AIBU to keep maintenance for my DC and not put it in my "stepfamily" pot?

[iloveberries]

Ex left 4 yrs ago and has paid maintenance regularly and on time. I have always saved the maintenance as I work and don't need it to cover DC living expenses. My plan is to give to DC when older for deposit on house / uni / car unless I need it to support DC (eg. Redundancy / illness or similar)

Been with DP 2 yrs and are currently buying a house together. We will both be putting our earnings into "our" pot. However I feel that I should continue to save the maintenance for my DC into his account for the future but DP thinks it should come into "our" pot as we are sharing all our other income.

I have 1 DC and he has 2. They live with their mum and he pays maintenance accordingly. We know she doesn't need it for their living expenses but obviously don't know whether she saves that for them.

We will have bedrooms for all children in our new house and have his children here a lot so we will both contribute to upkeep for his 2 and my 1.

We never argue about money but this maintenance has become an issue. AIBU to want to keep saving it for my DC?

You come off way better in the house situation, the only fair way to split it would be 50/50 less whatever you both put in for deposit

Or if she gets 60% in the event of a split, because she put up 60% of the deposit, then she should also be paying 60% of the mortgage and repairs/improvements.

The current arrangement really isn't fair if you get to keep saving for DS as you want to.

You suggested the ex 'frittered' the money away, so suggested he reduce payments?! Wowsers.

And NoMud...you have an awful attitude and seemingly no awareness of the cost of raising children. I hope you feel a sense of shame over the negative effect you have had on their relationship with their mother. £40k over however many years is nothing...do you genuinely think your husband shouldn't have been contributing to their day to day life? Or should the mother have picked up all of the costs? Which is effect what you are suggesting.

It's really quite complicated but if you split expenses after his maintenance then you are subbing his kids already on top of making a family home for them to come to.

In my mind your maintenance is for your son and should be spent or saved as you wish and disregarded from the household just like your current dp maintenance payments are.

If you both can look at your finances and agree savings for all dc that would be a great way to go but your ds savings up until this point shouldn't be compromised as it's not his fault that other children have come into the mix, so he will always have more but that is fair as he was there first iyswim.

From what your dp proposes he will gain more when you already make sacrifices to do what you have been doing..

Compromise has to reached and not all on your side and I can see this becoming really unfair if and when you reduce your own income.

I don't get cm or support but when I had a dp with no children I disregarded cb from joint income that we split down the middle as I provided for my child solely out of our equally split spends. When he realised he got shot down pretty quick about it.

Dp's ex has had her maintenance reduced because he is living with you and your child, how is that fair?

frikadel - the house situation was what a solicitor advised we do. If someone invests 60% of the capital they get 60% of the benefit.

Re: maintenance, DP's ex has been receiving a large chunk on maintenance each month and got most of the assets in the divorce so (assuming she hasn't taken out extra loans) is pretty much mortgage free. She also earns around £60k. Her income is none of our business but as people point out maintenance is for raising the child. His maintenance would more than cover all her mortgage, bills with plenty left over. He has been concerned as the children are frequently in ripped clothes, battered old shoes with holes in and he was concerned the kids weren't being supported. I've pointed out maybe she saves for them however she has told DP she doesn't have spare money. I don't think kids need brand new everything but ripped uniform isn't on IMO. FWIW we have bought them each 5 sets of brand new uniform each year as ex was saying how expensive it was and she couldn't replace it every time it got damaged.
So - DP has been worried that the kids aren't getting what they need.
When we moved in together we were both aware that he could reduce payments and still be within law and the guided amount. So he did that. He saves the difference for the children so we know they will get it.

Likewise when my ex decided to drop his hours (not for childcare just to pursue a hobby) he dropped his maintenance accordingly.

tallpoppies - I agree that that part of the system isn't necessarily fair but we are using it to the children's advantage in our opinion

His children I mean...

If I were paying maintenance for a non-resident child, I would expect the money to be used for that child, not to go into the general family pot with my ex's new partner and their kids and step-kids.

If I did not need the maintenance on a day to day basis, I would save it for the child's uni fees etc.

If that means that one child is better off than the others, that is what happens when you have blended families with different parents with different earning power.

