Aibu to think my step son is being taken advantage of

[bluetown]

So have name changed for this.

My DH divorced six years ago and we've been married for four. Financial settlement was agreed; ex wife kept the house (no mortgage) 40% of his pension which she can draw down now if she wants, spousal maintenance of £400 pcm until DH is 60 and £400 pcm for each child ((2). When the children attain the age of 18 the £400 is paid direct to the child. Step son is 18 in October and mum is saying all £400 had to be given to her. He thinks that he should pay something but wants to save for uni.

I accept that the cost of feeding/housing/clothing him hasn't changed but think he ought to start planning his future. SS is a gentle boy and doesn't want to do the wrong thing but he's asked for advice and we unsure what would be a reasonable amount for him to pay.

Both children spend alternating weekends with us, two evenings per week and half the school holidays.

Any ideas?

I'm honestly pretty shocked that the stepson's own part time earnings are expected to cover his bus pass to 6th form, as well as his phone. A social life, music, and fancy clothes (I mean those he wants over and above basics plus uniform), absolutely. But he's still in school, and his dad pays child support. He should not have to pay for basic transport costs at all, nor the basic phone contract. That's parental responsibility, to my mind, unless the family are really strapped and there's no way to make the money stretch that far otherwise.

Given the single biggest cost to a single parent is housing, then the mum is looking at paying for utilities (not including phone - her son pays for his own) and food. That's not £400 a month, nor anything like it, even if you cancel out the time he spends with his dad, and the reality that she will get tax credits and child benefit for him as well - child support isn't calculated in for benefit calculations, unless she's on UC already, so she will be getting benefits to clothe and feed her son.

I'm sorry, I'm quite shocked by this. Not the divorce settlement, which seems fair to me, but the way she expects her son to pay to get to school when she can clearly comfortably afford to cover that. That's not okay. That's her job, not his.

The next year is the run-up to his A levels. I would suggest that he works fewer hours in paid employment and uses at least some of the child support to cover his bus pass and phone. His mother has a perfectly reasonable disposable income and plenty of time available to her to increase her earning potential if she wants more. I am really surprised that she isn't willing to sort essential transport expenses for her own school aged child. Earnings at this age, unless in a family that is really struggling of course, should be for the child's fun. And in the immediate approach to major exams, a child shouldn't be working at all. A levels require one hell of a lot of revision, if they're to do themselves justice.

@BeanBag7 Fri 13-Sep-19 08:46:45
I kind of agree with the ex. She is still paying for his food, bills, clothing etc. and is now £400 per month worse off which is a lot!

My parents weren't separated but they didn't start randomly giving me hundreds of pounds a month when I turned 18. I had to get a job - maybe your step son should do that

maybe the exW should get a fucking job! Wtf. She's been given 1200pm with no mortgage to pay for years. Maybe she should have saved some of it. Maybe she should have got a job and contributed to her kids upbringing herself.

jenny she got 50% of the assets, not bad for popping out 2 kids is it.

I have said up thread that DSS does have a part time job and that his dad contributes to big expenses such as school trips, uniform etc. Is £200 still reasonable?

I think £200 is a reasonable amount to give SS, and then let him sort the rest out with his mum. Hopefully she wouldn't take the full amount from him.

Fuck me Holiday, do you hate all women or just those not left destitute by divorce?

If he still at school and his mother is his primary career (even though he is 18) his father by law still has to contribute child maintenance to his mother she is entitled to apply to child maintenance service if she isn't receiving anything even though he will be giving his son £400 through they divorce agreement the best agreement all round i think is son pays her for room and lodge (food,washing, mobile bill, etc) this is something they have to work out what is a fair amount for these things and son can keep the rest and be independent with things like saving and clothes etc if he wishes too

The ONLY thing to be considered here is whether the father should be contributing to the cost of supporting a child of 18 living at home and in full time education. Which of course he should be. The rest of the settlement is totally irrelevant. The son is his child and he should contribute to the cost of feeding him, clothing him, electricity, water, gas, petrol for driving him places, fees for weekly activities, the extra wear and tear he causes to the house, etc etc. It is also irrelevant that other people have to manage on less.

