may be thinking step mum is cash horse and needs to make it up! Who knows!!!

thistlelicker Sat 27-Apr-13 14:07:58

We don't know if its all amicable do we? It's all good is all giving opinions but nit all facts available

Loulybelle Sat 27-Apr-13 14:21:40

i get £147 for a 5 yr old, and thats it, he hasnt had her over night since december, he will pay a pittance in extra and no more.

Fleecyslippers Sat 27-Apr-13 14:32:46

'And I have a family holiday to pay for. I'd like to think we can have some luxuries without some woman trying to screw money out of me just because I happen to be the partner of her exH.'

What an ugly attitude. The thing that never ceases to amaze me on MN is that new partners expect to participate in EVERY aspect of a childs life, regardless of the feelings of the childs mother.
Except of course support them financially. Oh no - now that's a part of step parenting that is very much an optional extra.

ItsOkayItsJustMyBreath Sat 27-Apr-13 14:38:28

OP, please please please keep this as amicable as possible. You are all playing your part in raising this young girl. I also had the comments from my father about how he wouldn't pay child support and told my DM to get another job (she had 3 at one point). I no longer have a relationship with him sad.

I am now going through this with X about our DS, it is not pretty.

ExRatty Sat 27-Apr-13 15:01:07

Christ these threads are illuminating. We never have to look far to see how selfish and cruel adults can be.

It is difficult to fully accept and embrace that the person you love now loved someone else once and that they had a child.
That relationship went sour but the child remains.
The child should really be the only focus.

I find that we dress up our jealousy and insecurity in such transparent ways.

When anything impacts upon your partner's child the focus should be on how to cushion that impact. Nothing else.
If you consider anything else then stop.

mumoftwo88 If you, as a family, have any extra money then give it to the ex partner.
She will really appreciate it. It will make things better for your partner's daughter.
If this was you and your children imagine how you would feel if you suddenly lost your job. Imagine how you would like to be treated. Please be kind.

I get £250 a month from my ex. I work part time as a teacher and receive some help towards childcare and some working tax/child tax credits.

However I have to use this money to pay for rent/utilities/other household bills/loan that was taken out for ex.

I manage but for those saying £250 is plenty-this isn't used for nappies and new shoes. For what it's worth though I don't think that yabu. Your husband should try to help more if he can afford it.

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 27-Apr-13 15:28:13

I don't understand why the OP is being villified.

She's taking DSD on holidays and she will be making sure DSD's activities et al are provided for.

The OP IS going beyond what she needs to here.

duffybeatmetoit Sat 27-Apr-13 15:29:01

Olgaga and HildaOgden are so right - the OP should be directing her anger at her DH. He appears to be the one struggling with financial management.

OP Yanbu in thinking you shouldn't be giving extra support to the ex over and above what you are planning. But IME you may well BU if you think that your DH will ever lift some of the burden off your shoulders and start paying his fair share of your household expenses.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 16:27:28

ExRatty, why should they as a family give all their extra money to his ex?

What about them putting something away for a rainy day, paying off some more of the DHs debts, giving their children and DSD a treat?

Do you honestly think if the tables were turned the ex would be handing over any extra money to the OP to keep her and her husband's head above water?

This family are not her personal bank account to demand money from as and when it suits her.

If the ex has specific bills that she is struggling to meet (such as energy) then she should be explaining this to the DH and trying to work something out between the two of them.

She can't just arbitrarily say 'I am now out of work so I want your NP to give me money'. It's absolutely unreasonable and unworkable to expect this family to hand over all their spare cash to the ex on an ongoing basis with no specified end date.

It's totally unfair on the OPs children for a start. There mother is out at work all day providing for them, sacrificing her time with them and should be able to have something to show for that at the end of the month, not spend all her money subsidising somebody else.

Xenia Sat 27-Apr-13 16:31:39

There is something rather awful about many second wives. I met one recently who was about to marry and did not want her husband's children at the wedding. I cannot understand why he would want to marry someone like that.

The default position for these men who have children they cannot keep is they should not have a second family if they cannot provide for the first. The first family should always come first.

Women who cannot accept step children should find a man without children. There are enough around. Why court problems or is it that the only men who will have them are the ones who already have a first family behind them and a broken marriage?

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 16:36:03

Fleecyslippers there's a equally a

ExRatty Sat 27-Apr-13 16:36:42

It all comes back to the child.
The child which is the OP's children's sister. The child which is her dear Step daughter
There need be no other thought really.

The details are pretty irrelevant. Usually they revolve around the adults in the equation or emotions adults in the equation haven't dealt with.
Think about the child and treat people as you would wish to be treated.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 16:38:51

Posted too soon! There's an equally unpleasant attitude from many ex wives whereby they don't want the new partner to be involved in anyway except financially.
Xenia at the time the children of the 'second' family were born they could afford them. In fact they can still afford. It's the mother from the 'first' family who isn't pulling her financial weight.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 16:40:39

And no once more children are born the first child should not always come first. Unless you expect the same to apply to all families. Are we all expected to favour our eldest children?

