To not give a shit

[GDragon]

exH who I've always had an amicable relationship with now wants to dictate how I spend my money on our DC.

We both work, pretty full on professional jobs that leave very little time for family life, neither of us wanted to slow down when we had kids, DD(13) and DS(8) which was ultimately what led to our divorce.

We both remarried years ago, exH went on to have 3 more kids (a child of their own and 2 DSC) with his DW who's a stay at home mom, I remarried a teacher. Our incomes massively differ, as ExH has more DC to support on just his income, whereas our household has 2 incomes with just 2 kids.

Now what I buy our DCs has suddenly become an issue with him, as it's making his home life difficult, the clothes I buy them, where we go on holiday, the gifts they get, he said he would appreciate it 'if I could limit my spending.'

It's not the first time he's bought up money, but it's the first time he's ever been so bloody patronising. I don't think its a reasonable request at all and I don't really care about his family issues.

Agreed MiniCooper

I'd like to hear the other side too Midnite. Two children. Three activities a week each. That's an activity everyday bar one. What about the needs of the other children? They are innocents in all of this regardless of how they came to be involved. And they deserve equal consideration, don't they? I'm wondering if her ex only agreed to the activities to try to keep his children sweet and avoid the sole custody issue. It doesn't sound like it's the first time op has sounded this one out with him.

Op, if you want to pay for your children to do something on their night with their father and it's not convenient for their father, I think it's for you to pay the cm. Otherwise it's dictating how he manages his life. Tbh I'm struggling to understand how a conversation like this happened in the first place.

Speaking as someone who mentioned DW going back to work, that was as an example of a similar level of interference and cheek, rather than as a suggestion of something OP should actually say. Seems fairly clear that would go down like a bag of sick, plus it's possible they'd be worse off financially anyway. Particularly before the 3 year old goes to school, though I guess she could be starting in September. But it's no more or less offensive than lecturing OP about her spending whilst simultaneously failing to pay for his half of the uniform.

And fuck OP paying for a CM during his time to do things that aren't 'convenient' for him. Having children is inconvenient full stop. You have to be places you wouldn't otherwise be, spend money you wouldn't otherwise spend. That's parenthood. If he then decides those rules don't apply to him, there are potential consequences. Your eldest is rapidly approaching the age where her living arrangements become her call.

Either she and the ops ex agreed to do these activities. Or the OPs ex did and assumed his new wife was happy doing this. It actually sounds like the new wife may have a dh problem.

Agree! Especially the bit about childraising being naturally a woman's job! Explains quite a lot.

What about the needs of the other children? They are innocents in all of this regardless of how they came to be involved.

but he agreed it. Sounds like he agreed on behalf of his wife. So it's his problem to resolve.

He also needs to accept that as the kids get older, they may not want to do a week on, a week off.

There is an issue that's needs solving. By the OPs ex. And I don't think their kids should miss out. He can solve this without impacting them and lessening the impact on his other 3 kids.

Is it possible for DD to go to her activities vha public transport? Also why would she need to take a 14 yr old and 11yr old with her?

None of the over 10's are sharing with the opposite gender are they? Because that would be a child protection issue. Sounds to me as if he is feeling emasculated because of his lower income. Suck it up buttercup that's what goes with a 1950's sexist view of women's roles. No way should the kids miss out.

The complaint also referred to them having to stay at home without DW if they didn't go with her, middleclassproblem. I should think most 14 year olds would be only too delighted to get an hour at home without adult supervision! Not particularly arduous for them to keep an eye on the 11 year old too, assuming no SN, complex health factors or anything else game changing. So that complaint did sound rather reachy. The DW would be within her rights to be fed up at toting OPs 2 plus her 3 year old around everywhere without bringing her own eldest two into it as well.

Having children is inconvenient full stop. You have to be places you wouldn't otherwise be, spend money you wouldn't otherwise spend. That's parenthood.

Sometimes, children don't get to do everything they want to. DS would love to do an activity every night, but he doesn't get to, because we have other committments and things to work around. And that's just with one child. If you've got more than one, then you budget your time, just like your money. Sometimes Johnny can't do football because Sally is doing swimming that night and Johnny already gets to do tennis on Fridays. Regardless of some people's feelings on here, children do not get to dictate the whereabouts of an entire household.

Well, what else do you expect? Or should kids have no hobbies because it puts their step mother out? That's what people do when they have kids.

They can have hobbies, sure. Doesn't mean the stepmum should have to put herself out several times a week and plan her life around taking her stepchildren to these activities though. Once a week, ok maybe that would be ok for her. But 5 times a week or whatever it is? That's beyond taking the mick imo.
And that last sentence "that's what you do when you have kids." - Ok but they're not her kids are they? So her dsc getting to their hobbies don't automatically become her problem to solve.

You do indeed budget your time and your money midnitescribbler, but you do that before you agree to them embarking on activities. Not retrospectively. You don't get to decide you can't be arsed any more. If circumstances dictate it, such as the financial impact of a job loss, there's nothing to be done there and it's not a choice. But otherwise, you honour the commitment you made or you risk facing the consequences. Regardless of the feelings of some people on here.

And that last sentence "that's what you do when you have kids." - Ok but they're not her kids are they? So her dsc getting to their hobbies don't automatically become her problem to solve.

Agreed. It's her DHs problem, not hers, and if she doesn't wish to do it he'll have to find a different solution that doesn't involve her. As OP herself said.

I know that's what the OP said. I was responding to someone else.

Yes, the someone else was me. As I've said more than once, the responsibility lies with him.

It's the dad's problem to sort, not the stepmother or the OP.

