Am I being the evil EX here?

[OneTreeHill]

Name changed as this is very identifying.

XH and I split 11 years ago, both remarried, both have other children but we have a DD (14) together.

We haven't spoken face to face in years not because we hate each other but because we just don't have to. So decent but kind of cold relationship, we're like 2 strangers raising a child together.

XH pays the minimum CM that he has to pay, which is £170 a month for DD and has been doing so for years, although actually getting the payment was such a hassle. He hasn't missed a single payment since he started paying about 8 years ago.

This Christmas DD is all set to go away on a ski holiday with the school, the cost was around £700 pounds, XH has another DD with his wife who has just decided that she wants to go away on a geography trip with her school over February Half Term, the deadline for full payment is Mid October.

XH emailed this afternoon saying what a wonderful experience this would be for his DD2 and that they currently can't afford to send her as he's paying me £170 a month, so would I forgo payments for 2 months so that like her older sister, his DD2 can go on a school trip as well.

First of all, he's not paying me £170 a month, it's for his daughter and secondly what??

To me it reads as if he wants to stop financially supporting his eldest for 2 months, so his other child can go on a trip?

I know some of you will say it's only 2 months but that £170 is DDs travel money, after school activities, weekend spending, a small portion goes into her savings.

But as he's written it, if I say no, his DD2 misses out? Surely that's not my problem or Am I just being unreasonable

It looks like its 13.2% for first DD given he has 2nd DD. Screenshot it from cab website. You can ask for a variation if it looks like XP is making excessive pension payments kittybiscuits as a way of reducing child maintanence, and he's not near retirement age. And it says gross income. But feel free to read it more & correct me, my CM is court ordered so I haven't kept up with CSA rules.

Thanks Where. He managed to only pay 10% last year for 2 DCs. Now they've caught up with his full income and it's supposed to go up, he's pulled the pension stunt. CMS won't tell me how much of his income he is allowed to put in his pension before they will consider a variation. And he's told my daughter who's going to university that he can only give her financial support by the amount that the maintenance goes down. Sorry for hijack. Even though he's played the system, it's worth it not to have to deal with him. If he won't support my DD at uni at least she will know how much he earns and that he'said not living in poverty.

I am guessing- given the time of year, that his daughter's school would have put out the forms for this trip sometime in the last academic year. So why is he asking now? If she has just decided to go then he needs to say tough, wait until the next one we can't save up in time. If they had said yes months ago he should have been saving and DD2 or he and his wife should have found ways to fund it.
He isn't even being fair because he hasn't paid for the trip that he is trying to use as leverage in flaking on his child support payments to pay for another trip.
I think it is a given that his maintenance shouldn't be the luxury spend that goes out the window so his daughter can go on a trip.

The idea posted on here that her friend's kids are being supported by 2 people and their NRPs contribution- is pickled poop.
He owes the children that money, it is his stakehold in their childhood, his way of showing they matter even when they are not with him physically he still wants to contribute in their lives because he is their dad. Just because they are lucky to have a step parent who is able and happy to pay for them to do extras it doesn't mean their dad shouldn't be supporting the basics.

YANBU! At all!

He's effectively asking your DD to pay for her sister to go on a school trip. Is he prepared for her not to be able to do her clubs, etc in order for the geography trip to go ahead? Ridiculous and unfair. If he was offering to pay it back, then I would consider thinking about it if I could afford it for a couple of months, but if not - hell no.

No, its not on. He pays for her food, upkeep, clothes etc because its a fundamental principle that fathers pay towards the costs of bringing up a child for whom they are responsible. Those costs don't go away for two months so cannot be waivered. He's not being generous by paying, its what he should do as a responsible parent who has brought a child into the world.

IMO he should also be making a contribution to other exceptional items - eg. 50% of the school trip for your daughter (though I've never insisted on that with my ex - but he pays for other things like mobile phone contracts). He also shares the cost of birthday parties and buys other items from time to time. But thats what our settlement said as part of the divorce.

