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?

@BarbariansMum well no! Op has stated her DH contributes also. So DH & op have their bills to pay as well as hers. I’ll he’s lost 40% of his pension. By the time SS goes to uni gets a job etc, he may no longer live at home but DH still gives her 40% of his income. Why should he have to give 40% of his income after SS has left. Honestly I think it’s a disgrace an Ex can claim a % of income longer after divorce apologies Op last thing I’ll say on your personal situation

She doesn't get 40% of income. She gets 40% of his pension pot as it stood.

Which will be his income

He is still adding to that pot.

A lot of people here seeming to want to punish the ex wife for a good divorce deal.

That's not the question. The question is 'what contribution is reasonable for an 18 year old to make to the home finances, if he 'earns' £400 a month?'.

Up until 18 his dad has been contributing towards the cost of his upkeep. This now has stopped. Either:

• his mum takes on full responsibility for his upkeep and he keeps all the money (or)
• he takes on some of the responsibilty for himself and starts to pay his way out of the £400 he now gets a month

Whether or not his mum had a cushy, reasonable or unfair divorce deal is neither here nor there.

In all honesty, OP, if there are 4 people in his house then it would seem reasonable to me for him to pay 1/8 of all bills. That's half of his quarter of the bill consumption - with his mum paying the other half. This would include household bills and food.

So if household bills come to £400 a month then he pays £50 towards them.
If food bills come to £800 a month he also pays £100 towards them.
Total: £150

I think he should have a budget that includes his phone, clothes and going out. The rest is handed over to his mum.

It’s a very poorly drafted order to make the switch at 18, rather than 18 AND has finished schooling (not university).

@TwentyEight12 I'm arts based myself. I don't think arts subjects are easier - they require a lot of you. But I do think they're a damn sight easier on the revision front. Rote learning isn't as imperative, to the same intensive extent, when you can write an essay around an argument, using facts you select to support it. For that reason, the revision requirements of STEM are greater.

@BarrenFieldofFucks it’s still his income/money regardless of what the amount is. As I said Op perhaps a tryst or bank account to put money in for him. He can decide how much he gives her. Good luck Op x

Really don't want to derail his hard work with stress over money and falling out with his mum.

I'm sorry to say this, because (as I hope my posts have made clear) I don't have a lot of sympathy for his mother, but... if this is going to cause him huge stress, and it's only for a relatively brief period, he needs to consider how much she's going to make life painful for him if he doesn't just roll over.

I have a relative who is horrible to her adult kids, and would have made their lives a misery in this scenario. If she's likely to make him really unhappy unless he meekly concedes, then given it's only until July it might be worth considering that aspect, too. It's not right and it's not fair, but it may be necessary.

if a man chose to work only 12 hours a week, so he could pay less maintenance, would that be ok? no.

Why is ok when women do this?

It’s not ok for anyone to do this but in the instances I’m sure you are referring too the man has probably not been left worse off (in terms of prospects) for their long marriage.

Lets say this couple was married for lets say 30 years. If DH is 57 that is not beyond a reasonable guess. DW has a reasonable job and they decide to start a family, DW earns less and it’s not worth the keeping the job as childcare costs are only just covered if at all. H & W discuss long term plans of house and bills, HD earns more than enough and they calculate mortgage will be pays off in 20/25 years with his earning alone. Why should she be left worse off just because they agreed as a couple that this was the right move for their family?
They split, she has the kids most of the time so see it not as SHE got the house but that the children get to stay in their home. She gave up a career life to have the family life THEY discussed and agreed on. After 30 years out of work and still having 2 children to look after it’s not a surprise she has a low paying part time job.

But again that’s me doing the thing I so hate most… making up things that COULD be the case. People need to think outside their own experience and biases sometimes.

@perfectstorm

Ah cool! I have quite often wished much of my work is maths based as in, here is the sum and it’s either right or wrong. Whereas my work will be judged on whether my boss or client likes it or not, even if it’s right! hahahahaha

Anyway, yes those subjects must be very intense to study. I imagine students locked at computer screens from morning till night... miserable.