Dad sounds like a charmer. He's had his DW running around like a blue arsed fly after his children. I very much doubt DW's kids sit at home all week- even if they don't do so many activities, I'm sure they want lifts to town and friend's houses. It sounds like she's put her foot down retarding doing all the running for his kids as well, which she has a right to do.

So he has a few options here. The ball is back in his court. He could arrange a CM to take them to activities, which has been done before. He could jiggle his hours if possible.

But no, he runs straight to OP and expects her to sort it out, preferably with lots of the cash he thinks she is swimming in.

He thinks he can dictate OPs spending habits because it suits HIM. He thinks he can run his new DW ragged because it suits HIM

He sounds like a pain tbh

Definitely feel sorry for his DW. It does sound like he makes the decisions without consulting her too much with his responses texting you so swiftly. I genuinely feel he's angling to get you to pay for cm.

And that last sentence "that's what you do when you have kids." - Ok but they're not her kids are they? So her dsc getting to their hobbies don't automatically become her problem to solve.

it was me that said it. And if you read the rest of my post. I made it clear, it's for him to solve the issue.

If the new wife and he agreed to run the kids about its their problem to sort. If he agreed on his wife's behalf it's his problem to sort.

Also note that I said I think the new wife has a dh problem.

Besides which non of this has anything to do with what the ops spends on her kids. Which was his original request. He or they have got themselves in this situation. They or he needs to sort it.

I have also said previously, I can see why she is getting pissy. But that's not the ops problem.

Oh yeah actually that was you! I said that's parenthood, not that's what you do if you have kids. Oops. Point is exactly the same though.

Playing Devil's advocate for a minute, the wife and OP's ex decided that she would be a sahp. That means it becomes her responsibility to look after all the children in the household while the h is at work. Having married a man who has his dc 50% of the time, she cannot reasonably give up work and then take a view that they are not her kids so not her job to take them to activities or do it but be resentful.
If she worked maybe her dh could cut back on his hours and take his own kids to their clubs or they could afford a cm? Might be that he would always dump everything on his wife but that isn't the OPs problem.

I think it's great that he wants 50/50 care but agree that it means actually doing the stuff they need during his time with them. If 50/50 means he is unwilling to give them the standard of life they get with their mum (and I don't mean strictly material things but time to persue interests and appropriate bedroom space) then perhaps it is time to revisit the arrangement.

There's no way I'm paying for a CM. If he can't give them the same standard of living that they have in my household, meaning being able to attend activities that they like then perhaps it's time he accepts that our arrangement doesn't work anymore.

I'm really going to push our arrangement this summer and then see how things stand in September, If the main issue is driving my kids around, then this summer is going to be an absolute nightmare for them, but like with the activities, I sent him a schedule of the days that they would need to be there and asked if they could manage, I received an instant reply of yes. So it isn't appropriate that they refuse to take them after I've signed & paid for it and they'd agreed to it.

DD & DS share a room but than so do his DSC, not really sure how it a child protection issue? DD has complained about sharing a room and has mentioned changing arrangement which is why I've brought it up in the past but if it's really an issue she's going to have to speak up.

They are having problems in their marriage in that he clearly expects his wife to do all of the donkey work of caring for his kids. Instead of dealing with that in the way he should, ie accepting that this is his issue to sort out, he is trying to pass it on to you.

Rather than steaming straight in with full residency, I would be asking him to go to mediation to try and find a solution.

Just a hunch, but has he form for everything being someone elses fault? Is he a "What should I dooooo??!!!!" kind of person who expects someone else to sort out his problems?

I dont see sharing a room as a child protection issue either. It's just that it isn't nice for boys and girls to share past a certain age. If your dd is uncomfortable about it then that is something her dad needs to know about.

It may be that over the summer dw struggles and then you end up having them the extra odd night. It might be worth saying it to her when you drop them off that if it gets too much you can take them on days there are clashes or what not if you have a little notice.
With his quick replies it really sounds like he's not consulting her at all.

The room sharing is a red herring. She is used to her own room at yours, but it isnt possible at her dads, there is nothing that can realistically be done about that. It is a little precious to make that an issue in this argument, it wont have any bearing on a residency case unless there were genuine safe guarding concerns which it doesnt sound like in this case.

I think he is saying your joint kids are spoilt, and he is blaming you for this, because of the amount of material things you give them and money you spend on their entertainment.

I'm not saying they are spoilt, I don't know them, but the examples he's giving are those kind of situations that would suggest some spoilt behaviour.

There's no way I'm paying for a CM. If he can't give them the same standard of living that they have in my household, meaning being able to attend activities that they like then perhaps it's time he accepts that our arrangement doesn't work anymore.

I don't agree with that at all. Not being able or even not being willing to allow them all the activities they like doesn't mean he should have reduced contact with them.

Bogeyface, he's more of a dictator, he likes to be in control of everything & when you don't solve an issue how he wants it solved then he just acts all patronising & pissy, so bloody frustrating to deal with. I'll bring up mediation, as I don't want to go down the legal route, but honestly if they don't change anything & all he does is bother his DW then I'm inclined to stay quiet until anything actually happens.

HopeArden, he knows but it's tough luck because everyone has to share & sometimes you have to do things you don't like.

If she's the only one doing drop off's and pick ups then she will struggle, my DH has a lot of time off this summer, so he's splitting all the drop offs/pick ups with a CM, as DD & DS do clash at some points, I did highlight this & mention it twice to exH but he agreed without any questions or hesitation, so I assumed he was helping out or they'd got a CM for the summer as 5 kids with different schedules is impossible for one person to manage.