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

[Clockworkteacup]

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.

I agree with allthewaves. Step parent families late in life are different for finances.

i do think he's being a bit of a dick though and you need to sort out the will.

But as a higher earning stepmother, I pay my way in the house with bills and food and pay my share of holidays and split house repairs and stuff with husband. But uni costs, holiday costs for his children, clothes for his children, childcare - they are all the responsibility of him and his ex wife.

OPs problem is the father isn't contributing - that isn't the step parent's role.

You would hope in a loving partnership her husband wouldn't see her go short and go about spending money on extravagant crap that doesn't help her. But in general, in principle, her kids are her and their father's problem. But, as I said, her partner does appear to be behaving like a bit of a dick about it.

Well no neither the op or her dh should be subsidising her ex’s share but even if he was paying what is considered fair anyone who gets cm will know that it is nowhere near 50% of the cost of raising a child. The ops dh chose to marry a woman with 4 kids and become a step dad - no-one forced him. He can’t expect to live like a bachelor while they all struggle.

This so reminds me of a situation another poster asked advice about many years ago. She'd married a man who earnt many times what she did. It was a second marriage for both of them though, and both had children from their previous marriages. His children went to private school, had expensive clothes and things, got expensive presents. Hers didn't, especially as their dad was a wastrel who paid less than minimum child maintenance. While she had been a single parent, the poster had managed, but couldn't keep up financially with her new dh.

Her 2 children lived with her, obviously, attended state school, had what they needed but had to go without a lot.

The rich dh didn't feel he needed to contribute towards the costs of his step-children.

His children lived there too, and therein lay the rub. His children boarded so it wasn't so much of a problem while they were at school....

OK, so your dh doesn't have children but what if you have a late baby? Apart from that, you still need to consider the principal: are you a family or not?

Normally I would say he should contribute. However, this should have been discussed before marriage. And I don't think the terms should be changed now about who pays for what.
But I would advise you sit down and talk about you struggling at the end of the month, he may offer to contribute some more of his own esteem. If he does that it's fair enough I don't think you should put him in the awkward position of being asked.

This dude is totally at fault, but not for the money.

His fault was marrying someone with four kids from some deadbeat dad! This debt gathering man child, who seemed to be suitable to have 4 kids with over a span of 5 years. His behaviour in theory may have changed suddenly, but I bet it didnt and it was deemed good to keep pumping 'em out.

Anyway, so this guy decides to shack up with this bunch, then is shocked when he finds out they cost a lot. Guessing with the window of the kids coupled with your previous high earning, your baby making days are pretty much over? Sucks to be him, because either a) he wants kids and now is out of luck or b) he doesn't, and now is saddled with 4 who have some dude scamming his maintenance money as their role model and 50% of their genetic makeup.

Being single is never as bad as this. Hell, being single isnt a bad life at all in many ways. I love being married, but look back on my singledom as good, just in other ways. What happens when they get older, want to go to college etc? Or if one gets in trouble with the law?

Does this guy really think that he will have equal say in the parenting, that if its between him and the kids he will ever be chosen by her?

Oh well, his mess, he can climb out of it. Just makes me sad to see someone who has seemingly done well (high salary) dive headfirst into this. Not sure of his motivation, let's hope it can keep repeating whatever it was to himself over the coming years.

spiderrico your assumptions are marvellous

Or alternatively he has all the benefits of having a family without having to put his hand into his pocket. If he wanted to be single he had that choice.

I'm not a parent. But I think it is reasonable to expect him to contribute financially to his new family - you and your children. It doesn't matter that they aren't his. He knew what he is getting involved it, and that implies some responsibility. Or did he think he'll save himself a few bob by living with you?

I think you need to talk to him about it, in the gentlest and most rational way, if you didn't manage before marrying him.

It makes me so cross that the ExH can walk away and pay very little. Why should another man be expected to pay for someone else's children?

Similar happened to me, my feckless ExH. Kids are for life, not just for...

My partner did pay for my children but shouldn't have had to. I thought my ExH would be far to proud to let another man bring his kids up, but not an ounce of embarrassment. Tightarse! with your huge house, new car, private number plates...

Why should another man be expected to pay for someone else's children?

He isn't, unless he chooses to marry their mother and set up home with her. Then they become a new family unit.

Your children have a father. He is not their father.

You need to go to court to ensure that their father pays the maintenance he owes them.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to contribute to the children's costs. Those should be separate. However, I think it would be reasonable to tell him that you are struggling because your ex is not contributing, and perhaps you could distribute the rest of the costs so that you pay a bit less.

He is their stepfather. He had every right not to enter a relationship with a woman who had children, he had every right to keep it as a "dating" relationship without marrying her.

But he chose to marry her, and her children are part of that package.

