Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to ask new husband to contribute to child related costs for children that are not his?

493 replies

Clockworkteacup · 03/09/2018 12:53

Just that really. Married last year. Four children now aged 8, 9, 11, 13 from first marriage. Ex husband pays too little maintenance - £100 per month as is self employed.

For context, we both earn good money, although he earns very good money at 50% more than me. I was able to support the children without him before with no tax credits etc but it was a struggle as was paying out a lot of childcare and big mortgage. But I was fortunate to be able to own our own home, pay the bills etc, even though not much left over. This isn't about being 'poor' and I recognise how lucky I am to be able to rely just on my own income.

AIBU to expect him to pay any of the child related costs? What do you think is a fair way to split the bills?

At the moment I am paying for half of what 'we' cost and all of what the children cost. So I pay around two thirds of our house related outgoings e.g. mortgage etc as need a house for five. I also then pay for all childcare (at £800 a month), all their clothes uniform, their lunches, trips, birthday presents and so on. He does split big costs like holidays and meals out 50-50.

This means I am ending up watching the pennies at the end of the month whilst he has around £2500 more than me after house stuff is paid. He drives a new car whilst I drive one that is 12 years old. I was triggered to write this by him complaining about not being able to afford something very expensive (and nice but certainly not a necessary cost) whilst I am worrying this month about the bills.

But they are not his children.

And their father evades paying much for them.

And we both saved about a similar amount by him moving in, in terms of housing costs (mortgage, utilities, council tax).

Backstory - I have major money issues through paying for everything for cocklodger ex husband and have a father who didn't work, and a brother who seems to live off high earning women so am skewed (and anxious) around men and money.

OP posts:
Nagsnovalballs · 04/09/2018 07:21

Goodness, I pay all the costs of my horses and that doesn’t leave me enough to share all the bills equally / cost of holidays - my DP picks up the tab. And he’s ‘just’ a DP and they are just horses!

This could so easily be sorted out by him paying more now (eg all the mortgage) and then ‘getting it back’ through inheriting the house, and then you will the lump sum to the DC.

BarnabyBungle · 04/09/2018 07:59

Also, incredulous that some people seem to think that:

Marriage = “sex on tap” Hmm

VanGoghsDog · 04/09/2018 08:02

I find it a bit odd that the OP thinks the DH would not support her if she was ill and unable to work, and that he currently does not see her needs as being important enough to contribute more, yet trusts him to allow her kids to keep living in the house when she dies. These stances are not compatible.

BarnabyBungle · 04/09/2018 08:08

And those who think people should contribute a % of their earnings.... Don’t you see how that undervalues caregiving responsibilities?

The person (and it’s usually he woman) who gives up, or puts on hold, a career, or goes part-time to care for their young family is financially disadvantaged by these arrangements, and her contribution clearly is being not valued as his! He will earn proportionately much more money, and he’ll have money for things she will never have, all because she was the one who took on caregiving responsibities!!

BarnabyBungle · 04/09/2018 08:12

yet trusts him to allow her kids to keep living in the house when she dies.

OP. At the very least you must get this bit of your Will sorted. He’s not involved enough to contribute a penny to your children, yet you ‘trust’ him to let them stay in the house should you go before him.

You’re prioritising your new DH over your children, leaving them potentially vulnerable. I’m sorry but that’s totally fucked up.

ImAIdoot · 04/09/2018 08:14

I find this situation odd.

You get married you become a family. Or you don't get married.

How would you get through the process of marrying to spend your lives together without discussing this matter?

PeridotCricket · 04/09/2018 08:19

So if this was a higher earning woman who moved in with a bloke with three kids you’d be telling her to pool her money. Don’t think so. So she should provide?

Get the will sorted though, I get 2/3 of husbands house and two years to buy out his kids. They get everything else.

Onedayy · 04/09/2018 08:20

Yes peridot exactly the same

RhiWrites · 04/09/2018 08:20

I agree with @BarnabyBungle who posted what I came to say.

The wills don’t protect your children, OP, they massively advantage your new husband. I’m amazed your lawyer agreed to this. Please say you had a lawyer.

Redo the wills, restart the conversation about money and rethink the marriage. Sorry. That’s an awful thing to say but I think you’ve got into a hideous tangle.

Kidssendingmenuts · 04/09/2018 08:26

Not a chance I would ask my other half to pay for childcare costs.
You need to find out your household monthly outgoings without the childcare costs in there and split that fairly 50/50 all childcare costs are separate and you should pay them. Sorry but that's how I think x

TwoOddSocks · 04/09/2018 08:32

Of course he was never responsible for your DC Until he decided to marry you! Surely by getting married he agreed to pool resources and be a team? Otherwise you're just housemates who sleep together!