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 16:44:17

So Xenia, for a start I cannot anywhere, in anything the OP said find anything which says she does not accept her step child. They are doing as much as they can to help with things like clothes, taking her on holiday, paying for activities.

Are you saying that women should have no financial responsibilities for their children at all? Sounds rather sexist for Mumsnet, I thought we were all emancipated. And you seem to be of the position that if a man cannot afford to run two entire households he should not be allowed to have another relationship or more children because the mother of his first children is entitled to remain entirely financially dependent on him, which again seems like a bit of an old fashioned attitude which went out with the ark.

You make it sound like some kind of middle eastern hareem where the 'first' wife still has to be entirely supported.

It's not. It's a relationship where two adults decided to split and this involved splitting their finances and taking financial responsibility for themselves with the non-resident parent assisting with support for the child. He is not responsible for funding his exes entire lifestyle. She is responsible adult and is not in a relationship with him anymore. His responsibility is to support the child. Not the mother.

Xenia Sat 27-Apr-13 16:46:31

It is certainly a pattern that is seen. First wife not allowed to have more than 2 children and then man runs off with younger woman and is more than happy to have 2 more children with her if not more.

I am sure we can all agree that life must be a lot simpler if you pick a man who has never had children nor been married.

Whether £250 a month is enough is very subjective. our school fees bill per month his £2500 before you even get on to housing, clothes, food. SO £250 would be absolutely pathetic for many.

Childcare full time for 2 children in London is about £2000 a month, never mind £250.

Perhaps one solution is a default legal position that children spend a week alternately with each parent so each is doing the washing and arranging child care and doing school collection. That is much more fair.

Offer to have the daughter to live with the father week on, week off as one solution if money is tight.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 16:47:26

No ExRatty. What you're missing here is that it is not about a 'child'. It is about children who come from the second family as well as the first. When the OP has two children of her she needs to consider her children too and they are NOT best served by her family handing over all their spare cash to his ex. That is not treating the children equally - it is prioritising the ex and her child over them.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 16:57:34

However, all CSA claims end in Oct when things are changing, maintenance will have to be organised between parents and if a mediator is required the NRP has to pay the fee. So any claims the xw makes now will have to be rearranged come Oct. (I found this out from the CAB btw).

Not quite right.

The PWC will have to pay a initial assessment figure (£20) the nrp and the pwc then have to pay a % of the sum collected to fund the collection. Old cases will be phased over gradually new cases from oct will automaticly be under the new rules.nobody will be forced to make a private arrangement and mediation will also not be automaticly required

ExRatty Sat 27-Apr-13 17:04:56

It is about the child I'm afraid

If the OP's household have extra money they should happily give it to the household where the other member of their family lives and is now in need.
The problem with having multiple children in different relationships is that there seems to become inferred some form of pecking order of worthiness. That pecking order usually revolves around where the father is resident.

If your child's circumstances change then your level of responsibility might have to change to make up the shortfall.
It should only have to do with that child and their needs.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 17:08:21

A decent, loving father surely would not want to see his child suffer and she will suffer if her mother's financial situation is really bad. His children should be treated equally. If OP's 2 DC don't have to go without, then his other child should not either, regardless of who their mother may be.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 17:12:57

Oh and for what its worth I have learnt from experance that now should I ever marry a man with previous children if that man did not pull his weight with regard to care and financing of those children above and beyond the minimum % the csa request of him,then I would have no respect or time for that man. Well I just wouldn't involve myself with someone who didnt think that paying the 15% of his income plus a minimum of half towards school trips,uniform,occasion wear,clubs,glasses and do his fair share of either providing or paying towards childcare because I know that if he's prepared to do it to his first child/ren then he would be more than prepared to do it to our children.

Samu2 Sat 27-Apr-13 17:13:13

£250 a month seems like loads to me too. Mind you I get half that for three children!! But that was our joint decision and the deal is I can call him if I need more help with something so when things like new uniform and shoes are needed he will pay half if I ask him. I still think he's got a great deal though.

I am not sure if you are being unreasonable, but I will just say that I am 99.9% certain that in this situation my children's step mother would be happy to help out a bit more for the kids sakes.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 17:16:27

Nope. This is nothing to do with where the father is living, it's to do with how much the mother's earn.

The OP is earning and she has a responsibility to her children. For a start nobody's job is secure these days, she should be making sure that there is enough money in her coffers to ensure that if she or her DH lose their jobs they will be able to support themselves because they sure as hell won't have the ex banging down their door to provide for them if anything goes wrong.

The duty that she has to DSD is to ensure that DSD is not being disadvantaged in regards to her own children, for example that she is not being left behind as far as clothing, outfits, holidays and activities go. Which she is doing.

Because it's the mother's incomes that are important here it is not her duty to provide her husband's first family with a lifestyle the same as her own purely because she earns more.

The fact that these children's mothers have a disparity of income is not something that can be overcome by demanding that the OP gives up her money to the ex. The fact that the now has a high earning wife is irrelevant to the ex.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 27-Apr-13 17:17:03

FFS My dc have never had/cost £250 a month, I think your dh's payment is very reasonable. Ok some months there may be unforeseen circumstances, a school trip, new shoes, etc.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 17:26:18


From the op I get more of the impression that its the op's dh who is a bit of a cocklodger and putting apon her when he should be pulling his own weight.