I think this is the crux of the issue - the financial order should have stated when he left to go to Uni, not when he turned 18 and still lived at home. He has almost a year to go until he leaves for Uni.
I agree with this comment!
The Order should have definitely said until the child left for uni and not until he reached the age of 18 years.
I have been in this position myself, only the maintenance stopped completely when my son reached 18. However he remained at home as he resat some A levels. I then had to chase my ex for payments through the CMS, which he tried to suirm out of.
I was financially struggling and would have hated an Order such as this, it is ludicrous. Depending on his ex's situation the money needs to go directly to her as contributions for their sons upkeep.

After 30 years out of work and still having 2 children to look after it’s not a surprise she has a low paying part time job

she didn't have to take 30 years out of work! I get the not paying for childcare thing when they're tiny, I know how expensive it is and sometimes its not worth it, that's true.

once theyre at school though its likely to be worth it because you're going to be paying for maybe 4 hours of childcare a day but working for 8 ish

i'm not saying SHE should be left worse off, but I don't think SHE should have her life funded because they decided that she would stay at home. And tbh I v much doubt they sat down and said "right well we've kids now so you NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN"

its usually more like Christ nursery is expensive lets re evaluate when they go to school, and by that point you've been at home for 4 or 5 years and work doesn't seem so attractive.

I cant abide by the "poor womenz she wasn't allowed to work shes so badly off boohoo" bollocks. If a woman wants to work she will.

@holidayhelpppp my eldest is ASD. And gifted, and not behaviourally disturbed, which means that there is no suitable school in this area, state or private. The LA are in agreement on this. He has to be home educated (and his ed psych report last month - an LA one - found he was working two years ahead of expected levels, and is in the very upper 90th centiles for age, so I am clearly not doing a terrible job). He also has separation anxiety, so could never have managed the transition of care childcare would represent, even if the meetings and interventions when he was in school would have afforded me the time. He's ten and has been at home for three years. I literally cannot work (either that, or my husband, but as I was at home when the kids were tiny, as we both felt that gave them the best start, he's been able to earn lots more).

I can't see myself able to return to work now until he's at university. Possibly beyond; it will depend how much support he needs. I'm planning to do a Masters around ASD so I can use all I've learned and move it into a professional life later on, but meanwhile, my career prospects have been devastated. I'm a Cambridge graduate. This was not my life plan. Luckily my marriage seems reasonably solid, which is actually unusual when you have kids with additional needs, but you never know what the future holds, so I am glad the law would protect me, and the kids, if he decided to opt for an easier life elsewhere.

To add to all of this, I have had treatment for breast cancer this past year, which tends to make you less attractive as a candidate in the workplace, too - reasonably, given it can recur at any time.

People's lives are often more complex than you acknowledge.

He contributes £400, she contributes too - pp are valuing her time at £0. Her contribution is not just financial, it is also her time organising them, driving them places, cooking and shopping for them, probably doing their washing, ironing, cleaning, providing all the emotional labour involved in running the family. The dh might contribute towards the cost of school uniform but does he contribute to the time and effort buying it?

Why are we assuming that the ex didn’t pay the mortgage off herself? (Not that it is relevant anyway)

perfect I understand what you're saying but with respect your situation is entirely different than this one.

I could understand why you personally couldn't work, but the mum in the OP certainly could.

WIFI is not costing any more for having him home or not
No but he is using it so why shouldn't he contribute towards it?

because he is her SON and if it is not costing her any extra then she is making money out of him being there. FFS. He really should only be expected to make good WHERE HE IS COSTING HER if there is any intention to support his through education....which apparently there is....from the father in any case.

i'm not saying SHE should be left worse off, but I don't think SHE should have her life funded because they decided that she would stay at home.

THEY, THEY decided

cant abide by the "poor womenz she wasn't allowed to work shes so badly off boohoo" bollocks. If a woman wants to work she will.

