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?

IMO YANBU. Your DP pays what is expected and looks after your DSD, I think it's unfair for her mum to expect more money from you because she has become unemployed. Maybe I'm a bit sceptical because of personal experiences, but she shouldn't be relying on DP's money and benefits to provide for their child, she should be getting another job. If she's struggling that badly couldn't you have DSD over more? That may keep the peace in terms of, you don't have to give her any more money, but the financial strain whilst she is unemployed is reduced as she will be with you, and you will be providing for her whilst she is with you.

Yabu, you knew that your partner had a child before commiting to a relationship.

The needs of the child comes 1st.

If your partner was still in a relationship with his child's mother then the home would have 100% the income from him.

If the ex's income is severely reduced then the standard of living for her and the DD will be affected.

That is simply a fact for children when a parent loses their job, regardless of whether the parents are still together or not. The OP's DH is providing the same amount as he has always done, and they have said they are prepared to pay extra to make sure her schooling is covered, that she is clothed and she still gets to participate in her holiday club. She will still get to attend holidays with her father, the OP and her siblings, and participate fully in their activities. But the mother will simply have to tighten her belt until she is able to find herself a new job, just like everyone else does, and it's not up to the OP and her DH to provide 'luxuries' for the mother and by extension the daughter when she is with the mother. Mum might have to skip the weekly mother and daughter movie trips or days out to the theme park for now, but as long as the child is fed, clothed, educated and cared for (all of which the OP has said they will ensure), then making sure that the mother maintains her standard of living is no longer the responsibility of her former partner. They are no longer in a relationship, and he is not responsible for her financial situation. She needs to take responsibility for her own life now, and not go running to her former partner whenever things are tough. People break up for a reason. You remain civil for the benefit of your children, but ex partners do not get to control the spending of their ex's new partners, and they don't get to expect their ex to pick up any slack in their standard of living, apart from making sure that their mutual child is well cared for.

Ha ha. Those ppl saying OP is being unreasonable have no clue.

Yanbu.

Giving her more maintenance is the WRONG thing to do.

The govt have a welfare system for those who lose their jobs. No need for you to supplement the benefits she will receive.

I think you should be able to rely on the father of the child to pay 50%. I also think that itches is only paying £250 per month then perhaps he couldn't afford to have 2 more dc. There are a lot of assumptions that ex wants to maintain lavish lifestyle.

itches?. Should say if he is

I am not assuming she wants to keep a lavish lifestyle at all.
I do think that she doesn't want to lose or change anything that would affect her way of life though.
The amount she gets is what the government have deemed reasonable and fair, if you don't like it then try and change that.
I certainly do not spend 500 or any where near that on each of our DC soni think she is getting enough for her child.
She is an adult who has to pay her own way or accept the assistance of benefits.
It's not the place of the DH to provide the ex with money to replace her lost wages.
If she wants to share 50/50 residency than she will save on food and heating etc but she won't do that,, well that's tough luck then!

Legally no he doesn't have to pay more, perhaps maybe he should want to help out.Perhaps offer to pay for classes she attends buy her some new clothes.

My childrens father has 4 older children (all adults) and another younger child with someone else-he is a knob in many ways but he never has played silly buggers about money.Currently I am doing my masters and am a bit short he buys the kids clothes takes them to see his other kid,out for day trips.

He is the father to 7 children (5 grandchildren) he is responsible for them ,buying them clothes when they need them is for them, the children he created.

Yes she is an adult and needs to make her way like I do but it makes me ponder how this system is set up,leglaly set amounts and discussion about how much 'she' deserves.What about kindness some flexibility a simple gesture?

"I think you should be able to rely on the father of the child to pay 50%."

It's likely that he is.

He's paying £250 to his ex plus the costs of maintaining his daughter when she is at his house.

It's not only the child's mother that has costs associated with the child.

It's very hard to isolate the costs of a child in a household, but both parents have costs to meet.

It's also impossible to be absolute about 50% of costs across two households, since they will make different decisions about what is a necessity, what is affordable etc.

Why do both parents have to meet the costs equally, in many homes where couples remain together this does not happen . It could be argued that children affected by divorce need a parent at home more than a child lucky enough to have two parents who have stayed together

No, OP, you shouldn't be paying maintenance but as your DH is then it comes out of your family budget.

I really hope that your DH and his ex can sit down together and go through what is happening and what needs to be done and hopefully amicably.

It sounds as if you are both doing all the things expected of a NRP (maintenance, visits, holidays, new clothes etc) so his ex needn't worry but maybe you could reassure her of this. She is probably freaking out about what is going to happen to DD and her. Honestly, if you can just try to reassure her now then things will be a lot easier in the future.

