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?

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.

Arisbottle

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.

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 .

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?

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.

Arisbottle the OP is willing to provide extras including a holiday for the little girl. What more should she be paying?

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.

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,

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?

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.

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.

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.

He can make more realistic payment arrangements given the length of time they have been outstanding they will not be priority debts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amen to that Olgaga.

olgaga how did you work out what the DH was earning as to how much he was paying in maintenance ?

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.

So he's not exactly skint then.

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

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?!

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.