To think DH's ex wife is taking the piss regarding maintenance?

[StickyBlisteredShitHole]

DH gives his ex wife £150 a month maintanance for their 2 DCs. Just lately she's been asking for him to contribute to this, that and everything else despite the fact that she's got the maintanance. Last night she got her DS to text DH asking him to contribute towards a school trip abroad and now today she's sending him a message asking him to contribute towards a school trip for their other son. Despite this she's booked a holiday abroad for next summer hols and no doubt we'll be expected to contribute towards that too despite the fact that we, as a family can't afford to go anywhere!
AIBU to think she's taking the piss?

MJ the point is, it means that OP's ex doesn't have to provide for his step children, so should be able to provide fully for his own.

It is the responsibility of you and your Ex to provide for your children.

If your Ex has a partner who earns a lot/is well supported in other ways, that is none of your concern.

His income should be the only one that counts.

I only mentioned her maintenance/income in response to people saying her children shouldn't have to suffer by ex paying too much towards his "first" children.

Please please can you explain about your repulsive name?

Women like you really piss me off!

My Dp pay's the Csa calculations of £400 a month for one child. He also pays for for Dss school dinners, pay's half towards school uniform and half towards school trips!

We're more than happy to do this because 1) He is Dp's son 2) this is what parents do!

However, I allow you to be pissed of when the ex takes a leaf out of Dp's ex's book and continuously stops contact because we can't afford to pay for her new car or give her spending money for a holiday abroad that Dss isn't even going on or when we've paid for shopping to be delivered to her and she throws it ALL in the bin saying it didn't cost enough (as In it wasn't all top brands) and until we bought more expensive stuff we weren't seeing Dss again!

Then you can be pissed off!

Your username is rather awful

No - as the Ex AND his new partner will be claiming Tax Credits if they are on that low an income, and TC's are classed as available to use in maintenance calculations. Believe me, I KNOW this for sure, in one of my previous relationships, they used MY tax credits (I had NO children with that partner) to pay HIS maintenance, as well as his wages. Which, IMO is unfair, because those dc were nothing actually to do with him, so they were taking MY children's money to give to HIS children even though I was getting the TC's based on our combined low income!

And I will point out that as well as paying the maintenance the CSA sets out, my Ex-P will also pay for half of any school trips / after school clubs / shoes and school uniforms. Why wouldn't he - they are HIS children too. The maintenance gets spent taking HIS child to school. Therefore it is still getting spent on HIS child. I pay half for all additionals as mentioned, he pays the other half. As it should be IMO. I get £33/wk for DS2 and £22 a week for DS3 (I know the split because he was paying maintenance to me before, long story, hard to explain, boomerang relationship maybe?).

And FGS will people PLEASE stop posting as the 'other person' in their OP's. WTF is wrong with posting HONESTLY? It never changes MY advice, as my advice is the same no matter who the OP is, be it the NRP OR the RP but I don't like being misled.

Why are you so determined to not explain your nickname? It really is a very odd, ugly choice.

I dislike it when people pretend to be someone else "to get a different perspective" on here. However, OP, it does sound as if your ex and his new wife are BU, provided that the story you have presented is accurate.

I've seen worse than my username on here before.

That doesn't explain why you chose it.

Actually, I think your username is the most revolting I have seen - sorry.

Well I can't take you seriously with a username like that and I haven't seen worse anyway, tbh. Bowing out now.

For gods sake it is a user name on a free speech public
Forum! I doesn't need to be explained or justified. It's minging yes but also totally irrelevant to the posts!

I don't think it it irrelevant, it indicates something about her and her judgement, as does her decision to reverse-post.

I am just curious about it really. Its an aside. No need to get your kecks in a twist Kayano.

Agreed, Bewitched. I have gone off this thread a bit, having been outraged on behalf of the ex-wife. I hate reverse posting, I don't like being misled.

I did call her on the reverse post .... In capital letters. Lol

They are always twisted Bibbity. I think I need a sedative

It does sound like your ex and his wife ABU.
I get £160 a month for 2 dc, it is based on ex earning only minimum wage
and he ever so generously never took his Dsd into account when calculating it double
He is useless he sees the children once a month so every 5 or 6 weeks because he apparently can't afford to see them more often yet has a lifestyle we just couldn't afford. He has absolutely no bother with the fact that my dh supports his dc and is more of a father to them than he is as he simply is never there for his dc yet him and his wife are having another one.
He has never and probably will never pay a penny more than he ahs to and when ds1 started school this year and I had 2 uniforms to buy he told me he couldn't afford to contribute anything and I should ask my parents

Op - 'Well we're not exactly living a life of luxury either. If she's struggling maybe she shouldn't be booking foreign holidays when she can't afford to pay for school trips'

the childrens school trips should be the responsibility of both parents not just their mother. so why shouldnt she book holidays abroad just because she is asking the childrens father to help towards trips.

If he left you and your children do you think £150 per month would be enough for 2 children? I dont think so.

YABU

OP, you are getting a hard time but your user name was bound to upset people as its awful.

People seem to think its only the £150 from the father to be taken in account but BOTH parents should financially contribute so if she matches the £150 thats £300 a month without the extra child benefit and tax credits then its more than enough to feed and clothe two children.

School trips abroad are optional extras, if she wants to send them then she needs to work out if finances allow that.

I am a little flabbergasted that a large number of posters on here are saying that OP's partner shouldn't have gone on to have more children if he can't afford to pay maintenance for his first two kids.

I recall a thread on here not too long ago when there was an uproar about a suggestion that those on benefits shouldn't have kids.

So is the MN consensus that if your on benefits, or poorly paid, you shouldn't be having kids?

glitter - I noticed that hypocrisy too - although will state that my position remains the same.

I can only assume that when it's a man doing it, it's irresponsible - when it's a mn'er it's her right to bear fruit.