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?

niceguy2 On your first point I earned more than him and although I didn't specifically contribute to his daughter's payments I did take on more of the rent, bills etc when his ex had some financial difficulties, so in a roundabout way yes I did to ensure his daughter still had what she needed. At the end of the day at that point him, me, our DD and his DD were a family and I wouldn't have seen her go without because her mother was in a bad situation at the time. If I hadn't been able to afford it then that would have been a different matter but at that point I could.

On point two, my ex gives me £45 pounds a week which in no way funds any kind of lifestyle. I work and fund the majority of what my DD needs/wants. I struggle as is and would expect him to step up if I was in financial difficulties yes as we have a child together. It's not like he'd be paying for me to live a champagne lifestyle it would be for stuff she needed.

Nice guy, if they were together and one parent lost their job, they could agree on joint economies eg it might be possible to restructure the debt repayments.

My point is that the child should not be 'suffering' anyway because we have a good benefits system in place. We may have a 'good' benefits system in place but it far from covers bringing up a child. If you live in private accommodation in London for example it is unlikely that your Housing benefit will completely cover the rent. You also have to wait up to six weeks for a benefits claim is you lose your job thus putting you in more debt. It seems as if you think people on benefits are rich. I don't see that at all. I get tax credits etc to top up my salary and I really struggle. You seem to have a bit of a distorted view of how much money people on benefits actually have.

The thing with the benefits system is that it is ample in the short-term - especially if you have children. But it's 'short term' that's the key phrase here. The longer you are on benefits the harder it becomes, and if you have debts to service it's nigh on impossible.

Single parents are much more likely than coupled parents to be in debt.

So get a job quickly then I hear you say. All well and good but single parents will find it harder to get a job (although most of them do actually work despite this) because there is only one parent to fill the gap. They may qualify for more financial help than a couple, but only if they are on NMW levels of pay. Even 70% is inadequate if you're on such a low income. You are reduced to less than 50% way before you hit national average earnings, which makes it even harder for the middle earners. And with jobs becoming increasingly shift based as we embrace a more global economy, trying to work night shifts or really early mornings or late evenings is very difficult unless you have a supportive family in place.

See, I don't find it strange, though it's certainly unusual.

IMO you should not move in with/marry someone with children unless you are prepared to sign up to those children with the same degree of responsibility you would to your partner. That includes consideration of what you would do in the event of a split. IF you spend a lot of time with a DSC and take on a lot of responsibility for them, you don't just get to wash your hands of them in the event of a divorce unless you are very selfish IMO. If you're not prepared to sign up for that, don't get married or move in - which is a valid choice in itself.

I don't find it strange that an ex stepparent continues to financially support a child if they need it.

I think it's kind and great.

Refreshing on here.

My OH pays a state mandated 30% of his gross income to his ex for child support. And still buys her a lot of clothes, pays for activities, etc. his ex claims poverty at times yet refuses to get a job herself. When she did a bit of nosying around and found out my earning potential once I finish uni, she said I should contribute to the child support too as "it's not fair" we (as nrp and myself) can afford holidays, nice cars, etc. ummmm. No. Get a a job yourself. With a 9yr old and free child care in the form of grandparents next door, there's no excuse why she can't get a job. She just wants to have the same lifestyle as us without having to lift a finger. In my mind, she's already paid a huge amount so doesn't actually HAVE to work. If she wants a better lifestyle for herself (and my dsd) then she needs to do what we do, go out and work flipping hard for it!

wrinklyraisin Your situation is different though. The mother the OP is referring to did have a job and has recently become unemployed. I doubt anyone would even be arguing the point if the mother was just sitting on her arse refusing to work as is your situation.

I should add that my OH earns a nearly 6 figure amount and a third of that goes straight to his ex. So it's not like its a paltry amount. It's enough that she isn't forced to get a job. And can still afford to smoke, eat out, online gamble. Her lifestyle is exactly what is was during the marriage. The issue she has is now I'm in the picture, I too will be on a nearly 6 figure salary. I'm happy to make sure dsd is well taken care of, but I'm not happy to contribute to his ex directly to make sure she has the same lifestyle as us iykwim?

needaholiday - its not all about money. But if you could seriously live with someone and their child for say 5 years and then walk away from that child without a backward glance, then you are emotionally lacking IMO.

It's about morals and the bigger picture. If you are on your own with children from the relationship and the DSC has a wider, extended family with a lot of support, then obviously you should not need to contribute financially, although I would still expect you to want to continue a relationship in terms of contact. If you are financially well placed and leave the relationship and the child is struggling, while you have no legal responsibility toward that child anymore, I would think less of someone who chose not to help out simply because they didn't have to.

Yep I see how it's different. Yes it's not great she lost her job, but why is it automatically the ex's responsibility to fill the financial shortfall? I know he, like any father, won't want his child going without. But the mother has to use all of the resources available to her, like the benefits system, and not solely rely on him (or his new partner?). She's lucky to have a fairly decent benefits system to use. Here in the USA it's crappy. Thus the huge child support payments being mandated by law. My dsd will never go without, but I get frustrated that her mother won't do anything to contribute financially for herself.