I had to get a job - maybe your step son should do that

He does have a part time job which pays for his phone, bus fare to sixth form etc

And maybe his mum could stop saying her children need her at home, so she can't possibly start work before 11am, when her son is getting himself to school by public transport prior to 9 am and paying himself for the privilege.

Fuck me Holiday, do you hate all women or just those not left destitute by divorce?

what gives you the impression I hate women?

I don't think anyone should be left destitute by divorce, but neither do I agree that having children means that someone else should finance your lifestyle until you die.

a lot of women want equality until it means that they have to work for a living.

@bluetown Also unless you and your DP pay for a lot of the extras already for the two boys, you may not understand how much teenage kids can cost. Obviously people who are totally skint can spend a lot less. But most resident parents spend more if they have the money to give their kids great opportunities, nice clothes and fun things to do. It is really easy if you have never had teenagers to underestimate how much basic things like school uniform, school trips, food, cost.

He is paying spousal until he turns 60. Hardly for life.

It is really easy if you have never had teenagers to underestimate how much basic things like school uniform, school trips, food, cost

hasn't op said that they contribute for uniforms and trips etc? and considering they have him EOW they probably know how much he eats....

barren ah right and that makes it ok then

@holidayhelpppp So you think a woman when she divorces should get less than 50% of the marital assets on divorce?

And popping two kids out - what a misogynistic phrase.

Divorces generally split marital assets 50:50 unless there are exceptional circumstances. I think that is fair.

It's a badly worded agreement, and the money should continue to go to her until the child starts uni. I'm surprised that this gap between turning 18 and starting uni wasn't anticipated.

Perhaps a fair way to calculate it is to use the CMS calculator, which will show what they would say is the minimum for two kids, and then halve that? I just ran a swift calculation on the figures you provided, and for both children he'd be paying £407.24 a month. So if you halve that, for one child, then the figure is what most women in her position would get on his income, if the sole consideration was the earnings plus child's needs.

It's admirable that he's provided so well for his children, and I agree that it's fair that her career hit, in being a SAHM, is recognised, and family assets shared on a split. What's not fair is that her son is working to fund some of his basic living expenses, while his father currently pays her twice the standard CMS figure to meet those expenses. It would seem fair to me that the money he now pays his ex is the state sanctioned amount, with the excess going to his son.

jenny no, I think they should get a fair percentage, I don't think 50% is always fair. You would have to evaluate every situation, which thankfully courts and judges do. There is no "one size fits all" for this situation.

What I don't think is fair, is that you get a chunk of someone elses income purely because you were fertile.

I also don't think its fair that you get to work 12 hours a week, through choice, when your kids don't need childcare, and live off your ex purely because you can. I think spousal maintenance should stop when your kids reach highschool to be honest. There's no reason this woman cannot work.

That's not equality.

It's a shame it was set up like this and not "while he's at fulltime education living at home" like all other benefits (eye tests, CB, that sort of thing). He's not magically become free of cost once he turns 18.

Obviously your DH has to transfer the money to his son's account in line with the agreement, but I'm not surprised his XW isn't happy - she's still paying for everything (food, clothes, utilities, etc etc) and suddenly that's stopped?

At the very least your SS should transfer £250pm to his mum and pay for all his non-food-and-board stuff himself. That £400 is to pay for his costs of living, not to build him a nest egg.

@holidayhelpppp So you think a woman when she divorces should get less than 50% of the marital assets on divorce?

@jennymanara But there's a difference between getting 50% of the martial assets and doing what this lady is doing. She did get 50% of the martial assets, she got the martial home mortgage free, and she now receives a significant amount of money from her ex every month.

I thought the idea behind maintenance payments was that the parents were both contributing financially towards the children? In this case it seems that the mother is relying completely on the income she receives from her ex to finance both the children and herself.