Remember that the amount set by the CSA is the MINIMUM payment.

I agree if my husband just paid what the CSA asked for I would have little respect for him as a potential husband and father and we would not be together.

I think the truth is that there is no easy solution to this. I can really see both sides to the argument.

It would stick in my throat to have lost my job and be panicking about supporting my child while I see my X swan off on holiday.

I would also find it difficult to see why I should have to sacrifice my own lifestyle and that of my own children for someone else's child.

I think the spotlight in this situation should be shone on the child's father. He has responsibilities to his first child and his subsequent ones that he seems to be failing to meet. The resentment the OP feels towards the X should actually be directed to her DH IMO.

Children come first. Sadly, that often means adults have to suck up unfair circumstances. When you marry someone who has a child from a previous relationship, you implicitly consent to that deal. It's not easy or fair, but if you're not prepared for that you have to walk away.

OP how did this all come about?

Did the exw say this to you & ur husband or did ur husband tell u what she said?

OP you are making a lot of assumptions about the benefits your DH's ex will get. She will not neccesarily get all her rent paid and is very likely to have to contribute to some of the council tax too.

Of course, the OP shouldn't have ot subsidise maintenance with her own wages, but whether the DH is being unreasonable or not we do not know. The OP hasn't said the £250 is CSA ordered maintenance or how much her DH earns, he could be on £100,000 a year for all we know. Whether he is being unreasonable depends entirely on how much he earns, but if the ex is on benefits while she looks for further employment, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to help out so his DD can still have a decent standard of living.

Suggestions that the DD be 'sent' to live with her father during this period are ludicrous.

I think your husband has a lot to answer for OP. This is not up to you to rectify, he needs to take more responsibility for all of his children.

If the NRP loses the job the resident parent had to pay more to make up the shortfall. She can't say , sorry child number two I am not going to feed, clothe,house and do your activities because I am not willing to pay more than 50%.

Surely the NRP should pay more if the RP has no job.

This is such a tricky situation. Imo, and legally, no you/your dp shouldn't/don't have to pay more as the ex has lost her job. Neither should your income be taken into account.

Otoh, my ex has been assessed as only having to pay £50 pcm towards our 2dc, this is after a reduction has been made for his new gfs dc. (they are not his children) in this particular situation, it seems unfair that the gfs income isn't taken into account for my dc, but that her dc are iyswim.

And when I look at this situation from the exs side, it must sting slightly. For example, I can only just afford my bills, but in the last 2 months, ex has done his motorbike test and bought a bike and everything that he needs for that.

Can't believe all the people who think the OP is BU.

No way should she have to pay anything towards his ex.

DH pays what the CSA have calculated. DH and OP pay for DD/DSD when she's staying with them. And OP has offered to pay for any extras to make sure DSD doesn't miss out on swimming lessons school trips, etc.

That seems totally fair enough to me. The rest is the exW's problem, sorry.

And the posters saying they shouldn't go on holiday are being ridiculous. If you read TFT properly you'll see that the DSD is going on that holiday too. Should she suffer the cancelled holiday because her mum is demanding OP's money and will be 'jealous' if they all go?

OP, YANBU.

Op, you have your info about benefits wrong.

She will not be reciving full council tax payments as they do not exist any more unless she lives in a LA house its also unlikely she will have her full rent paid because she will only be able to get the LHA.

Whilst I don't think you shoud have to pay her anything personally you appear to have forgotten that your actions in having more children with her ex has reduced her income.and I think its pretty pisspoor from your dh's side that going by your posts he has very limited financial responsibility towards your children yet uses them to reduce his lability to his ex.

If your dh lost his job and claimed anything benefit wise she would only get £5 pw if he couldn't or didnt claim she would get nil,so she is expected to subsidise his choices and any more children he has.

Also, the DH is paying off all the debt that was accrued during his marriage to the ex. E ex isn't paying towards any of that. So if she feels hard done by the DH she should take into consideration that the reason he can't afford any more is because he's paying off her share of the debt.

And in the meantime the OP is subsidising the shortfall.

OP I'm totally on your side with this. Pay for whatever DSD might need but don't give any money to the ex.

YANBU, his ex cannnot expect you to pay just because she has lost her job. If she didnt have redundancy insurance then she will have to claim JSA and find another job quickly.

£250 is more than adequate to feed, clothe and pay school trips on a month. Given the PWC should be matching that payment and then adding tax credits and child benefit on top there should be ample over. Rent, bills etc would have to be paid by the PWC regardless of children or not.

For all we know his payments could well have been reduced because of the previous debt because the csa do that as well.

Maybe the debt he is paying off is his debt. Just because it was accrued during the marriage, it doesn't automatically follow that it is the ex wife's debt too.