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

[Mumoftwo88]

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.

Aibu?

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 .

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

Fleecyslippers there's a equally a

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

£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.

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.

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.

Bridget.

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.

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.

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.

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?