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?

That's correct karma. But we know bugger all about the debt so using it slate the ex is silly

I get no maintenance for DS1 but I don't consider myself to be subsidising my ex. He has nothing to give me and its not worth the aggro of applying. We have gone our spectate ways and I got myself qualified and in a job where I can support DS myself. If I lost my job I still would not find my ex and ask for money. On the flip side DH pays for things for DS1 even though he's not his father. It's difficult and up to the adults to be adults and sort it out amicably. But £250 on top of wages, tax credits and CB seems fine to me for one child.

As much as it would be nice for DSD to stay with us more, I don't think her mum would allow it

Well that is a shame OP, but ultimately if Ex is suffering due to a lack of money, rather than ask you for more money, she should be looking at the bigger picture. If DSD were to live with you and her dad it would free mum up to look for or train for another job. She could stop worrying about her DD and concentrate on herself and her future. Asking you to give more money is just a quick fix that helps no-one in the long run. It doesn't have to be forever, just until she is employed again.

It is incumbent on ALL members of the family to ensure that the children don't 'suffer' when something like this happens. You can provide stability for this child whilst mum is going through a bad patch and that is what matters.

So who would look after this child if she were to live with OP and her dh? They both work and I'm betting child care will come in at more than £250 per month, plus cost of feeding/clothing her. The ex could then, quite rightly in terms of the law, refuse to contribute more than the minimum csa requires and bugger all for cc. The OP will be worse off than if her dh just contributes a bit more now.

DSD is 8, so (depending on where OP lives) before and after school childcare could easily be covered by £250 a month.

If mum truly only wants what is best for her child, and is asking for more money just for her child - then why on earth would she refuse to contribute more than the minimum csa requires and bugger all for cc ? She wants what is best for her child.

Giving mum more money will cost OP more money (obviously ) but won't solve any long term employment issues. Having DSD living with OP will cost OP more money, but will hopefully solve long term employment issues.

The ex is currently unemployed, so might not be able to afford to pay her share.

I very much doubt if the people saying to hand over dd to her dad, would agree to do the same with their dc if they lost their jobs.

I think what people are saying, karma, is that the child has two parents. If the ex believes the most important thing is that the child's standard of living is maintained, despite the fact that the family has suffered a redundancy, then she should consider letting her child live with her other parent who can maintain the standard of living. Most families who go through redundancies accept that their standard of living may have to alter due to changes in their finances, they do not expect their standard of living to be the same.

No Karma, of course not. I wouldn't want my DD to live with anyone else, but that would be my choice if doing so would alleviate my money issues, but I didn't want it to happen.

Sometimes people have to make hard choices for the greater good. If OP's care isn't considered an option, then neither should her money be.

In this situation, I would think that my dd's care isn't best served by going to live with a man who would be willing to take her away from the mother's home (the primary carer for that child) rather than pay a bit more in child support. And that's before you get to the idea of potentially changing schools/being away from gps.

I don't think the idea of her going to live somewhere else is even an issue here so I don't know why it's being discussed.

But what the OP has said, not particularly clearly is that she and her husband are making sure that the DSD does not suffer as much as possible, they are buying her clothes, taking her on holiday and paying for activities. It's not like they're sitting pretty with their kids while she has nothing.

The issue here is that the ex actually wants cash, she wants money in her hand that she can spend as she wishes. That in itself does make it seem to me that she is expecting her exes new partner to lob out cash to support her own lifestyle, not necessarily that of her child.

The OP and her DH are already doing what they can to minimize the impact that the EXP will have on her daughter with the things they are funding directly for her. I think the issue of cash is another quite separate one and it's there that the EXP is in the wrong.

£250 a month is 'enough' to bring up a child? I pay £201 a week in childcare costs, let alone feeding, clothing, entertaining that goes on with having a child. So in my case, £250 wouldn't be enough to cover even half the childcare costs without considering the contribution both parents should be making towards the upbringing of their children.

So much is dependent on individual circumstances. If the ex in this case has even a small mortgage, she will struggle if she can't find work quickly. Who knows, she may have been trying for months to find a new job as it is likely she has known about this situation for some time. I don't blame her for looking to her ex for some additional support, even if I agree she has done it in a cack-handed kind of way.

And for those of you who think it acceptable to just 'give' the child to her father whilst mum 'sorts herself out' you really need to see the bigger picture. We don't live in a society where this is common (I have lived abroad for many years and know that in some societies this is more common place) and we should surely consider the psychological impact of such a move on the child. Leaving her established ties behind, knowing mum is struggling and worrying, not seeing mum as often as she did, having to fit into a household where there are sibings when she is not used to it, having different routines and rules, different journeys to school, potentially different attitudes to afterschool activities and being able to fit them in, not being able to have friends for tea (potentially) etc. would all be incredibly distressing for the average child. And of course, status quo is everything - an unscrpulous parent in this situation would refuse to 'give back' the child, leaving the mother to fight in court to see her child (and yes, I know this happens to plenty of parents regardless). There is so much to consider in these cirucumstances which have nothing at all to do with being 'money grabbing' which so few people seem to want to acknowledge.