The op is behaving perfectly reasonably I agree and shouldn't have to do any more but she should be stopping her dh rinsing her and not making excuses for his lack of contribution to her and their children.

ExRatty Sat 27-Apr-13 17:32:49

It doesn't really matter who earns the money Bridget.

They are a family.

When you are a family you focus on providing.
The focus in monetary provision will have to adjust toward the other child for a while.

I fail to see any problem with this.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:39:05

Xenia if you or your DP lost your job would you be able to maintain the £2500 per month in school fees? A drop in the ocean to you is 15% of this man's take home pay. The reality for this little girl, sad as it is, is that her family's financial circs have changed due to redundancy, not because the OP isn't rushing to hand her purse over to the child's mother.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:40:48

Exratty what percentage of her income do you think the OP should be handing over to compensate for the fact her DH's ex has been made unemployed?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 17:42:42

It's not 15% of his income its 15% after deductions for his new children and any over nights he has her are taken out.

You said up thread that ctc are included but that does not happen automatically they only get added if a variation is applied for so an initial assessment is solely his earned income.

girliefriend Sat 27-Apr-13 17:42:55

I have a 7yo dd and get £0 a month in maintence so £250 sounds very reasonable to me.


If she is unemployed she will be getting benefits etc that (in theory) should be enough to live on.

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 17:44:10

BruthasTortoise - I don't think Xenia is married and she'd be ok, she would just sell off her private island! grin

I don't actually think the ex's circs are relevnt, £250 towards your child's upkeep is taking the piss!

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:45:46

CTC are automatically included. It's on the form, they have to declare CTCs as income nothing to do with variations. But your right it's not 15%, it's 15% of 80% of his earnings. Still I don't imagine that given the most the DP can be bringing home is 2k per month that the ex would've been relying on him to pay massive school fees, it just wouldn't be financially viable.

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 17:46:21

girliefriend - i would rather my tax did not have to pay for this man's child in benefits, thanks all the same. He is perfectly capable of paying his fair share - i assume there is an amount agreed in court? He should pay more - but the as i said, that should be regardless of the exes circumstances. Why should he pay nothing and the state have to subsidise it???

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:47:36

I think it's all relevant to earning though. A lot of families, including mine, would consider £580 per month an absolute fortune for one child. There's no way our children are costing as that much each.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:48:24

Ah have I missed Xenia's back story smile

Icantstopeatinglol Sat 27-Apr-13 17:52:49

'First children should always come first'...what a load of...! Really?! So if you have 2 or 3 kids then your first always comes first?!! I don't think so. You should always maintain relationships and provide for all your kids but a decent mother/father wouldn't put one childs needs ahead of another's regardless if they're from a first, second or third relationship. That's ridiculous!

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 17:55:22

First kids come first in the sense that the other children should not be conceived if you cannot maintain the lifestyle the first have become accustomed to .

They also come first in the sense that they are often more vulnerable having been through the trauma of divorce or separation .

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 17:58:57

And in times of financial upheaval such as redundancy do you believe that the 'first' children should have their lifestyle maintained but not the 'second' children, arisbottle? If the parents financial circs change should only 'second' children have to adjust?

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow Sat 27-Apr-13 18:02:34


you only have to pay for your children.

Yours husbands child is paid for by your husbands child maintenance, child benefit, tax credits and whatever income the mother has.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:06:28

At all times all the children should have an equal lifestyle .

In our case my stepson has had advantages that some of our other children have not had. That was because I recognised that I chose to be with a man who had existing children and therefore if I wanted children, I may have to make sacrifices so that my husband could honour the agreements to his ex. For example I wanted to be a SAHM with my first, at the same time DH was supporting his ex as a SAHM and therefore my son had to go to a childminder. I also could not have a wedding because he was supporting his son. I accepted a future of compromise when I married and chose to have children with a man who had an existing family .

I also know that no amount of money can make up for the trauma of having your father walk out. So even if they may all have the same financially my children have more

Andro Sat 27-Apr-13 18:07:10

First kids come first in the sense that the other children should not be conceived if you cannot maintain the lifestyle the first have become accustomed to.

I am struggling to work out how OP's DH as supposed to predict that his XW would lose her job...

I'm also wondering how many people are like me and have a parent(s) who didn't get the memo about the first child's lifestyle being maintained when more children are born (within a non-blended family)...

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:09:43

It's mystifying me as well, Andro. I've also never heard of a family that goes through a sudden redundancy but the children's financial circs don't change.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 18:11:00

First, second middle, last children should always be treated fairly fgs.
You cant send them back!
As far as I can tell the 'first' child is still to be included in holidays, treats and holiday clubs.
The only person who will not be subbed here is the ex, too right as well.
I bet that the ex wouldn't be willin to share any extra cash flow if the DH and op fell on hard times.
If the amount the ex gets now isn't enough or a fair share of what it cost to keep a child then she should have discussed and fought for more during the split.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:11:26

I was not commenting directly on the OP situation but answering a question.

