New Stepmum being pushy over kids

[HuneyBee74]

I am divorced with two lovely children and have a very good relationship with my ex.

He has the children EOW and one evening a week, this has always been the arrangement since we split 5 years ago.

The kids come back to me on Sunday evenings when it is his weekend. This has always been the case as 1. I think it better for them to get back into their routine before the new week and 2. their Dad often has a very early start on Mondays. He travels a lot for work and often takes a Monday morning flight or has to catch an early train.

He recently got married, and his new wife doesn't yet have kids of her own. I have found her pushy in the past regarding the children.

Ex-husband last weekend raised the possibility of him keeping the children on the Sunday nights when it is his weekend, and taking them to school on the Monday.

We talked about it ,and when I pointed out that he often isn't there, he suggested step-mum can get the kids up and do breakfast / school run.

I don't want this. I was happy to talk about him having the kids when he can take them to school on the Monday, but said that when he can't be there that the children should come back to me on Sunday, as we have always done.

I'm their mum and I WANT to do that for them, get them up, give them breakfast and see them off. I feel that giving time that was mine to their Dad so he can spend more time with them is one thing, but I don't want to give my time with my kids to step mum.

We agreed it last weekend - he said fine, he would bring kids back on Sundays when he has got to go off early. All was very amicable.

It's his weekend this weekend coming. I texted him to reiterate what we agreed re: Sundays and asked whether he was taking the kids to school on Monday or returning them to me on Sunday.

He has now come back and said that he won't be there first thing Monday as he is going to the States and step mum is going to do the school run! That she 'is their step mum now' and it is his decision! Not what we agreed!

We are now arguing about it (we never argue!) - and I know that this is coming from her - she is hugely controlling and wants to 'be important'.

As far as I am concerned he has reneged on our agreement to appease his new wife.

Other than turn up at their door on Sunday evening, what do I do?

The thing about being assessed by the CMS is how the NRP presents themself. It's fine if they are employed and it's all traceable via that source. In my case, my ex-h has a totally ostentatious lifestyle, has been able to start a lucrative business (new build, think countryside, horses), he can afford a tractor, lovely his & hers Landys etc. However, he earns the absolute bare arse minimum that OW "pays" him and by virtue of that our son receives the absolute bare arse minimum of maintenance. It's a fucking disgrace, it really is. What he gives me barely scrapes the barrel, I am a carer, my son is autistic. The whole system is wrong. Gingerbread published my blog because of it. I was threatened with being sued for "defamation and harassment" rather than their "shame and embarassment" which is actually what my exposure caused them. So it should have done. In my view, you support the children you have, you don't carry on having loads more you can't afford and expect the others to take the hit. It's not OK.

I don't quite know how this thread has descended to this. It is nothing to do with the OP's post and she has wisely stepped away. I think I'll do the same, it's just toxic.

Paying the bare minimum is a really vague phrase. The minimum for one person mught be hundreds more a week than the minimum for another. Why do some children deserve more than others? I dont like the way the system works.

People might pay the other parent their minimum for many reasons. They might provide a second home for them. Food, clothes, toys, days out. Its a valid argument to be honest.

Why is it toxic its only a discussion?

RobinR I get your pain- he only took them on holiday because he knew I had booked stuff and would bend over backwards to facilitate care so I cancelled and lost monies - to make matters work, he stopped his maintenance for the months involved to cover the cost of their holiday!!!

When the EX cuts the maintenance for what ever reason, the RP ends up subsidising the new family that has nothing to do with them - that is what gets most RPs anger flowing when it happens. I have subsidised my EX and his "new family" by feeding. clothing and developing the other members of his family.

As to feeding clothing and giving them space- someone read the stepmum forum, where long detailed arguments go on about the RP not providing enough clothes, no bedroom for the DSCs because the resident children get priority - ergo, sofa beds, mattresses on the floor, poor standards, bad manners, eating habits etc - these are not uncommon discussions.

I am not controlling my EX when I say my rules, my standards , my way - because that is what my DCs know and only that. That is what makes them feel safe secure and protected. As it is they are simple - no swearing,washing ,cleaning, please, thank you, tidy up etc etc- nothing major just goddamn basics.

Not everypne can afford a place with enough bedrooms though can they? It wouldn't make sense for a child to have a room which they use once eow, and a child who lives there full time to sleep on a sofa.

What are you supposed to do? Mortgage yourself up to the eyeballs?

Well in that case for me there should be a fixed minimum because that is what a child costs to feed clothe etc. I appreciate this is too simplistic to accommodate the benefit system but MrsC’s example above is a prime case of playing the system

My friend’s exP paid £5 a week despite owning half a dozen rental properties, he was another one with a nice 4wd. He should have been ashamed of himself

There can never be a minimum though can there. What happens if you unexpectedly lose your job or get sick?

There can never be a good system. Its impossible

It's not really a valid argument to say it is fine to pay the minimum if nrp is providing a second home. That only works if the care is 50/50 or very close to it. What about making sure the child has enough in their first home. If rp is struggling financially, it makes sense to help them because you are helping your child, which a decent parent would want to do.
I think that it's okay for kids to share bedrooms, but they should have one in the nrps house. If an nrp cannot adequately provide this, then they've no business expanding their family.
Obviously not everyone in life gets the same amount of money but as a parent you should put your children's needs above your own wants. So pay what you can truly pay, not the minimum you csn get away with.