Quite apart from anything else, it's a cold and loveless relationship when one person has £2500 left over each month, the other is struggling to pay their costs, and the richer one doesn't give a shit. Mean with money, mean with love. Always.

I went to a friend's wedding earlier this year. Her father was and is a total deadbeat and can fuck off. Her stepfather is a kind, generous, wonderful man who has always treated her as his own. She calls him Dad. He gave the FOB speech and his first words were: "She is my daughter."

Her mother, whom he loves dearly, has been a SAHM for many years so I think it's safe to say that he doesn't mind paying for "someone else's child". He'd be hurt and offended at the idea that she isn't his in all the ways that matter.

I am amazed that so many people think this is weird or wrong.

Mean with money, mean with love.

This.

DH isn't DS1's Dad, he is DS2's Dad. At Christmas, on Birthdays, at Easter, on days out, on holidays, when uniforms and shoes need buying, on school trips, on fancy dress days and every other day between our money is ours, not mine, not his. Not once in our relationship has there ever been any difference between DS1 and DS2, not once has DH ever said "I'm not paying for that, that's your child".

I appreciate that OP's Ex should be contributing and paying his share. But the fact is, he isn't. So should one person in a marriage be far more financially secure than the other? A marriage is a union in every possible way, and marrying anyone mean is a recipe for disaster.

There was a patch when I helped DH out with his business by loaning him a huge chunk of the savings I'd amassed before meeting him. There've been months where I've paid more into our accounts than he has. There've been months where I've had to pay the VAT on his business. But there've also been months where I've earned hardly anything, where I took extended maternity leave, where I put in less than he did. And neither of us has ever really given a shit; I'd give him my last penny, he'd give me his. If you're not a team there's no point.

Thank god my stepdad didn't do this, how awful. You're supposed to be a team

@Winebottle

SandyY2K You are still eligible but the higher earner has to pay High Income Child Benefit Charge.

Yeah.. but it's not worth it. Although she can still claim and it would be him who is liable to pay, as it's addressed to the person earning over £50k.

My DH got the bill for it.

As a single woman I totally baulk at this. If I marry a man with 4 children do I suddenly have to start paying for school shoes and dentist appointments and football club fees? I mean of course I’d never see children go hungry but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it?

Even if the dad was paying above and beyond what he is required to pay it still wouldn’t scratch the surface of the actual cost of raising a child. What’s going to happen if they have any more kids? Will the dh and his bio child be jetting off to Disney while the op and other children stay home? Will his bio child get better presents/clothes and be taken on days out that the others aren’t included in. If he didn’t want to be a step dad he should have just kept his r’ship with the op as boyfriend and girlfriend as others have said.

And yes that goes for women as well. If you don’t want to be a step parent then surely you just wouldn’t marry someone with kids.

@chestylarue52 if your going to be a stepparent, then yeah pretty much. You're either a family or you aren't - stepchildren are part+parcel of a partner with kids. If it makes you baulk then just don't get involved with someone with children.

If I marry a man with 4 children do I suddenly have to start paying for school shoes and dentist appointments and football club fees?

Given that you'd be a family unit, I don't see why not. Of course, if this is not a situation you ever want to be in, you are free not to have relationships with men who have kids.

^^well, yes. Youve married a family. You cannot ignore 4 out of 5. Surely you want to support your dh, that includes financially. Alternatively, find someone childlesd to marry.

Clearly from what I see here people are very split on this. For context im a stepmother (full time he lives with me) and my partner is a stepfather (my son) we also have a child together.

I would never, ever have set up home with him if he hadn’t treat us all equally as a family, and I’m sure he’d say the same. I dunno if that’s right or wrong but it’s not my cup of tea to be so divided as a family unit

Nobody who truly loved a person was ever happy to see them skint and struggling to pay for their children.

He has conned the OP and the children are worse off for it

I think that's unfair. Both decided to get married and the OP should have safeguarded her DCs inheritance.

PP are saying how can he see his wife struggling. If she's struggling now, then she was struggling before they got married, because he isn't adding to her monthly expenditure.

In fact, her monthlyexpenditure reduced.

And we both saved about a similar amount by him moving in, in terms of housing costs

I'm sure had this been discussed before marriage and you said he would have to/need to split all expenses, he would not have married you.

The bit that seems very unfair...is that he not only saves on monthly living costs by marrying you, but he also gains a share of the house.

So whilst you also save on monthly living costs by marrying him, you lose a share of your house.

Which translates to your DC losing a share of their inheritance.

If he dies, I get everything that is his

So that would be what? Your share of the house back. His car. His money in the bank.

our main reason for getting married was essentially to protect each other in death

A will could have done this without marriage.

I would have thought you doing the majority of driving around with the kids...that he would want you to have a newer car.

Maybe he's unaware of how little you have every month...so have a discussion. Money matters can be very tricky and contentious though.