Being made to feel guilty by friends. Should I contribute?

[Jpw74]

Nc as other threads may be outing. Sorry if this is long!

Been with partner for several years. Both in mid-early 40s. We are getting married later next year, second marriages for both.

When I first got married, neither me nor my parents had any real money to speak of. Ex-dh and I did a low key registry wedding.

Since then, my career has taken off, I feel incredibly lucky and I am planning on paying for the kind of wedding I’ve always dreamed of.

Now the point of my post: we were having drinks with partner’s best friend and his wife this weekend and the wife made some sort of comment like “I can’t believe you (me) are willing to throw Xxx at a wedding but are ok letting (my partner’s) other child receive less money via CMS”

Partner used to work a very stressful but lucrative job. When we got together I saw the effect the job had on his MH and how truly unwell he was because of it. After looking at my salary, we decided that it would be better for him long term to retrain and become a teacher, something he has always wanted to do!

His ex is unhappy because the drop in maintenance was significant and must be sharing this with friends. In all other respects partner has maintained the same relationship with his dd as before and we intend to do so going forward.

To my point: Am I being the unreasonable one in thinking I’ve worked hard for my money and if I want to throw myself a big wedding I should be allowed to do so. I am a hurt that the wife thinks I should be contributing to partner’s dd’s maintenance to keep it at previous levels.

Partner’s thoughts on this are that he is not dodging his responsibilities, parents lose jobs, switch jobs, etc As long as he parents to the best that he can both in the financial sense from his current salary and is physically present for his dd, Ex should have no right to look at me and my salary + the lifestyle it provides us as dd is not my responsibility.

To give you a sense of figures, I make high six figures/year as did partner before switching to being a teacher.

So what option is everyone wanting?

A) Father stays in job that makes him miserable, sick, and mentally unwell, to the point of a heart attack, so he can maintain £100K per year, which is frankly an obscene amount of money and no child needs.
B) Fathers fiancée contributes £100K per year to a child she did not create.
C) Father leaves his fiancee and lives on his own salary, thus the DD actually getting even far less than she is now.
D) ???

What does everyone want??

Poor child suffering at your showboating. 🙄

I’m with the OP. Her money, she can do with it what she wants. If she wants to pay for a big wedding with money she earned,
why not????
After reading more pages of this thread I now just think the ex wife is greedy. 100k a year is a lot. Surely she saved some of it?!? You don’t need to find endless ski trips to be good parents, get a grip and see how the average family lives

I am surprised, however, that someone whose mental health was so badly affected by work stress that he was prepared to significantly reduce his child’s standard of living was able to form a new relationship at the time and is now expecting to cope well with the significant stress of teaching.

Amazing right?- but I'm not sure it is his MH now, it's his physical health (heart attack). Also, he was married before, but not to his ex, so was he married before that, or after? So confusing.....

It would be different if he was doing nothing and living off the OP, and refusing to pay anything towards his daughter. He is doing a worthwhile yet less well paid career and working hard. As long as he is contributing what he reasonably can towards his daughter, I don't see what else anyone can do in the situation.

What does everyone want??

I would like to know, why op decided to take on his financial responsibilities except this one. They talked decided she would support him for the rest of their live and take on his financial burdens. Except this one.

And she will be supporting him. They arent going to live in a house he can pay half of. Or go on holidays he can afford half of. Their lifestyle isnt changing.

It seems to me they made a decision to half their household income but the only person impacted is the child.

As a step parent, I couldn't do that.

But I imagine there will be times when she contributes to DD, for example she’s already stated that they take her on holidays, she’s with them one day a week (I think?) and EOW (?). So surely she’s picking up the slack there. I want to know if people are actually suggesting she pay £100K per year in CMS for a child that isn’t hers? Or is there a more realistic and sensible approach that could be taken?

For example, if it were me I would pay the ski trip. But forking over £100K per year? No. And let’s face it, that sort of money isn’t going to the child. There is no mortgage, no private school fees etc. I am struggling to see what exactly it is for.