Ok- o the op has already said they are willing to contribute to shoes. School excursions etc ppl aren't reading that! Exw will get some form of help with benefits! What exactly is. 8 year old to do with her 250 plus TC and benefits that r meant for her?

jeez, and how many just assume that the 'single parent' is automatically topped up with a small fortune in tax credits etc. etc. so she has a ton of money and can afford everything! Not all single parents get full tax credits, and some of us don't receive any at all. And then we're told that we 'should be able to manage' on the one salary and are just 'greedy' or 'money grabbing' for expecting the father of their children to make even a token contribution. Every single parent I know (myself included) balances their budget with very, very little 'give' in it for emergencies. I certainly have struggled to 'save for a rainy day' and I sure as hell couldn't afford to pay for income protection insurance that someone suggested the ex in this case should have taken out if she was a decent parent 'cos of course, she should have done everything possible to protect her child. It's really that simple, isn't it?!

Unfortunately I have to go out and find school shoes today but this caught my eye:

The issue here is that the ex actually wants cash, she wants money in her hand that she can spend as she wishes.

That is not correct. Nowhere has the OP said the ex wants cash in her hand!

OP says the ex has said that he (DH) he should be paying more and if needs be it should be paid through (OP's) earnings

Which I take to mean that the ex has pointed out that DH and OP have two incomes, while she currently has no income.

mumandboys123 if the ex is unemployed and getting JSA she will qualify for full tax credits, free school meals, etc. it's not about her being a single parent, it's about her employment status. Also worth noting that hold maintenance is not included in tax credit calculation, if the ex was on a low income she would've qualified for assistance no matter what was being contributed from the father.

*child maintenance

bruthastortoise- yes, I understand that. I was commenting on the general feeling of this thread that £250 is 'enough' and there are a couple of posts that say she should be adding £250 to that and why on earth isn't £500 a month enough to bring up a child when she also gets tax credits on top (eg when she was in work, not the situation she is in now). Sorry, I have confused the issue. I just get entirely fed up with this assumption that all single parents receive a ton of money regardless - when the truth is many of us don't. And many of us get no maintenance either.

Surely a loving father would not want to see his children's lifestyle take a hit if he could afford to do something about it.

As others have said, it is likely that the ex receives less maintenance because the OP and her husband decided to have more children. So their lifestyle may have been already affected because of the OP. I find it odd that she thinks her finances are irrelevant to her step children

Fair point . Yea it's likely that if the ex was on any sort of a reasonable wage she may not have received any tax credit support at all for one child. In my opinion, I think RPs should be cautious about depending on maintenance to pay essentials in their household. I know it's not fair and you should be able to rely on the child's other parent to contribute consistently but sadly that's not how the world works. My DH receives maintenance for his DC, the money is used for them but we know our budget could be stretched to cover the loss of this money hence we're not dependent on it.

I hate way it's usually the women in these situations that end up n met stressed and at loggerheads.From what you've posted,the man in this situation (your dh) seems to be the one who has landed on his feet.His current wife (you) pays the majority of his living expenses,and a holiday to boot,while he spends 'his' money paying off debts he ran up before he even met you.His ex does the majority of the day-to-day child rearing,and up until now has only received 250 per month towards the financial cost of the childs' living expenses.His ex mother in law has,up until now,provided childcare free of charge.

Seems to me that he has a lot of women covering his ass in relation to his responsibilities.I wouldn't direct my anger towards the woman who is raising his child,I'd direct it at him.

But that's just me.The slighest whiff of cocklodger makes me nauseous.

I agree bruthas - I have managed for over 4 years now with no maintenance (my ex is self employed) and I sometimes wonder how I do it but I've had no choice, so that's how it's worked out! If he suddenly started paying (flying pig, anyone?!), I would simply put it to one side to build a better emergency fund. But had he paid from day one, I would probably have incorporated it into my household income and would have therefore been reliant on it.

HildaOgden - gosh, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Very true!

Exactly what Hilda says

Wow! When I think of it that what my ex is doing!!! And he pays me half of what the OP's DH is paying!!

I assume you knew that your DH had a child before you married him - for this reason YABU. Poor little girl - why should she miss out because her daddy has a new family now :(

Hilda, that is a very good point - he has it easy doesn't he! I hope that his first DD gets to go on holidays too. It seems the person who will ulitmately be suffering here is the DD