Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dsc, new baby and maintenance

783 replies

Gildolann · 22/05/2017 22:52

NC for this just in case!
DH has 2 dc, dss 15 and dsd 12. He currently pays cm to his ex wife.
I am 26 weeks pregnant and DH has been made redundant, so we have decided that I will go back to work full time and DH will be a SAHD, all going well with the birth, my post natal health etc etc.
DH ex wife has gone absolutely mental when she found this out, texting DH that i will still have to give her money every month. Saying her dc are more important than our unborn dc and how I will probably miscarriage again anyway and now I don't want to give her anything. I was going to continue the maintainance arrangement as normal but she has fucked that.

OP posts:
mrssapphirebright · 24/05/2017 13:49

'If she wants dp home for their child she has to take over financial responsibility of his other children.
Or do you think the OP should control everything and have it all her own way fuck the non bio kids?'

Its her dp that is saying fuck you to his dc from his first marriage. She has no responsibility to her dc whatsoever.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 24/05/2017 13:54

He has choices though. he is choosing to support his new partner and child over his ex and their dc. HIS CHOICE. Not the OP's problem

Oh bullshit, as if all choices are separate. They are a married couple, she is the childrens stepmother. She accepted responsibility to them when she married her father.

Underthemoonlight · 24/05/2017 13:54

Op. at the end of the day legally you don't have to pay maintenance but morally if you are making the conscious decision for your dh to be a sahm then you should be paying for the up keep of his existing children he has a finiacial responsibility to do so. I'm a sahm my DH works and he supports my eldest DS who is his step child without question.

Maintenance should not come with conditions of behaviour it there to provide the necessary items, clothing food etc. I personally think there's a hidden agenda and you both decided this in order to opt out of paying maintenance and the ex has reacted and said some awful things. The fact of the matter on the basis that your unwilling to support his DC he needs to return to employment. It's cases that this if a couple are married and a unit and step parent is the bread winner then maintenance should be automatically taken into consideration from the step parent.

My ex was made redundant and informed me he was stopping maintenance. When I told him my DH was also out of work and me on mat leave he found a way to pay the money so our DS was still looked after. I don't know where or who gave him the money maybe his DW but that didn't matter because he ensured I got it. If you were going to continue to pay maintenance why did you tell her about the change?

FlossyMooToo · 24/05/2017 14:01

He has choices though. he is choosing to support his new partner and child over his ex and their dc. HIS CHOICE. Not the OP's problem.

Dont you think it is a vile act by the OP to make him choose which child comes firs
Because that is exactly what is going on.

GaelicSiog · 24/05/2017 14:04

My ex was gone before I had DD. He denied she was his for two years until OW decided she wanted to play happy families. Now she's got too many kids of her own and is bored of DD and pulls this shit constantly. She does not see that she will be treated the same by him when he leaves.

Open your eyes, OP.

Spice22 · 24/05/2017 14:06

But why only 2 hours childcare? She can work longer shifts knowing that her children are taken care of.

At the end of the day I can only say what I would do in the OPs position (it's her side of the story that we have). I would put my children first. If my DH staying home was best for my children and my family then that's what I'd ask him to do. If he agreed then that's good for me and my family. If he refused, I'd have to accept that. If the children were to be in poverty and I could help, then I would, but I would not be obliged to.

Also, stitch I was talking about someone who is temporarily unemployed, not a SAHP (who is unemployed but still contributing to the household). It's not financially abusive if both partners have agreed and are happy with the arrangement.

peachgreen · 24/05/2017 14:10

@mrssapphirebright I'm a second wife and I think OP is behaving abominably, as is her DH. They should both be ashamed of themselves, as should the people on this thread advocating that OP willingly see her stepchildren go without.

I can quite understand why OP wouldn't want to give any of her personal income to ExW, given what she said. But that's not what anyone's suggesting. We're saying that she and her DH should be allocating the requisite portion of their joint household income - because yes, if there's a SAHP, the other partner's income becomes joint income - to continue paying to support HIS CHILDREN.

Not to do so may be legal but it is morally abhorrent. Children should not be punished for the actions of their parents.

Lottie991 · 24/05/2017 14:11

Totally agree Gaelicsiog, I never understand why these women think these type of men won't do the same to their kids?
Men like that have no real care, My husband wouldn't ever stop paying maintenance because he takes responsibility for his child, Its comforting to know that if we were to ever split up he wouldnt abandon his responsibilities in favour of a new baby or partner.

Fliptophead · 24/05/2017 14:12

What if the ex decided to not feed or clothe her children to punish your husband. Would that be ok?