Of course the husband could not predict that the wife was going to lose her job but it would strike me as right for the children's father to want to help. If the father is going to help more the new wife may have to accept that things will be tight for a while.

Loulybelle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:13:16

I guess when my BIL was made redundant, his DS from a previous relationship, should be kept in the lifestyle that my BIL willingly provides too, and the children he has with my sister should have to go without.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 18:13:57

Arisbottle, you sound like doormat.
You had to send your dc to a childminder?!

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:15:40

Of course second children shouldn't go without basics . But if my husband's ex lost her job we would make up the shortfall as best we could because they are family. We also would not be booking a holiday unless we could do that and further support our stepson and his mother

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:16:24

"The only person who will not be subbed here is the ex, too right as well."

It's not the ex being subbed, it's for his child. He pays £250 per month. Do you really think that covers half of; the roof over her head, the food in her stomach, a warm home, basics like schools shoes, clothes, coat - not to mention the extras.

Andro Sat 27-Apr-13 18:19:52

If the father is going to help more the new wife may have to accept that things will be tight for a while.

Okay, I might just be being completely stupid here because it's not something I've ever had to think about, but are you suggesting that OP's DH should prioritize this first child to the financial detriment of his other children (wrt his own contribution)? If so, that smacks to me of dad playing favourites. Surely his financial contribution should be equal across all his children?

(sorry, I really am struggling here)

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:19:55

I am about as far from a doormat as you can get. When I married my husband he could not afford to support two women at home and therefore he would like to wait a few years for children. I wanted a large family and therefore did not want to wait . We reached a compromise and our son went to a childminder. I have been able to be a SAHM to our other children.

Being a SAHM is a luxury not available to lots of women, I was not a doormat - just impatient .

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:21:50

No I did not say that the second children should go without . But missing a holiday is hardly going without.

The fact remains that the second children have two wages supporting them and the first have none.

Lucyellensmum95 Sat 27-Apr-13 18:23:35

I totally agree with arisbottle - he is paying £250 a month, its not enough, OK so his ex managed on that up until now (but he STILL should have been paying more!) she now cannot manage because the original amount was not enough in the first place and the OP's DH should pay more. HE should pay it, not the OP but don't most couples pool their money anyway?

IfNotNowThenWhen Sat 27-Apr-13 18:23:44

OP lost me when she said "I can afford MY children."
Hilda O is bang on, and so is Arisbottle.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 18:25:14

I think that 250 and cb is enough to cover that, yes.
Especially since the op has said she would pay for school shoes and clubs etc.
That is enough imvho.
DD also gets fed and stays 2days pw with an additional 2days every other week so they will be paying for her needs at times as well.
The ex would have been paying rent, utilities and food for 1 anyway, the child's share is not directly half of the household expenditure IMO.

Fleecyslippers Sat 27-Apr-13 18:27:20

Arisbottle, you sound like a really decent, mature human being and I'm sure that ALL of the children benefit from yours and your DHs mature approach. There are a lot of people who could learn a thing or two about dealing with jealousy, insecurity, spite and bitterness hmm

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:27:49

Maintenance is all relative . You may be able to raise a child on £250 a month however if the absent parent earns in a large wage paying £250 a month would not give all of his children an equal lifestyle.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:31:54

Of course his children are not getting equal financial support. OP said they have the spare expenses for a holiday and ExW has just lost her job. She's probably in a state of panic!

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 18:33:15

I believe it is the op who earns more, her money should be considered firstly for HER children.
I wouldn't see any child go without but I wouldn't give to hinder my own position.
The DSD is also benefitting from this holiday it is irrelevant to bang on about cancelling or thinking it is unreasonable to do it.
It could be the op is soley paying for it, it's her money to do what she wants with and I don't think she is being unreasonable to do that.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 18:33:29

Sockreturningpixie I would agree with you if the OP were saying, for example, that her DH was spending his money on luxuries, running an expensive car or going skiing or funding a second home maybe you would have a point. But the money he has does seem to be going towards supporting both his families.

If the case is that the other 85% of his income is going towards expenses with his family with the OP and their family then he can't just magic money out of fresh air to give to her to fund their home if he starts giving more money to his ex. She will be forced to make up the shortfall.

ExRatty, What you're ignoring is that the responsibility does not work both ways. You're demanding they are all treated as family but when push comes to shove if the OP is in a hole the ex won't be responsible or obliged towards her and her children. Should the opposite situation happen in the future the ex will not be shelling out for the OPs children to have new shoes or go on holiday or any of these other things. She won't be 'shifting her monetary position' towards the OPs children.

Because the responsibility in this case is not mutual the ex has no right to demand that the OP put her hand in her pocket unless she would be completely prepared to do the same thing should the OP fall on hard times. If I was the OP I would be salting that money away for a rainy day so I didn't end up in the same position as the ex.

Incidentally what exactly do people think the ex would be doing if the DH was single and didn't have a wealthier partner for her to demand money off?