BarnabyBungle · 04/09/2018 08:37

So if this was a higher earning woman who moved in with a bloke with three kids you’d be telling her to pool her money. Don’t think so. So she should provide?

It makes no difference at all. I’d say exactly the same if the sexes were swapped.

BarnabyBungle · 04/09/2018 08:38

And they didn’t just “move in”, they got married!

ShatnersWig · 04/09/2018 08:45

Genuine serious question off the back of this interesting thread. On dating profiles I often used to see women saying things along the lines of "Not looking for someone to take on my kids, they have a daddy already". Could that give someone like the OPs husband the assumption that they actually don't expect or want them to help raise them financially if dating turned to relationship?

Rosielily · 04/09/2018 08:50

I don't know if I'm repeating what others may have said but...... be very careful about leaving a life interest in your property to your husband. If you dropped down dead tomorrow your children will be deprived of their inheritance until he dies, which could be years should be live till he is 80/90. Is that your intention?

user1492863869 · 04/09/2018 08:52

There are 2 issues. First who should pay the ongoing childcare costs and this is undoubtedly the parents. However a reasonable and decent stepparent would want to contribute if their partner was struggling and as part of a blended family. Within reason and taking account of the second issue.

The second issue is how to protect any wealth being accumulated by the OP which is over and above that of childcare costs. This potentially includes the house, insurance, pensions and death in service. The fact that the OP married this man means he has an assumed entitlement to part or all of the wealth. It’s doesnt matter if he is on the deeds or not. The OP should have or must now protect herself and her children against the outcome of any divorce. The intelligent way would have been to not marry him.

The will sounds incredibly unfair to the children and potentially confers an unfair 100% interest in the home for a long time. He could live to be 100, die after your children and leave it a new family. Realistically in the event of your death the children are not going to live with him beyond their 20s and cannot leverage any capital out of the property. He could move in a new wife or partner with family. This arrangement suits him not the OPs children.

Basically the OPs circumstances is the reason why some people should not get married. She should have protected her assets and future wealth for her children by not marrying and not giving him an interest in that wealth.

Going forward in this marriage his contribution should be what it would cost him to live on his own, either in a shared room or one bed flat. He should them pay a premium to cover the wealth share he is gaining through this arrangement. The OP has potentially handed him a big fat pension or capital sum.

Personally I would see a lawyer and find out if I could get the hell out of the marriage without losing any assets. He has conned the OP and the children are worse off for it.

Firenight · 04/09/2018 08:55

The extra should be in joint savings / investments.

Xenia · 04/09/2018 08:55

I have 5 and am divorced. If I moved a man in and married him I would not expect him to fund the children. These latrer life marriages with chilren are not the same as people's first marriages with different earnings.

However what I am concerned about is if she divorces then her husband may well get half the house and her children are on the streets. I wonder if you both talked about these issues before marrying? Did you both take legal advice? It doesn't matter that the house may be in the name of the wife.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 04/09/2018 08:56

Im sorry, i havent read the whole thread yet as its long...but i think i have the gist from the last few pages

For whats its worth

Yes this should have been discussed pre marriage, but now you are a family unit money should (in my opinion obviously) be shared more evenly

titchy · 04/09/2018 08:57

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 04/09/2018 08:57

titchy

Oh...

ShatnersWig · 04/09/2018 09:00

@titchy I wondered that too

Gromance02 · 04/09/2018 10:03

I don't think he should be paying the biological father's bills. Fuck that. The issue with getting the bio father should be OP's priority.

Satsumaeater · 04/09/2018 10:13

Another voice saying see a lawyer about making sure the house goes to your kids and not your husband. If he earns £100K he can look after himself as someone else said.

In terms of household bills, I think you should pay in accordance with incomes. So eg if the bills come to £2100 a month and he earns twice as much as you do, you put in about £700 and he puts in about £1400.

I would probably take out the childcare costs because they're not his kids, plenty of comments saying if you take on 4 kids you take them on as if they were yours but I don't think I can quite agree with that, you'd have to be a saint, especially when the biological dad is not pulling his weight.

OP - also check the child benefit situation - I assume he is paying more tax because you get child benefit.

Allthewaves · 04/09/2018 10:22

Imo you should pay for all child related expenses. Rest of bills should be split in proportion to earnings so if he earns more then he pays higher percentage of the bills

Swipe left for the next trending thread