FlossyMooToo · 24/05/2017 14:12

But why only 2 hours childcare? She can work longer shifts knowing that her children are taken care of.

Are you seriously saying the ex who is resident parent should work longer hours just because dad wants to stay at home all day with his new child and shierk his responsibilities towards his other DC?

Spice are you the OPs DP?

You really are deluded.

peachgreen · 24/05/2017 14:12

Also I cannot imagine on what planet someone would be willing to marry and procreate with a person who is quite happy to ditch his financial obligation to his children so easily. If my DH even suggested such a thing I would be horrified.

Fliptophead · 24/05/2017 14:14

anyone who sees children as a means of fucking over an adult doesn't deserve kids.

Fliptophead · 24/05/2017 14:17

I really wonder why anyone who thinks financially abusing children is ok should be allowed to keep their other children. Any other kind of abuse op and you'd lose your baby. The domestic violence laws have adapted to include emotional abuse you better hope child abuse doesn't catch up

mrssapphirebright · 24/05/2017 14:19

For all we know OP does not fill the stepmother role. She may barely see the dc. Do we even know her and dp are married?

i am not defending Op's dp, just OP's views about not wanting to pay maintenance under the circumstances.

Why is the OP being slated for forcing her dp to give up work and not pay for his dc? We don't know this is the case.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 24/05/2017 14:20

For all we know OP does not fill the stepmother role. She may barely see the dc. Do we even know her and dp are married?

Maybe you could RTFT and find out all of that?

mrssapphirebright · 24/05/2017 14:28

I did read the first thread, ok, so she calls dp her dh, so we can presume they are married. We don't know how often her dp sees the dc or how often she sees them or what her relationship with them is like. Apologies if i have missed this info.

My point still stands, its his responsibility, not hers. i can see why he is being slated, but not OP.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 24/05/2017 14:30

Then I feel v sad for you that you can't see the problem. And hope you don't have any stepchildren. Or your children have a step parent.

Spice22 · 24/05/2017 14:36

But Flossy being a SAHP is a contribution too and therefore isn't shirking responsibilities(assuming his existing children live near enough) but rather enables him to look after ALL his children. The mothers will both have to work longer to financially provide for their children. So, both mothers are working more and all children are looked after dad.

Alternatively, as a PP said - care could be shared 50/50 so no maintenance has to be paid. Problem solved.

R2G · 24/05/2017 14:39

He should get a part time job and support his existing children. She shouldn't have said the miscarriage statement. I would agree with her (badly made) point that those children were here first and so any decisions their dad makes like having another baby should take that into account.

FlossyMooToo · 24/05/2017 14:43

But Flossy being a SAHP is a contribution too and therefore isn't shirking responsibilities(assuming his existing children live near enough) but rather enables him to look after ALL his children

Two of those children do not live with him and 1 of them does not require childcare at 15 yo.
Will dad be going round to mums and cleaning the house, doing laundry, cooking everyday while the ex is out working longer hours to make up for the fact he has stopped paying for his children ?

No he will be doing all those things for new wife in their home so what is this sahd actually contributing to his childrens daily life?

witsender · 24/05/2017 14:45

fatdogs I'm pretty horrified at your idea of financial fairness. If a couple decide together that one partner will stay at home to.raise their child, that partner should have equal access to the money earned and what happens to it. Anything else is positively archaic.

We have done both in our house, each of us has been at home for a bit, we have both worked the same number of days, and now he works 4 days and I work 1. All the money goes in to one account, the only consideration is whether there is enough to pay for what needs to be paid for, regardless of who has earned it.

Fliptophead · 24/05/2017 14:47

But Flossy being a SAHP is a contribution too and therefore isn't shirking responsibilities(assuming his existing children live near enough) but rather enables him to look after ALL his children. The mothers will both have to work longer to financially provide for their children. So, both mothers are working more and all children are looked after by dad

Hey spice, start a thread saying you've decided to become a sahp to a 12 and 15 year old but your dh is being an ass and not letting you.

See how many people think it's appropriate. He is making a zero contribution to his children's lives.

GaelicSiog · 24/05/2017 14:53

I think some of the OP fans on here are forgetting that the mother does actually have a right to see her own children. There's a balance, yes, but the mother shouldn't be working all hours so the father can be SAH with his new family.

GaelicSiog · 24/05/2017 14:54

You're assuming the kids want to spend more time with their dad. Mine sure as hell wouldn't. And yes, she's said that, that's not me projecting.

neonrainbow · 24/05/2017 14:55

Why not gaelic? She's obligated to support her own children too. No reason not to work with 12 and 15 year olds.