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:33:30

I've never realised that people expect maintenance, especially in cases of shared care as in the OP, to cover a percentage of the child's housing costs. The way I see it both parents have to maintain a suitable home for the child so they should each be responsible for 100% of their own mortgage/rent. After that do I believe that £65 would pay for half a child's food, heating and clothing per week (less any extras which are provided)? Yes I do.

skippedtheripeoldmango Sat 27-Apr-13 18:35:37

YANBU - your income doesn't come into it....but if you can afford it then I really think that temporarily you should help out. It's not the childs fault fher parents didn't stay together, or that her father decided to remarry and have two more children.

My little one gets fuck all from her father...whilst he is busy funding a very extravagant lifestyle etc for his wife and stepchildren...

Andro Sat 27-Apr-13 18:36:10

Arisbottle - assuming that £250 is the minimum he has to pay based on earnings, he's not on a huge wage.

Bottom line? Children who split their time between 2 households are not going to have the same lifestyle in both places if their NRP has married someone with a much higher income.

OTTMummA Sat 27-Apr-13 18:36:22

Of the DSD went to live at the ops house with her dad, I doubt it would cost much more if anything at all tbh.
They already pay for holiday club, 250 is more than enough for food and clothing, then the cb split would cover any extras.
I actually think the ex probably didn't even use the whole 250 for her child which is why she's in a panic, benefits are not so generous.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:38:20

Bruthas We don't know that it is 'shared care'. If the DH is paying maintenance, then I would guess it is unlike that the care is 50:50.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:39:28

"I actually think the ex probably didn't even use the whole 250 for her child which is why she's in a panic, benefits are not so generous.

Completely unfounded and ridiculous to even state that when you have no idea of her financial situation.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:39:50

'Shared care' means the the child spends overnights with both parents. It's different from 50/50. If the child stays even 1 night a week with the NRP that is classed as shared care.

Andro Sat 27-Apr-13 18:42:02

If the DH is paying maintenance, then I would guess it is unlike that the care is 50:50.

OP said 2 days per week + every other w/e (if I read her posts correctly) - that averages out at 60:40 for mother and father respectively over 2 weeks.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:43:03

Bruthas Then, maintenance is reduced accordingly but the child still needs to be paid for.

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:43:52

Andro I didn't see that.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 18:44:34

Our stepson is in his late teens now, but we had shared care and still paid maintenance precisely because we realised we had a higher income and we wanted him to have an equal lifestyle at both houses.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:44:44

I'm not sure what your point is? I'm saying that if parents share care of the child then both have to maintain households which accommodate the child. Therefore each should be responsible for their own housing costs.

Andro Sat 27-Apr-13 18:46:13

crashdoll - my maths were (badly) wrong - that should be 4:3 days respectively over 2 weeks (mother :father)

crashdoll Sat 27-Apr-13 18:48:00

My point is that if the CSA arranges the maintenance (not sure if it does or not in this case), then they've arranged it to what is needed, don't see why the ExW should be getting less.

ExRatty Sat 27-Apr-13 18:49:52

I think that the child's father should provide more if the child needs it.

TBH how that happens I don't really care. If the child needs more. The parents should provide it.

Equally if the shoe were on the other foot and the father or step mother lost her job and it was going to impact upon the other kids then the first wife should help out if she can.
Why wouldn't we help if we can?
If we raise siblings in extended families then we must focus on the children and put pettiness aside. I understand it's hard for some people to go beyond them and us but it's necessary.

This isn't a contract. These are real children.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:53:38

crashdoll I definitely don't think the ex should be getting less, I just think that to many people £250 per month is a reasonable figure to pay half a child's expenses especially if extras are being provided on top of that.

skippedtheripeoldmango Sat 27-Apr-13 18:55:29

Hang think an ex wife should be responsible for her ex husband remarrying and having children and helping to pay for those children if times get hard? I have to disagree there. She has no control over whether or not her ex husband remarries and has children, but the new wife has control of knowing that her new husband already has a child/children to provide for and can adjust how many children they have accordingly.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 18:57:19

skipped but equally it could argued that the OP had no control over the ex losing her job and not being able to financially support her child so why should she had to provide just because things have got hard for the ex?

skippedtheripeoldmango Sat 27-Apr-13 19:05:45

Im not saying the OP should have to provide, and neither does the CSA, but I'm sorry, the OP knew he already had a child and that shit happens. But to expect an ex spouse who is the main residential parent and in receipt of maintenance from the NRP to be responsible for any future children the NRP may bear with someone else is IMO unreasonable.

The RP in this instance is BU to just demand that the OP pay extra money because the RP has unfortunately lost her job, but if it were me and I had a bit of spare cash I probably would help out because it is my step child - however, the OPs children are not the ex-wife's step children and should times become hard for the OP because of a job loss then it would be unreasonable to ask the RP for additional money for children who aren't even her step children. The OP chose to marry into the situation, the RP did not choose her exH to remarry and have more children.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 19:06:41

ExRatty you don't sound like you have much practical experience of budgeting.

Most parents would like to give their children 'more' to meet their 'needs' but one cannot simply magic money out of thin air.

I imagine on Mumsnet if a poster said that their exes NP had lost their job and so they would no longer pay maintenance and asked their ex to chip in for the NPs children you would hear a resounding chorus that they we B galactically U. It's simply not going to happen.

