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?

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

yes, and that's why situations like this occur! people should think like this, especially unmarried women!

At no point have I made this about gender so I don’t know why you are? because most of the time its women who stay at home, women who get child support and spousal maintenance. its rare for this situation to be the other way around. Most women wouldn't even consider going back to work after 2 weeks and letting their husband have 9 months off.

If she didn't work, then he technically paid off the mortgage. Ok, looking after kids is hard work, but its not a paid job, and it doesn't pay the mortgage.

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 not taking advantage when half is rightfully yours if you have contributed to the life you built as well even though it's not financial!

batcrazy I think it depends on the specific circumstances, but I think you can take the piss by taking 50%! not everyones wealth is built only within their marriage!

i'm not saying looking after children isn't contributing, it is, but I don't think it justifies entitlement to live off someone else and not have to work etc.

for instance, a woman could be a SAHM but have a nanny and a housekeeper (paid for by her husband) and her husband could work 60 hour weeks for a lot of money, and she'd be entitled to half of that money even though she'd literally contributed shite all, financially or otherwise.

or she might do the bare min with the children, but leave all the childcare to the husband when he gets home, not make any dinner or do anyones washing but leave it to the husband.

would she deserve 50% of his wealth? not in my opinion.

If she didn't work, then he technically paid off the mortgage. Ok, looking after kids is hard work, but its not a paid job, and it doesn't pay the mortgage.

But it does pay their mortgage because it allows him to work and there be no need for childcare costs!

At no point have I made this about gender so I don’t know why you are? because most of the time its women who stay at home, women who get child support and spousal maintenance. its rare for this situation to be the other way around. Most women wouldn't even consider going back to work after 2 weeks and letting their husband have 9 months off

You also don't get many men who would chose to take 9 months off to look after a baby. The point is irrelevant in this matter

You also don't get many men who would chose to take 9 months off to look after a baby. The point is irrelevant in this matter

i'm not sure that's true! DP would have loved to take 9 months off and I would have let him, but shared parental leave wasn't a thing when I had DS, and as he earned more than me him quitting his job wouldn't have made sense.

How many couples even have that conversation? I don't think in this day and age it should be a given that only the mum has time off / does childcare

the expectation that women and children should be funded by men is outdated imo.

@holidayhelpppp you PP that are above my last one all veer right off topic. in this case IMP if the DS is still living at home, costing the same amount of money then EH should still contribute. If he is providing his some with £400 a month I don't think it's unfair for the mother to ask for this if this is what she has been using to support him. He doesn't got from being 17 years 364 days old costing her £xxx to 18 years costing her £0. it his his primary home. nothing has changed circumstance wise.

That's my thoughts.

@Batcrazy101

THEY, THEY decided

Yeah but even if THEY decided she would stay at home together - which I'm sure they did - that decision would have been made on the basis that the children were young and needed someone at home. That's not the case now and therefore it's not reasonable to say that because that agreement was made many years ago she is still welcome not to return to work even when her kids are teenagers.

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.

I know this is just a scenario, but her kids are 18 and 14. 30 years out of work doesn't come into it, unless she had 12 years out prior to even having a child. Even if that was the case, she could work full-time in a shop or supermarket and actually contribute financially to her own household!

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

??
Presumably dad pays for the whole of the WIFI at the house where he actually lives.

At the end of the day, it's completely unreasonable for this woman to expect her ex to continue to pay £1200+ into her household whilst she works minimally herself. And to be living with no mortgage costs and still wanting to take £400 from her own son to supplement the £800 she will still get from CS and spousal support plus whatever she earns from her own job is just completely out of order.

bat my thoughts is that she agreed to it, so its tough shit for her and she should have thought about this at the time.

If she wants to request rent or board from DS, that's fair enough, and he can either pay it or move out.

The problem is between the ds and the mum. The dad is doing as hes been told to by the court.

If mum needs more money then mum needs to get a better job.

If he is providing his some with £400 a month I don't think it's unfair for the mother to ask for this if this is what she has been using to support him.

But CS is meant to represent half of the costs - both parents are supposed to contribute.

So even if that £400 is all she's been using to support her son, then that's still a problem as she's not contributing anything herself.

It sounds like OP's DH is covering the entirety of the costs for the children.

It's absolutely right and proper the ex gets a decent amount to support her and the kids. If that included his pension then so be it.

I do however think she's had several years to prepare for the potential loss of earnings and probably should have made the transition to full time work.

If he's still living at home then the £400 income is still needed unless she's found some way to close the gap.

I think the 400 should go to his ex regardless of what your personal views on the matter are

I cannot help but feel that this matter is really something that needs to be resolved only between the biological parents and their son.....err not you. They ought to get together and talk fgs about the various practical expenses and agree an apportionment of the payment to whom it's most needed for the next 12 months. It's a transitional stage the lad is moving through so will need frequent reviewing as he flies the nest. The mum is going to have to get used to the reduced payment in time.. that's just tough however, that message shouldn't come from you Mrs New wife.....it's for the ex family to resolve between them.

Bitter are we Chalfont

@Chalfontstgiles

Pretty sure, being married to her DH, that a big financial issue such as this is concerning for OP and therefore involves her.

Not to mention that whatever decision is made will impact OP and her DH's household too. At 18 and headed off to uni soon, if the boy's mum takes that £400 for herself, who then ends up paying for everything he needs for uni? OP's DH will still be handing over £1200 to his ex whilst also picking up the tab for his son's expenses.

Thanks Chalfont. As i've said numerous times the discussion is between DSS and his mum and nothing to do with me. However we have a good relationship and he's asked me for advice so that's what I'm happy to give but thought i would see what others felt was reasonable so that's didn't add any unintentional bias.

I think it is outrageous to charge your children rent to live at home when they are still in full time education (I am actually against charging rent ever to live at home but accept I am in the minority in this view).

I dont think the SS should have to give sny to his mother. Uni is so expensive, she should want him to be able to save a decent amount before going.

I also see so much on these threads the assumption that the woman sacrificed by being a sahm but it was decided that she would support the husband etc. What about in the cases where the husband is perfectly happy for the mother to go back to work but she simply wants to be a sahm. Should she still be supported with spouasl maintenance post divorce? Should being a sahm be a permanent life style choice? Even if it wasnt set up to enable to husband to earn more/build a business etc.

I would like to know how long they have been divorced and so how long she has had to re-enter the work force. Like it or not, she isnt married anymore so doesnt have the ability to be a sahm. Despite the views of many on mumsnet it isnt a right to be one...

@FilthyforFirth read the thread