She could get a different job and earn that £400 herself, her kids are old enough now. Instead she wants to take it from her own son so that she doesn't have to do that.

Women need to realise that having children has no impact whatsoever on a man's career, but has a huge impact on most women's
This is not 1940 any longer. Women can work with children. Many single mums with no help manage a career. What a sad excuse to assume that women are so vulnerable in their marriage having no clue of this outcome when entering in the marriage.

Because if course, no woman married to a rich man becomes and stays a sahm because that's really a much nicer lifestyle than working long hours in a demanding job!

If ss is still at college wont she still be receiving child benefit and as she has a low income because they don't count child maintenance also tax credits for ss till he finishes in August ?

@holidayhelpppp a SAHM takes a massive potential earnings hit in most cases. That's also recognised in post-split financial arrangements. Of course it's not fair in some cases; that's an inevitability, but it's fairer than a woman who is plunged into poverty because she took a career back seat for years, in the interests of her family, and then her husband leaves her for a younger model and she's penniless, for example. A SAHP is working in the interests of all the family - the working parent has no childcare or domestic issues at all to sort, which let's face it is both rare and a major plus. The work benefits everyone, and the career hit taken by the SAHP is mirrored by career advantage to the WOHP. That's recognised, and it should be.

Having said that, I'm not very impressed by the sound of this situation, either. She's getting double the CMS figure for the kids, plus that CMS figure again for both kids for herself, and she has chosen to work very few hours despite the kids not even being in the house for considerably longer hours. She's in a very fortunate position, and she's still expecting her son to meet very basic expenses from his own earnings on top. But to assume all women are on the make, when the data actually shows that single parents are hugely more likely to be poor, is unfair. This is not the average situation, by a very large margin.

This father has cared for his kids in an honest and admirable way, and that's to be applauded. That would include ensuring their mum could afford to be very present in their lives as they grew up, as well as ensuring reasonable financial comfort. And given she's a low earner, with just £400 factored in to her benefit entitlements, she's also going to be getting a fair amount from the state to feed, clothe and house the kids, too. She's in a good position, which is as it should be, but her son should not have to work in the approach to his A levels if the money is going on his own bus fare to school.

@bluetown

As you can see, this is a minefield. I really do think you’d be best to not go there with sorting money out between the son and his mother. The friction it is going to cause, is going to be massive. I just don’t think it is worth it.

But, if you really HAVE to get involved, I would work out what the real cost of living is for him.

You won’t be able to do that unless you know what the gas, electricity, internet, food, water and council tax bills are per month. These are compulsory bills. I’m not including clothing etc. If it’s just him and his mother living in the property then you could either divide it down the line or divide it differently. For example, he pays 1/3 of the cost and she pays 2/3 of the cost. Or he pays 1/4 and she pays 3/4. These are just examples. It could be worked out as a different percentage.

At the end of the day, the important bit about all of this is that it is worked on real costs and not figures pulled from the ether because someone thinks it’s fair or not. The real cost of living is the real cost of living and it doesn’t answer to ‘fair’. It costs what is costs.

I think perfectstorm has made good points.

Mum agreed to the settlement. She knew it would change at 18. What next, spousal support to be continued until DH is 65 because life expectancy has increased?

At most, DSS could offer £25 a week, and get written agreement between them that this will end if/when he starts university.

The son is not costing less just because he turns 18 so why shouldn't the Ex get the money until he gets a job/moves out she is providing everything and dad gets to be the hero by giving £400 in the back pocket to do with as he pleases.

If the EX says she is going to stop providing for him and give him £400 as well because he is 18 would you find that fair? from rent, phone, Wifi, gas, electric, food, shampoo, shower gel, toothpaste, mouth wash, deodorant. also stop washing his clothes cooking his meals, giving him lifts... the list goes on.

DS wouldn't get very far on £800 a month at the age of 18.