Its pretax though so I think I end up with 40% of what he gets if that makes sense

I do understand Are's argument, DD has 3 adults financially contributing to her life, whilst her DSis has technically less then 2 adult wages as although it's a small amount XH does still pay for things in DD's life.

OP it is your current OH's choice, rather than obligation to support your DD because she has a living, earning father. Even if your DD had someone paying one million pounds a week for her upkeep it does not absolve her father of the pitiful maintenance that he pays.

I stopped having children when I knew that financially/emotionally I would not be able to give any subsequent children the opportunities that my dc1 had. I think most people do that? I'm not sure why when people start second families it suddenly becomes unfair?

But surely your DD is older than her half sister? So why can't the Dad just tell his younger digger she can go on a trip when she is the same age.

That's what most families do anyway. The children don't all go on the school trips in the same year, they go when they are in year 10 or year 12. So it's fair as they are the same age when they go but you're not paying all at once.

Two things:

The OP and her ex have been separated for eleven years but child support has only been received for the last eight. One could infer from this that the ex was unwilling to contribute towards the expense of raising his daughter and had to be dragged kicking and screaming via the CMS.

That the OP's ex and his latest part-time-working wife are such poor money-managers that they don't even have £350 in savings between them. So it's obviously got to come directly from his ex's budget.

He's got a bloody cheek and I'm glad the OP has told him to bugger off much more politely than I would have. The fucker still owes three year's worth of child-support for goodness sake! Has he no self-respect? Patently not.

These threads always make my blood boil as I was the older child who the Dad stopped supporting as he went on to have other children 'who needed things'.....I have so little sympathy for people like my Dad who already had 4 children between him and his new wife but went on to have 2 more children who they could only support by both not paying a penny towards their 4 existing children.

I would be be telling him you're getting the maintenance amount reviewed.

The speed donor who made me went to court to get the maintenance for me reduced. It had been set at £2-£2.50.. This was 1972.

Bloody hell, how can he begrudge his dd £170 per month. Glad you have said no!

I WOULDN'T be telling him..

They have both since remarried and had more children. The people who are most missing out are his new wife and their child. His first children live the high life, activities, holidays etc because they have 2 people fully supporting them plus his maintenance. Their child has 2 people supporting them minus the maintenance. The maintenance payments are what would have been his new families disposable income, no holidays or activities for her. I can see the unfairness of it, and understand why he asked the question.

Sorry, but that's nonsensical sophistry.

If we all agree - and I am sure we do all agree - that £170 does not provide half of a teenager's needs for a month, then the child being subsidised is the father's younger daughter. He is not paying his true share of the expenses for his eldest or anything close to them; the stepfather is therefore subsidising not only his stepchild's lifestyle, but her father's new family, accordingly.

The mother and her husband are not just spending disposable income on their daughter, but all major bills need to factor her needs in, too: rent/mortgage, utilities, transport, clothing, phone, internet... everything. And then disposable spending on top. Their doing so enables her ex and his new family to spend as little as £170 on a child who, if resident, would cost multiples of that.

The first wife and her new partner are shouldering the father's responsibilities in financial terms towards his first child(ren), freeing up money for his second family to spend. The subsidy exists, but it's flowing in the opposite direction.

arethereanyleftatall - but your friend and his wife knew their financial circumstances when they chose to have a child, no? They knew that they wouldn't be able to afford the same things for their child as his children from a previous marriage had, and they decided to still go ahead and have a child. They have no right to ask anyone else to fund that.

Would you feel the same if it wasn't half-siblings but cousins or neighbours or friends? Am I OK to ask my richer friend to not feed one of her children for a week so that she can pay for my child to got to DisneyWorld like hers did? After all my child is missing out and is upset by it...

Agree he is very cheeky to ask, good on you for saying NO.

Plus, what age is her sister? If you split 11 years ago and DD is 14, then unless she was conceived during your time together (not impossible of course), then she is only 10?

Agree she should wait until the equivalent time to go (if they can afford it). Regardless of her age etc, they need to budget and save like you did to pay for it.