Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
OTTMummA · 27/04/2013 18:25

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 · 27/04/2013 18:27

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 · 27/04/2013 18:27

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 · 27/04/2013 18:31

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 · 27/04/2013 18:33

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 · 27/04/2013 18:33

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 · 27/04/2013 18:33

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 · 27/04/2013 18:35

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 · 27/04/2013 18:36

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 · 27/04/2013 18:36

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 · 27/04/2013 18:38

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 · 27/04/2013 18:39

"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 · 27/04/2013 18:39

'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 · 27/04/2013 18:42

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 · 27/04/2013 18:43

Bruthas Then, maintenance is reduced accordingly but the child still needs to be paid for.

crashdoll · 27/04/2013 18:43

Andro I didn't see that.

Arisbottle · 27/04/2013 18:44

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 · 27/04/2013 18:44

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 · 27/04/2013 18:46

crashdoll - my maths were (badly) wrong - that should be 4:3 days respectively over 2 weeks (mother :father)

crashdoll · 27/04/2013 18:48

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 · 27/04/2013 18:49

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 · 27/04/2013 18:53

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 · 27/04/2013 18:55

Hang on...you 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 · 27/04/2013 18:57

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 · 27/04/2013 19:05

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.