To say no to paying DH maintenance bill.

[ivechangedmyusername]

Name changed but been here since before Mexican House thief and the small Korean lady in the Garden ..

DH has 4 dcs. (2 over 18 who now live with us/at Uni
I have 3. (2 over 18)

He paid £1500 a month in CM for 6yrs (as this covered the mortgage and was the divorce agreement. CMS was £918 so more than the minimum by quite a way. ) when ex remarried house was sold and ex retained 80% of the equity in exchange for no pension sharing. (Her share of the equity was £318k). She moved into her new (similarly wealthy , childless, ) husbands house. No mortgage. We know this because she tried (and failed) to move overseas with the dcs and part of the court process was full disclosure of their joint financial situation to prove they could afford to support the move.

My DH has been quite unwell mentally. He suffered from quite extreme stress from his job which whilst highly paid is equally highly stressful and performance based. We have evaluated our lives and decided that we would rather earn less and live longer - and have some more time for each other now the kids are older. He has taken unpaid leave from work which means he hasn't sought a new contract. He hasn't earned for 2 months whilst very unwell and has now decided to retrain in a completely different craft based field that will pay a quarter of what we he was previously earning.

Now to the AIBU . DH has emailed (the only way they can communicate even after a decade without a full scale screaming row. ) and told his ex what is happening and that CM will reduce in August to £325 per month. She has said that this is unacceptable and that his children 'still exist' and he needs to pay for them. He has told her that this is how it is going to be and that his maintenance payments should have reduced years ago when the eldest got to 18 but he didn't do that because he could afford not to. Now he needs to look after his health and this is what he can afford. CMS rate.
I have received an email from her today, the first time in a decade that she has spoken to me, telling me ;
' as you and my ex-husband have made a joint decision on this lifestyle choice, I think it only morally right that I look to you to make up the shortfall in maintenance.'. It is not my children's fault that their father is having some kind of midlife crisis and wants to go and commune with nature. He has children , they are not an optional financial obligation'. As you are supporting this plan, then it is only fair that you pay the shortfall in my children's finances in order to keep them in the lifestyle they are used to'.

For full disclosure, ex wife has not worked since eldest was born. (22yrs ago).
I have worked full time in a profession since 22 and only had a 3 month break after my first and 6 months for both subsequent babies.
My ex and I get on really well and he also pays me £500 pm in CMS for my only child now at home.
Husbands new job will not have a massive impact on our lifestyle except for the better (more time at home) .
AIBU so say no, I'm not paying what you perceive to be a shortfall and sod off and get a job. ?

Sorry I missed that point about the childrens' ages. So she will have her maintenance reduced/removed 4 years' earlier than she anticipated. She is a fool not to have a contingency plan for this - that's clear.

But nannies don't work 24/7. Realistically, how many women with four children (fairly close in age) and a high earning husband are out there forging a career. There are so many SAHMs on MN who would be up in arms at being accused of living off their husband.

It wouldn't be my choice to SAH and lose my financial independence. But plenty of families do choose that set up. Nanny or no nanny, I would hazard a guess that the DH in this family would not have wanted his wife to work and potentially leave him with some childcare responsibilities.

She is a lazy bitch; she's had ample time and opportunity to start supporting herself (which 99% of people don't get) but feels that working is beneath her. She'd rather have her ex-H damage his health to pay for her luxurious lifestyle and, failing that, his current wife. Has she no shame? What a pathetic excuse for a human. If she was my mother I'd be so embarrassed and disgusted as to not want anything to do with her.

Unfortunately there are lazy entitled women out there; this exW is not alone.
And I doubt that she provided very much support to her exH while he was in his highly-paid job beyond endless emotional abuse.
Which I've seen too.

So the ex-wife is a lazy bitch, a pathetic excuse for a human, and guilty of emotional abuse. All based on the information provided in a few posts by the DHs new wife.

Well if you think the OP is blatantly lying then there’s no point in this discussion

Assuming op is not lying: the ex husband was clearly willing to pay for childcare and it’s absolutely possible to get back to work, the youngest is already 14 so there were years she could have had started a career.

Not all women are justified in getting years of maintenance, it’s not the same in every case. The ex husband has been overpaying for years. I doubt he’s going to ask for that money back. This woman doesn’t want to work, it’s not that she never could.

Has the OP suggested in her posts that her DH was emotionally abused by his ex-wife?

No-one is saying that all women are justified in getting years of maintenance.

I just thought it was an interesting point as to whether men who have made a decision to have a big family and to support a SAHP (in order to facilitate their career) should have some long-term responsibility towards that partner in the event of separation. Also whether that woman is then entitled to a similar standard of living as the ex-husband after divorce.

As far as I can see the ex-wife has had £318K in lieu of a pension, maintenance for 6 years and a nanny. On the face of it this seems fair, but we don't know the extent of how much the husband earns, so calling her a greedy bitch, seems a bit uncalled for.

I am in complete agreement that she should have planned for this eventually and got back into work.