My one caveat would be that while you are on maternity leave and not earning, you need to use the maintenance for your child because you can't use income as you won't have any (or not (as) much). But presumably that will be a year at most and then you'll be returning to work?

For the posters who are saying we should save the same amount for all the children?

Do you not think then it becomes a bit unfair on "my" children who are penalised with less of a pot just because their stepsiblings mum is a spender and I am a saver?

I go without stuff for my children's benefit. If their mum doesn't want to do that then that's a shame for them but I don't see why I should then have to go without more just so we can give everyone "equal"

So naturally me & DH really wanted for the children's sake for their mother to save the maintainence payments

Wow, just wow! Why on earth would you expect their mother to save maintenance payments for their future? It was paid to go toward their current living expenses. Presumably this reduced the amount the mother had to pay for their living expenses, and what she then did with that extra money was up to her. If she wants to spend her extra money on fancy cars, holidays for the whole family etc, then that's up to her. But maintenance should have been put towards day to day living expenses for your DSC.

*But she didn't save the money ... It just got put into the family pot. sad my DSC were oblivious to this... Fast forward to them now being 21& 22 and both children have gone from having good relationships with their mum , to having very poor relationships with her.

They feel very resentful that their stepfathers son has benefitted from money that could have been saved for their future in the absence of it being needed for bills*

You say that the DSC were oblivious as to how the money got spent. But now they are resentful over the situation? Was it you and your DH that told them what had happened to the money. Did you explain that maintenance was paid for their living expenses. Or did you tell them that their mother should have saved it? Did your DH save any for them? Or did he expect that only their mother should?

£40,000 berry of years of maintainence I would have loved to have seen them benefit from it

They did benefit from it. House, electricity, food, clothes, presumably sports or clubs, uniforms, may be holidays, driving lessons, shoes, phones, computers, sky tv etc. All usual costs of bringing up children.

I would just concentrate on your own children. If I moved a man in here no way would he get a single penny of any of my house equity - that will 100% go to the children when I die and hopefully before I die so there is no inhertiance tax paid. Do what you can to help your own child and your forthcoming new baby.

It is a very interesting thread however and I am not at the stage where if I remarried I would have more children so it would be much less complex for me. I would if I had a new baby - very unlikely as am virtually at menopause - want that baby to inherit the same as the older children and have the same private schools and university fees/costs paid as I have managed for the others. I would not feel the same obligation to a step chidl.

On holes in clothes though we all differ. 5 sets of new uniform a year ! Wow. Does anyone do that? The rest of us even at private schools might find a second hand blazer at the school sale and pass it down between the children. Also on holes older teenagers can sew their own holes. My son has a hole in his shoe at the moment and has for a year. He refuses to order some more and I can't be bothered although I am happy to pay. His twin has a new suit and shoes without holes. it is entirely their own choice. I very much admire my teenager who has no interest in appearances . I think that's a wonderful attitude. The teenager who can wear clothes with holes and feel wonderful is a great example to self conscious teenagers world wide. I salute him but nor did I refuse his twin's request to buy a new suit. SO don't assume a child in scruffy clothes is wrong or their parents are wrong. They may just be morally pure and not intersted in material things and well done for that.

My son has a hole in his shoe at the moment and has for a year.

And this doesn't bother you obviously.

You don't see it as your duty to provide replacement uniform for your children?

Having holes in your clothes and wearing them happily is nothing to be proud on.

It reflects on your attitude about more than clothes and if I interviewed a person with holes in their clothes and shoes, it would tell me they haven't made an effort and I wouldn't employ them.

No prospective employer would share your view and I can't understand why you think it's okay. FWIW kids with tatty uniform would be reported as a safeguarding concern in the school my DC attend and they have been.

People are suggesting all these "fair" IMO they are very unfair on the OP and her son scenarios based on the notion that we are here discussing a "blended family". We are not. There are no step children here. We are talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend of relatively short terms who both already have children and are having a child together. This changes the way the OP needs to approach things.

I go without stuff for my children's benefit. If their mum doesn't want to do that then that's a shame for them but I don't see why I should then have to go without more just so we can give everyone "equal"

Couldn't agree more on this comment.

Why should you sacrifice things for your partner's kids when they have fit and able parents earning a decent wage, who should save for their children's future from their own money.

Ginger

TBH, Even if they were married my view would be the same. That they aren't married makes his proposal even more ludicrous.