This isn't a matter of a child's needs being met as far as I can see, it's a matter of expecting the OP to assist the ex to maintain a better lifestyle than the one she can realistically afford at the moment.

The ex does not have a responsibility towards the OPs children or the OP so it is unfair to expect the OP to take responsibility for the exes financial position.

GoingUpInTheWorld Sat 27-Apr-13 19:35:00


I believe your posts about fully supporting the ex partner etc etc are due to the fact that you and your husband earn a combined wage of 150k.

Without being rude, it maybe that you dont struggle for money, and therefore supporting your dhs ex wife doesnt affect you as you dont really feel the pinch of the extra money that you dont have to pay going to the ex.

Many people and im sure the same will be in the ops situation is that even abit extra to the ex more than you can afford, will mean you feel the financial pinch and have to tighten their belts.

Some people cant afford to subsidise fully a non working adult and their household as well as all the children and their own home.

The op is not being unreasonable. I wouldnt give a penny of my money to anyone to support their child. I dont pay for children that are not mine.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 19:42:13

When we first met we did feel the pinch, almost all of his money went to his ex because he felt so guilty at leaving . He was living in a tiny flat and I supported us. When we bought our first home, I paid for it as he still had very little spare money . Our wedding was in a church but there was no reception, no wedding dress , no honeymoon just me turning up in a dress I had. Being a bit of a selfish mare back then I almost left .

I think the principle is the same, all the children should have a similar lifestyle .

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 19:43:28

Also not seeing how this little girl would be better off financially if her parents were still together. From the OP the DP seems to spend 100% of his income on himself, maintenance and debt. So if the DP and the ex were still together and the ex lost her job surely they would actually be worse off?

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 19:43:45

I am not saying fully supporting, I am saying that you should be prepared to pay extra especially if you can afford luxuries like a holiday.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 19:44:56

Arisbottle the OP is willing to provide extras including a holiday for the little girl. What more should she be paying?

GoingUpInTheWorld Sat 27-Apr-13 19:46:46

All children should have the same lifestyle if their parents are together and there are no other children involved.

Its unreasonable to expect a new partner to contribute to her new partners children just because she got with a man who had children.

Its the parents responsibility to provide for the children, not someone who married someone who has children.

Arisbottle Sat 27-Apr-13 20:02:40

Surely most married couples or serious partnerships pool their money so it is a moot point . Yes it would be wrong if the NRP expected his new wife to foot all the costs of the stepchildren.

However if you marry a man who has children you cannot expect not to be finically affected,

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 20:13:41

Of course the new partner is going to be financially affected. They go into the relationship knowing that a proportion of their partner's income will not be available as it has to go, rightly so, towards maintaining the existing children. That is the compromise second families make, I'm not sure why that should have to compromise further than that?

GoingUpInTheWorld Sat 27-Apr-13 20:13:47

You may have to be slightly financially affected, but not to the point where you cannot afford luxuries like you would if your dh didn't have children.

I think you should have separate finances if their are children involved from previous relationships.

Yes marriage is all about partnership, but that doesn't mean you should have the piss taken out of you financially.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 20:24:23

If the op's dh is spending 100% or near enough on himself debt and maintainance then he is not budgeting well enough and has not worked out his debt repayments well enough to also take account of his financial responsibilities.

Can anyone better at maths than me work out the salary. Given that the 250. Is based on 80% of his salary after about £30 is deducted to account for resident children and overnights with the dc.

Unless the op wants to say the type of debt he's paying would also be helpful as I'm sure between us all we could come up with some helpful suggestions as to how he could reduce his out goings so he could support the op and her children more.

BruthasTortoise Sat 27-Apr-13 20:34:18

I think he's earning anywhere between 2k - 3k per month depending on whether he takes the deductions for the nights the child stays, sock, which should be more than enough for him to provide for all his children without the OPs income even being a consideration. However if his debts are truly as high as the OP suggests I'm not sure what can be done about that.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 21:01:01

He can make more realistic payment arrangements given the length of time they have been outstanding they will not be priority debts.

Bridgetbidet Sat 27-Apr-13 21:41:40

Sockreturningpixie that's not right, the OP said that he spent his money on household expenses (but she pays more), debts and maintenance. She didn't say he was spending all his money on himself at all.

Also, she said that the debts were run up when he was part of a couple with this other woman, so it's highly likely that the ex benefited when these debts were being run up. You know she would be benefiting three times if the money was spent on her households, she's not paying them back and now she wants more money off the OP because the DP can't give her any more because he's paying off the debts...

But of course we don't know what the debts are so that's just speculation. Wish the OP would come back and fill us in.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 27-Apr-13 22:06:14

If the debts were for assets that he no longer has but the ex does then he can get some of the money he pays for them deducted from his csa payments. So she would not be benefiting more than once. But chances are they are purely personal debts or bugger all to do with the ex.

Sorry but it comes across as making excuses for a bloke whose shirking his responsibilities to his family and stitching the op for far more than her fair share.