It's not that she wasn't allowed to work. sometimes it works best in families if one doesn't go out to work (Because believe me she worked, might not have brought a wage in but she worked.) it's nice to be at home (if you can be and she clearly could) and have dinner ready and house tidy, errands ran so that when DH was not at work and kids not at school you have genuine family time.

I think also of people if their DH was earning enough to support a family and your little wage wasn't ended would much rather put the time in to the home,and family, getting kids to after school activities and likes.

If he won't be at home but away at Uni then maybe nothing. But if he is committing to uni and living at hers then £150 a month seems fair for board and food. If he is only staying with her during the holidays then he should pay for the months hes with her.

If he still wants to stay with his mum and is at school/in education, I think your dh should continue to support his first family by paying the same level of child maintenance.

If he pays it directly to his son, it is between his son and his mum to agree how much "board" the son should pay. Nothing, expenses wise, has changed for the mum other than her resident son turning 18. She doesn't have a choice than to continue to support him.

Of course she can say, she'll take £200 rent but he needs to pay for all his own food, phone, clothes, toiletries, laundry and other expenses, but it is really six and half a dozen what she does and really none of your or your dh's business. All your dh needs to do is keep paying the reasonable child maintenance payment until he is out of education/not living at home.

if you want to give your ds advice. tell him all that's changed is he's had a birthday, it still costs the same for his mum to house him and its between him and his mum.

because he is her SON and if it is not costing her any extra then she is making money out of him being there. FFS. He really should only be expected to make good WHERE HE IS COSTING HER if there is any intention to support his through education....which apparently there is....from the father in any case.

If dad is no longer contributing to his half of the WIFI why should mum is my point.

I know THEY decided, I said that (although that's an assumption really!)

it's nice to be at home of course it is. Its not an entitlement because you have a vagina.

I think also of people if their DH was earning enough to support a family and your little wage wasn't ended would much rather put the time in to the home,and family, getting kids to after school activities and likes

im sure most people would much rather spend time with their family than work, but real life isn't like that for a lot of people.

I would LOVE to spend more time with DS, be there for every drop off and pick up, but equally I would hate to be completely reliant on DP, and don't want to give my career up and be royally fucked in old age or if I ever become single.

Things like this are where people should think with their brains and not their hearts.

Its not the 1950s anymore. We should be equal. Men and Women should share childcare / housework and both work.

Men are not incapable of looking after children and women are not incapable of working.

@holidayhelpppp oh I don't disagree; I hope my comments show I do not have a huge amount of respect for a woman who makes her child pay his own bus fares from his own earnings, while declining to earn much herself. My point is that you are extrapolating that to all women with kids, at home, when you don't know their reasoning or circumstances. And that's as unfair as those insisting that a lifetime at home is perfectly reasonable, even if it has to be funded by an ex-husband many years after a divorce.

As with most things, the truth lies in the middle.

perfect I said further up thread that each case should be dealt with individually, I know I also said that spousal maintenance should be cut off at highschool but I meant where there are no additional needs etc (although spousal maintenance Is pretty rare I think anyway!)

I don't think anyone should be left penniless in divorce, but I think a lot of women find it fairly easy to take advantage of their high earning ex husbands.

it's nice to be at home of course it is. Its not an entitlement because you have a vagina. At no point have I made this about gender so I don’t know why you are?

im sure most people would much rather spend time with their family than work, but real life isn't like that for a lot of people.

We aren’t talking about a lot of people though are we, we are talking about these people. and it seems it DID work for them to a point. lets assume she did not work the entire time she was married (and for laughs lets say she had no savings/inheritance so speak off) with her "nothing" they paid off a mortgage.

and don't want to give my career up and be royally fucked in old age or if I ever become single.

Not many people think like that, and especially not 30 odd years ago.

Its not the 1950s anymore. We should be equal. Men and Women should share childcare / housework and both work.

Men are not incapable of looking after children and women are not incapable of working.

Finally we agree on something