SandyY2k

I agree with you I just wanted to highlight that people seem to be suggesting scenarios based on this being a couple who have been living together for decades aiding each other's children since they were babies- when obviously it is not even close to that. The children have no obligation to each other, you as a parent OP have an obligation to your child.

OP have you spoken to your partner since getting advice on here? What do you want to do?

I would employ someone with holes in his shoes if he was good at his job.

One of the smartest, hardest working people I know doesn't care about his appearance in that way.

I detest the idea that people who aren't interested in theircappearance are morally deficient.

berries

Why do you see it as the Mum's responsibility to save for the children?

Why shouldn't your DP save for his children?

If you do as I suggested and agree on what are shared expenses and pay them out of a joint account, you can each do what you want with what you have left over.

I only suggested the savings coming out of the joint account (and he could put in a bit more to cover him having 2.5 kids against your 1.5 kids) so that you can later give ALL the children some savings (or pay for cars or whatever) as if you are still together in 15 years time it would (for me anyway) be upsetting yo have to say to the D.SC. 'Sorry, we didn't save anything for you. Your Dad chose more expensive cars instead'.

It doesn't mean you can save more out if what you have left over for 'your kids'.

I actually think the fundamental problem here is that he is seeing you as a family of 5, soon to be 6 & you are seeing it as 'your kids' & 'his kids'. Neither of you are wrong, just different in your outlook - but it will cause problems if you can't be honest with each other about that. I think it's a bit early on in your relationship to be as 'blended' as he wants you to be, hence having a joint account for most things, but each keeping the surplus to do as you wish with.

She quite clearly wants BOTH her stepchildren's parents tonsave for them.

She just doesn't see why she or her children should have to make sacrifices so those savings can be made.

Because that is exploitative.

I don't think this bloke sees them as a "family of 5".

If he did, he wouldn't be ruling the money he earns and pays in maintenance out of the joint pot.

I think he just sees a child with more money put by for him than his children have and wants a piece of it.

I think when you go part time it should be put in the family pot.

I know you will be doing your job caring for the baby and I do think that's equal to his job but your family will take a hit on finances. So think you should add it to family pot.

How long will you be part time?

To all the judgmental posters - you have absolutely no idea about the living arrangements & financial arrangements of my DSC .

No we did not tell them about the money - the children asked their mother.

I'm not here to justify myself but just to say that the money was diverted away from my DSC into a family pot.

They do not have a bad attitude - and I have every knowledge of the finances involved raising children as I have 2 myself.

Don't go part time.

Not while you are living unmarried with an exploitative man.

You have looked after your son independently all his life.

Reducing your earning power will affect him and you in negative ways, while your free labour will benefit your partner and his children.

I'm not here to justify myself but just to say that the money was diverted away from my DSC into a family pot.

The family pot which presumably paid for housing, food, clothes, electric, water, TV etc etc... All the thinga required to raise children .

I think some people are missing the point of what maintenance is for. It is to maintain a child's life following a parents split.

Whether the additional money you are able to save comes from maintenance or not, your DP is effectively asking you to contribute more to the family pot so that he can save it for his children. Totally not on IMO.

I'm in a different situ, no DCs, one DSC, I am the higher earner. I pay c70% of household expenses, OH pays 30% - this is based on our net income post our own costs - for him CM and pension contributions, for me pension contributions and a season ticket loan. This does mean that I still have more disposable income, some gets saved, but a lot is spent on nice stuff for both of us - nights out, holidays etc, so we both have the same standard of living overall. The amount I save is mine, from my disposable income, to do with as I wish - if I had a DC of my own, I would no doubt be saving for my DC, as it is it's just rainy day savings. OH doesn't, as far as I know, save for his DC. If he wanted to do so, I would expect him to do it out of his disposable income after the share that we had calculated was fair had been put into the pot, not for me to have to put more in so that he could save for his DC! IMO I think the same principle should apply here. But then I am quite hard hearted about this kind of stuff.....

I know 5 sets of uniform is ridiculous.
They would come to us in "home" clothes on a Friday night and we would send them in school uniform on a Monday morning to school but would never get any back. Then when DP would ask for some back we would get a barrage of shit... So we just bought a load to make life easier and so the kids were never without school uniform