Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

468 replies

Mumoftwo88 · 26/04/2013 21:31

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 posts:
IneedAsockamnesty · 27/04/2013 17:42

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 · 27/04/2013 17:42

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

YANBU.

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

Lucyellensmum95 · 27/04/2013 17:44

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 · 27/04/2013 17:45

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 · 27/04/2013 17:46

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 · 27/04/2013 17:47

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 · 27/04/2013 17:48

Ah have I missed Xenia's back story Smile

Icantstopeatinglol · 27/04/2013 17:52

'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 · 27/04/2013 17:55

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 · 27/04/2013 17:58

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 · 27/04/2013 18:02

YANBU

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 · 27/04/2013 18:06

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 · 27/04/2013 18:07

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 · 27/04/2013 18:09

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 · 27/04/2013 18:11

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 · 27/04/2013 18:11

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 · 27/04/2013 18:13

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 · 27/04/2013 18:13

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

Arisbottle · 27/04/2013 18:15

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 · 27/04/2013 18:16

"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 · 27/04/2013 18:19

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 · 27/04/2013 18:19

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 · 27/04/2013 18:21

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 · 27/04/2013 18:23

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 · 27/04/2013 18:23

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

Swipe left for the next trending thread