Plenty of resident and non resident parents don't work to play the system. I know someone whose maintenance to the ex wife is £60k a year plus he pays the school fees never mind the capital she got. She will never marry again and never get a job again because that would jeopardise the £60k. On the other side it is amazing how many men have told me with glee (as if I would admire it) how they avoid maintenance eg by only their new wife working so income to the first family is based on the non working stay at home father's income - ie none or they gave up all work so they don't have to pay her anything or they go and run a wine bar abroad to ensure their income is too low.

Luckily most parents of both genders want to do their bit and do pay and do contribute. My situation is unusual in that I have the children 365 days a year and our financial order says I pay their school/university fees no matter with whom they live which of course I am happy to do but it is a slightly unfair deal to have 100% of the child care, pay your ex etc.

I can certainly understand someone paying to a step child after the relationship is over with the parent because you might well love them. Love does not require a blood tie.

I thought the idea behind maintenance was not to keep a child from poverty it was to keep the child - as far as is practicable - in the manner to which he/she would have been accustomed had the parental relationship continued. To some extent that means the NRP does have to shoulder some of the costs of the RP as well as the child if there is a disparity in income. It was phrased that way partly because courts recognised that many a single mother with low income potential was in that situation because she's sacrificed her own career to be primary carer while the husband was off developing his.

That doesn't really apply in this case, but that's where it comes from.

Separated parenting works best when both parents take personal responsibility for themselves, expecting nothing but willing to give in return because they want to make each other's lives easier in their child's best interests. Sadly, that is often not the case.

needaholiday - you sound as shocked as though I'd suggested you take them on a trip to the moon, but you know what? What you've described happens quite a lot! And they tend to be the families in which everyone gets on, there's no bitter Xs and the children grow up without 'issues'.

wrinklyraisin It takes six weeks to process a benefits claim here in the UK for housing, tax credits etc so at least in the short term she's going to need more money. I don't think anyone who has to rely on benefits because they lose their jobs are 'lucky'. The child needs to be provided for until the mother gets back on her feet whether that be benefits or another job.

Needaholiday,

I love her very much she's treated as a member of my family I pay the money to her mum because in the situation its the right thing to do. Her dad passed away leaving no assets after we parted company and I just continued the arrangement that had been in place whilst him and I were a couple because it was fair it was right and I am in a position to do so. Some of my children are her half brothers and sisters.

I have no responsibility towards her or her mum at all I didn't even whilst I was with her dad nobody can make me do it,but for me it has always been the right thing to do. If her dad was still alive I probably would have stopped paying mum after enough time had passed for him to get on his feet but I would have always continued with the pocket money and if mum asked me would have always helped out if needed.

needaholidaynow Would you still think that if you had been a step parent for say 10 years? That seems quite a sad thought as some children see their step parents the same as their parents, especially if they have absent fathers etc.

Because it's not about what you should or should not have to do, it's about a child.

A child who's told one minute that they have to accept this new step-parent into his/her life and, in the way of most children, adapts and accepts, learns to love and bond, and then all of a sudden is abandoned.

In most separated step-parent set-ups, the relationship normally dwindles over time anyway, but it is far better to let that happen naturally.

One of the worst cases I've seen was a man who insisted on putting his DPs child in private education, but then cruelly stopped paying fees when he split from the child's mother. If he had no intention of honouring that arrangement until the child left school, it's an offer he never should have made. The result is a child who feels that all the good things and 'love' she had from him were purely conditional on her mother's presence, and that she herself was fundamentally unworthy of deserving those things in her own right.

So let's say for a moment that hypothetically the child's parents haven't split up. That OP's husband was still married to his ex.

One of them loses their job and as a result, household income is severely impacted. Who makes up the difference? Because the child is going to suffer and not have the lifestyle they're accustomed to, right?

In that case whom is going to step in and fund the difference?

Maybe I am far from being perfect then. I simply don't see why I should continue being "stepmum" when I no longer have to. What if my ex partner found a new partner? Should I carry on playing that role? You only have one mum, and I think that should extend to having only one stepmum. Not about 5. (Maybe a slight exaggeration but you get my jist)

Not a dig at all, but this is the reason I wish that for someone to be treated as a step parent it should require more than just being with one of the parents.

Over on the step parents board you even have people who are in fairly new unmarried relationships but as soon as they move in with the parent they automatically assume 'rights' for want of a better word and refer to themselves as a step parent expecting to play a role that normally means getting involved with what should be parental decisions and actions yet at least going by the surprise I have often been shown when referring to our family and who we include in it,it appears to be customary to cut all or most ties with the sc if the relationship goes sour.

One week they are attending school meetings or medical appointments often being very vocal about just how vile and crappy the parent who does not reside with them is,insisting or wanting to have their views on child related issues listened just like they are an actual parent then the next week they are not their kids so are just walking away.

Its wrong.