Tax on earnings? Tax on profits? I agree it’s not ideal

Really it’s the attitude of avoidance that needs to change

Sorry HelloSquirrels, if you have a lifestyle that affords you £50K plus of cars, £100K on building a new business, £11K A TERM for OW's kid to go to public school, I could go on and on and on, you don't earn £250.00 a week. Valid argument? No I don't think so. He has no mortgage to worry about, no nothing. It's NOT OK, however, much you describe it as being "valid". WTAF?

Ultimately, it would be the children who suffer, so that you and their dad could maintain your 'right' to pop out babies you cannot afford unless at the expense of existing children.

By that logic every family would be a single child family. When we has DS2 the amount of money available for DS1 went down. Should we have stuck at one?

Just to put some perspective on this, me ex-husband is randomly able to afford to send our son a gift that is more than my monthly maintenance. It's a massive "middle finger" to me for daring to expect him to man up. He knows what he's doing and thinks he's hilarious. If anybody can find any way to justify this, then be my guest.

Your ex's wife is now a part of your children's family. You can't expect them to just spend time with their father, separately from his wife, because they it doesn't work that way.

Your ex's wife isn't trying to "be important". She's trying to be involved in your children's lives.

If your children's stepmother cares for them and wants to be more involved in their lives, you should be happy. It does't make you any less their mother. And it's not about you.

At what point did i say "right" mrs c? I said its a valid argument. Which it is, if the nrp are providing in other ways.

Also yes ideally everyone shpuld have a bedroom. Even without having more kids, not everyone can afford a big enough place. Ie if theyre still paying for the family home, or they simply dont earn enough to get a place bigger than a 1 bed flat.

Crab, if you having another child meant that you couldn't afford to meet the needs of the first, then yes you ought to have stuck to one.
You chose to do something that affected your household, but you don't or shouldn't have the right to make choices which affect someone else's.

No, HelloSquirrels, you said it was "valid". Yet you have totally avoided my entire post and the contents therein. He is not providing in any other way whatsoever, he chose to cut off our son because OW doesn't want him to have contact with me. Also, they had a brand new business to concentrate on. Now tell me that's OK or "valid".

You can't expect them to just spend time with their father, separately from his wife, because they it doesn't work that way

Uum yes it does. If their father is not at home and their mother wants to be with them then that's the way it should be. Did you miss the part where OP said the children said they want to come home if their dad's not at home?

Im not avoiding your post at all ive replied to it. Yes he is a shit father - i said it e
Was valid IF youre providing in other ways. Hes not so what i said doesn't apply to him

HelloSquirrels I can assure you that I am not alone. You say paying the bare minimum is a vague phrase, it is not. One look at the Gingerbread site alone shows you how many women like me are left in situations such as mine. The system stinks and those that suffer are those who least deserve to, ie : the children. There should be no "system" in place that can be so easily manipulated with absent fathers (or mothers) being able to laugh in your face and pretend they are being "great" parents at the same time because they can afford to lavish massive presents but see the day to day care of their children as a liability they are not responsible for.

MrsC I followed your threads for a while and fully agree that the way your EX and his partner have behaved (at every point and on every level) has been utterly disgraceful.

You’re right that the system is broken - it’s still far too easy for people, especially those who are self employed or revise their finances to be “employed” by their new partner to cheat the system. Frankly they don’t even have to be that bloody clever about it. It’s beyond infuriating - much more so because it’s so damn transparent.

How can anyone evaluate finances and see one partner paying £50 per week or similar to the RP whilst living in a house worth £££, driving £££ cars, taking £££ holidays and say because their “earnings” are low they pay naff all?

I totally understand the frustrations of RP’s in this situation. It’s a national disgrace.

All that said, we all come to this forum and post through the “lens” of our own experiences. It’s often one of the best things about MN - getting different perspectives.

On occasion - as with this thread, it can descend into some pretty nasty posts and that’s a shame.

Not every SM is evil. Not every RP is controlling. Not every NRP is a Disney Dad. Not every NRP tries to pay the minimum (though it is true than sadly many, predominantly men do), not every RP is an angel who always knows best.

My frustration with this thread have mainly been with posts upholding those assumptions and stereotypes (on both sides of the argument).

My own experience of a blended family is that mutual respect, give and take, good communication and most of all not making assumptions about motivation for xyz go a long way to creating a heathy environment for the the most important people in this equation - the children.

That said there are some people who are utterly incapable of the above and I suspect I’ve heard from a few on this thread.

DarthMaiden Nailed it. Totally. Also, thank you

Likewise MrsC

While your feelings are completely understandable, I think YABU.

Imagine if you remarried and were very happy with your new husband; would you want to turn the children over to your ex every time DH would be alone with them? No, you'd want the children and your new DH to bond and for you to be happy together as a real family unit, not as "mum and that guy she married." Now look at it from your exDH's point of view.

Your children are very, very lucky to have two parents who are friendly and get along and now a stepmum who really wants to be a part of their lives. It's rough on you, but it will be good, too, because you know that they're really wanted and taken care of when they're with your DH and his wife.

@AuntieBeast

The OP is happily remarried. She and her DH have a set up where they don’t look after each other’s children. Her DH doesn’t do school runs etc and vice versa wrt any solo step parenting according to her posts.

Late to this but what stood out to me was "she doesnt have kids of her own yet" which implies that agewise, it is still a possibility for her so they may well be trying.

What would worry me is if she does get pg that her inerest in being mummy to the OP's kids may well fall off a cliff and instead of "can we have them an extra night" it will be "We can only have them once a month/2 months....." seen it happen on here with second wives asking if TABU to ban the step kids until the new baby is a few months old.