BegoniaBampot Sat 27-Apr-13 22:28:39

one thing that stands out is the amount of women who think that the exw should feel grateful that the exh pays anything towards his child at all as they get nothing or next to nothing from their ex's. That is depressing.

olgaga Sat 27-Apr-13 22:56:17

With one child to pay maintenance for who comes every other weekend, and two resident children, the DH must be on around £40,000pa to be required by the CSA to pay £250 pm.

Can I just point out that if the DH hadn't gone on to have two more children with OP, he would be expected to pay £321 per month.

So the mere fact that he has created a new family means the ex is already £71 per month worse off than she would have been.

The CM calculator is here if anyone would like to check this!

All those posters saying £250 pm??/greedy bitch/I wish/I get nothing need to understand that the amount of child maintenance payable is nothing to do with need, it's a set calculation which determines a proportion of the NRP's salary, taking into account the number of overnight stays with the NRP (in this case 1-2 pw) and any resident children .

So if you were unlucky enough to have had a child with a loser who earns nothing or very little, that's tough for you but it does not make the ex in this case a greedy bitch!

OP is also working, it sounds like she is on a pretty good salary if she is able to pay for (in her words) mortgage, household bills, groceries, a car, her two children and a family holiday.

The ex has lost her job. She is evidently in dire straits and simply pointing out to her exDH that she needs help from him.

Why is the OP so angry? Well that's simple isn't it. For all her talk of about how she is prepared to alleviate a bit of the pressure so that she can maintain her home for DSD the resentment about this dependency is clear.

In my view, her anger is misdirected. She has miscalculated the impact of the ongoing dependence of this child on her father, and she and her DH have gone on to start a second family despite the fact that he is in debt.

Whose responsibility is that?

The child is just 5. There's a hell of a long way to go yet. I think the OP had better come to terms with the fact that her DH will need provide maintenance for at least another 13 years - and of course the child's financial needs will go on beyond that point - as it will for her own two children.

I think the OP needs to control her resentment. It's all too easy to direct her anger at the ex, but ultimately it is the result of the dependency arising from her DH's child of a previous relationship.

It won't be dealt with by ranting here, no matter how much support she gets from similarly angry and resentful contributors.

The vitriol directed at this ex, the lack of compassion and basic understanding on this thread has been illuminating but really distasteful.

Fleecyslippers Sat 27-Apr-13 23:35:07

Amen to that Olgaga.

likeitorlumpit Sat 27-Apr-13 23:41:34

olgaga how did you work out what the DH was earning as to how much he was paying in maintenance ?

ProphetOfDoom Sat 27-Apr-13 23:49:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

olgaga Sun 28-Apr-13 00:22:02

likeit we know that he is paying £250pm right? So you can work it out backwards from that. There was a bit of trial and error but I guessed that he must be earning at least £500pw to be paying £57.70pw (£250pm).

Net income is reduced by 20% for two resident children - as in this case.

The calculation for child maintenance is then 15% of the remaining net salary, further reduced by one seventh for 52-103 overnight stays per year.

I have been careful to say that £250pm would be the amount required by the CSA from a man earning £40,000 paying maintenance for one child, with two resident children, who has overnight contact between 52-103 overnights per year.

You can do the calculation yourself if you like, fyi you need to enter the net weekly pay on £40,000pa which is £577.28.

I am not saying that the arrangement is through the CSA. It may not be - the OP doesn't say.

But from the tone of OP's posts I'm sure if he was paying above CSA rates she would have told us that already.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 28-Apr-13 00:29:05

So he's not exactly skint then.

likeitorlumpit Sun 28-Apr-13 00:32:22

olgaga. i would not be able to work that out frontwards or backwards. maths is not my thing at all. i have only skimmed through the thread as it is so long and did not know some of the facts you were using in the calculations. i was interested in how you worked out his earnings. thanks

WhitesandsofLuskentyre Sun 28-Apr-13 00:54:37

GoingUpInTheWorld said: "Its unreasonable to expect a new partner to contribute to her new partners children just because she got with a man who had children."

Couldn't agree more. Now could someone please tell that to the tax credits people and the student loans people...

The judge let my XH off paying more maintenance because I had a new partner. Who, incidentally, earns two tenths of fuck all compared to what my XH claimed due to clever accounting that he was earning, but DP is expected to make up the shortfall FOR ANOTHER MAN'S CHILDREN. How warped is that?!

Loulybelle Sun 28-Apr-13 00:57:13

My BIL has to make up the shortfall for his stepson because his stupid feckless dad only has to pay £5 a week, my BIL would never begrudge doing so because his stepson is apart of his beloved wife.

Xenia Sun 28-Apr-13 09:05:39

What comes out of the thread is so many women earn virtually nothing and expect men to pay, either the father or the new man. If women picked high paid careers and never gave up work they would not have these issues (in fact I think my money from the divorce has paid another man's child's school fees or so I heard). We need to get the message out to teenage girls- pick high paid careers, never give up full time work, out earn men.

fedupofnamechanging Sun 28-Apr-13 09:24:38

Xenia it is right that women should be able to support themselves, but it shouldn't be because men can't be relied upon to be responsible for their own children. The problem with our society is that men are allowed to leave families, have more kids with other women and not support either family properly.

allnewtaketwo Sun 28-Apr-13 09:50:33

Yet that has nothing to do with this this thread, whereby the father is supporting the children hmm and the ex did have a job but has lost it

morethanpotatoprints Sun 28-Apr-13 16:32:54


I'm teaching my dd to make sure what she does in life makes her happy. You are a long time working and no job/career you hate is worth any amout of money you may earn.