Yes I agree that there’s no need for the name calling. However, she was quite unreasonable to expect the gravy train to last forever and should really have saved for that rainy day. Contacting the new wife to make up the difference is beyond the pale!

I agree with stretchoutandwait - I think there is another side to this story.

My view is simply that, at a point in time, the OP's DH chose to have four children. Children are a blessing imo but a decision to have a large family is always going to have far-reaching consequences, one of which is probably that you are going to have to keep working far longer than you would like.

I do feel for the DH as stress is horrible and his health does not sound good, but I don't think that the ex-wife's position is totally unreasonable either. He is downsizing quite dramatically to a 'craft' role that has also been described as a hobby - wood turning? Blacksmithing? I am reminded of all the posts on MN where women are despairing of their DH's life as an artist/musician/self-employed cabbage sculptor. Whereas perhaps he could have planned for this and transitioned in a more measured way to a lower-key role - until his children were grown up.

Yes, she had a nanny, but it may have just been a pt nanny - not a full time nanny setup. 18 years ago the rules around flexible working were more rigid, childcare was more scarce and, with 4 children, it would have been a rare job that was 'worth it'.

Everyone has to take personal responsibility.

Death, redundancy, separations happens.

Her kids are older and she has a wealthy husband. She has had, and still has more opportunities, than a lot of women get.

I get piss all from my ex, so I work, to do what he doesnt. I was a SAHM since she was born, then a single mother when he left. I work to give my DD atleast the basics. So I took that responsibility.

Jesus Christ, some of these responses beggar belief. 'Yes she had a nanny, but maybe not full time'?! That she had a nanny at all...and even without, the youngest kids are teenagers so she's had over a decade to get her bone-idle arse into gear.

Unless the OP has missed out some critical info, she is a complete piss-taker and there are no acceptable reasons for her behaviour. No excuses, she's just a pitiful example of an adult and a mother. Nothing else to do with herself than take care of her own children and she couldn't even do that.
Absolutely beneath contempt.

Oh and the people speculating about there being another side to the story, perhaps there is yes. Perhaps the OPs husband didn't set out to have 4 children but was railroaded into it by the exW? Perhaps he encouraged her to cultivate a career for herself but she refused? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.... ad nauseaum

The OP has already remarked that she jacked her first husband in at the prospect of another, higher value meal ticket. She is a classic gold digger and abject loser.

@DeltaG it’s your comments that beggar belief. How can you be so vicious about someone you don’t know and whose side of the story you havent heard. Is this thread touching a raw nerve or something?

We have all agreed that of course the OP should not pay anything and that the DH is perfectly within his rights to reduce his maintenance now.

I just hate the personal attacks on a woman when we don’t know the full story one way or another.

@DeltaG totally agree, some of the replies on this thread have made my jaw drop. I'm all for women not losing out through divorce but that clearly hasn't happened on this case.

And to those of you saying you don't have the luxury of being able to have a mental breakdown as you have children to support, I can assure you if you were going to have one your situation wouldn't make any difference

Stretchoutandwait

You never get both sides of the story, so you have to reply to what has been written by the OP. All websites like this it is only ever going to be the story OP lives with.

Just tell her you will have the kids to live with you...

Hmm.
Two points. Firstly she'd find it difficult to get a job if she hasn't worked in 22 years. Secondly isn't it household income that's assessed? I don't know. It's a genuine question.

moredoll no, CMS is based on the non resident parent's income only.

Secondly isn't it household income that's assessed?

No it’s just based on the income of person who is actually the parent.

I genuinely can't believe some people are siding with the EX as mentioned I bet if your dh added up all the over payments he would owe her a big fat £0. She is a massive piss taker and she should get done for back dated CM for the ones that live with op. Yes it's a massive pay cut from what she's used too but why should the ops dh pay massively over the odds to fund her lifestyle. She must be bloody loaded

I haven't seen anyone here side with the ex. I have said quite clearly that she needs to step up and get a job. In fact I feel quite strongly that in an ideal world no-one would be financially dependent on their DP.

I have just seen some quite unpleasant things written about the ex-wife, when we don't know the full story.

The OPs question has been answered. There is no need to refer to the ex-wife as a greedy bitch or less than human.

She has lived in as close to the 'ideal' world as possible and she still didn't get bother to get a job.

These kinds of women make me furious and undermine the rest of us, whether we WOH or SAH. It is hard enough to maintain a career for women with multiple small children. And staying at home to look after them is seen as inferior, 'women's work'. So whichever situation you're in, it's a battle to be recognised and valued in comparison to men.

I know it is hard to maintain a career with small children. I have been doing just that for nearly 10 years. I know that I am being undermined by women such as this ex-wife who enable men to pursue a successful career free from the responsibilities of childcare. I cannot compete in the workplace with men such as this.

But on this thread she is being portrayed a conniving little gold digger and the husband as the generous, supportive ex-husband who has been taken for a ride. In all likelihood this was a decision they made together and the long-term consequences for this decision should affect both parties.

I'm sure OP's husband didn't make the decision for his ex to have an affair and leave him when she had a better meal ticket lined up.

She certainly is a gold digger.