I agree that women should be able to support their families or at least have the opportunity to do so if they wish. This however, doesn't help this situation as the mother has lost her job.

LadyBeagleEyes Sun 28-Apr-13 16:36:04

Oh change the record Xenia.
You're totally missin the whole gist of the thread as usual, to repeat the same old, same old.

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 16:46:00

Not entirely relevant to the topic but in a way I agree with Xenia, I think it's incredibly important for RPs to, as far as is humanly possible, not rely on maintenance to cover normal household expenses. There's just too much that could go wrong.

crashdoll Sun 28-Apr-13 16:53:35

"I think it's incredibly important for RPs to, as far as is humanly possible, not rely on maintenance to cover normal household expenses."

Why not? The NRP should be paying for half his children's household expenses. If there are 2 children, the RP's property will be not only for RP's needs but for the children's needs too. Not everyone can afford this!

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 17:46:33

Because, the sad fact is, that some NRPs eventually begin to resent paying maintenance and look for ways to get out of it. The systems in place to ensure NRPs pay the appropriate maintenance are notoriously open to fraud/refusal to pay and if this occurs and the RP is relying on maintenance to pay normal household bills they can find themselves in a very tenuous position. It's not the way it should be but it is a distinct possibility given the procedures in place at the minute.

jacks365 Sun 28-Apr-13 19:05:19

The op has never said the amount paid was the amount that would be assessed by the csa. It may well be that if they dealt with it he'd have to pay £500 we don't know. We don't know how the conversation went for all we know the exw agreed a lower amount because she didn't need it but now does and would like what she's entitled to for all we know dad said sorry too many commitments and exw said well your new wife can pick up the slack.

I'm not saying this happened just that we don't know and far too many assumptions have been made without fact.

No op you should not have to pay but if your dh isn't paying what he should then you will have to reconsider your family budget

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 28-Apr-13 19:26:05


So why not target that system then rather than saying the rp should account for the other parent being a giant knobber.

Make it harder to piss arse about with funding your children make it socially unacceptable put the blame on the nrp's who do it.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:38:32

Agree with Sock - it should be not only socially unacceptable but should be a crime to not support your child CSA should be given some bloody funding and teeth . Then support payments should be counted against tax credits and underwritten by the gov if the nrp fails to pay. So f the NRP doesn't pay it should become a debt against the state like tax. Its neglect pure and simple and should be recognised as such. It the RP left the child nacked and not fed on door step of a random tax payer they would be charged with neglect, so why not feckless parents who do the same in a monetary way.
Xenia idea is great if there were all these high paying, recession proof jobs around for women - or should only ultra brightish if blinkered entrepreneurs be allowed to procreate?

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 19:43:33

I complete agree I think the system should be overhauled but I also think that until it is RPs should be wary of relying on regular maintenance when determining their household budgets.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:47:51

So Brutha - no one should ever become a sahm/f?

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:48:47

<<< now twitching to name change but can never think of anything DW but funny>>

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 19:52:52

Huh? I think depending on your partner to pay the bills while you are in a loving commited relationship so that you can be a SAHP is different from depending on a potentially feckless NRP to maintain his or her responsibilities to the children. But to be honest I think it would be foolish for one parent in a rocky relationship, particularly one in which they're unmarried, to give up their career to become a SAHP.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 28-Apr-13 19:57:19

Great post olgaga.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 20:00:45

Personally think its best not to have children if you are in a rocky or with a potentially feckless partner but having read so many threads on relationships I think while its sometimes obvious your with a looser. it can really come out of the blue.

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 20:09:58

I agree raspberry and to be my honest I'm only really speaking from personal experience. My DH receives about £150 per month maintenance through the CSA for his DSs, it took years for any payments to start, every trick in the book was played, quitting jobs, moving house, making a single payment then stopping. The payments have now been stable for the past 18 months as DoE was attached and the money is folded into the household spending. However we don't include this money in any long term budget considerations because it could stop at any minute. I also know that although the money is used at present, we could manage without it if we had to.

skippedtheripeoldmango Mon 29-Apr-13 10:40:55

Olgaga...I could kiss you right now!!! Fantastic post.

niceguy2 Mon 29-Apr-13 12:10:53

"I think it's incredibly important for RPs to, as far as is humanly possible, not rely on maintenance to cover normal household expenses."
Why not?

For two reasons:

1) You are relying on your ex to pony up cash regularly and if he doesn't for whatever reason you are fucked. That could be cos he's a tossbag but also cos he may lose his job or something.
2) You give your ex a huge lever to control you. Don't do what he likes? He'll delay his maintenance, reduce it or not pay it.

Is it right? Of course not. But the thing I learned over the years as a single parent is that you don't have the luxury of doing what is right. You have to do what you can.

It's all well & good saying that "Oh the NRP should do this...or that...". It's the principle of the matter...except principles don't feed your kids.