I would like to know, why op decided to take on his financial responsibilities except this one. They talked decided she would support him for the rest of their live and take on his financial burdens. Except this one.

This.

The 100k to the ex is excessive but the child's costs that would keep her life the same should be met. Including trips etc

How old is the child, how long has this been going on for?

He’s able to retrain and still live the rich lifestyle. He’s self actualising on every front yet because of his choices, he’s expecting his dd to no longer do the same. For me, that’s pretty selfish. You can give all the comebacks of what her mother could or should have done. The reality is she didn’t.

His dream to want to teach STEM subject to disadvantaged children is a nice one. But right now I think he’s now so far removed from reality of what it is to teach and what it is to live off an NQT salary, yet he’s expecting his ex to do a lot less.

You are both sitting berating this woman for not having planned for the future. I wonder how much planning your dp did. If he did he could easily be pulling in 10k a month whilst sitting on his arse and far more has he properly planned. Then this discussion would be moot.

The reality is he infantilised her by throwing money at her and not looking at where the money was going. She had zero incentive to better her chaotic life. You say she had a year to get used to the cut. In these circumstances, perhaps it would have been better to have reduced the payments to a third for example, then he would have been able to stretch one years payments to 3 years. This would have allowed everyone to have a think and take a breath. As is, he’s almost taken a zero off the monthly payments.

No you owe your dsd’s mum nothing. But you have got together with a man with a child used to a certain lifestyle. Personally I’d not be able to live with myself if I sat back whilst my dp lived the life of Riley and left a child to have to suffer the indignity of having such a changed lifestyle.

Don’t expect his friends, who care for his dd to be happy for you. They won’t be. I’d be judging the fuck out of him. If he wants to self actualise, that is fine, but not by pulling everyone down with his choice when he could easily compromise. For me, that would be part time teaching alongside raking in some serious cash consulting or similar.

This is the problem. If the situation was the same. He was I'll needed to take a job with less stress, but was also experiencing a drop in life style, it would be one of those things.

But it's the fact that his lifestyle wont change at all, while his daughters does, that seems very unfair.

Well that and that he hasnt taken a job with less stress. Especially, if he wants to teach disadvantaged children at secondary level. The job is stressful, different stressful, but stressful all the same.

Its very odd that stress made him so poorly he had a heart attack and the doctor said it was 'probably' anxiety and depression. But he remained working for another year. With out treatment. I am staying there was no treatment for his anxiety and depression because 'probably', isnt a diagnosis. Without a diagnosis there no treatment.

@soulrunner
His physical health was impacted by his mental health, surely? So mental health imo.

DSD will be 18 before long. His obligation to support her will be over. However I'm sure he will continue, given the support given so far.

However, the mother needs to realise that the gravy train is over and she will get nothing. Or at least I hope she gets nothing. Time she supported her child as well.

People “suffer” changes in life style all the time. We had a huge disposable income about 10 years ago. We don’t anymore as our wages have dropped and the cost of living is increased. You just deal with it.

The daughter is not going hungry or homeless, and by the sounds of it her lifestyle won’t change all that much. She will be in the same house, at the same school, with the same friends. Her mother is still getting £1300 per month in CMS, that is actually heaps of money. No mortgage, I guess if we want to be pedantic, the father should cover half of his daughters half of the bills, so 1/4 of all household bills. His half is of school uniforms, food, clothing, toiletries, spending money, blah blah. No way that comes to £1300 a month unless the kid is ridiculously spoiled.

If it’s just a case of wanting to go shopping on Fifth Avenue every month and wipe with gold plated toilet paper, then yeah I’m struggling with the sympathy. The kid should have above and beyond everything she needs with that sort of money, especially as it sounds like there had been in excess of £1M in CMS payments over the years.

So I’m guessing it is just a case of “girlfriend should pay for a kid that isn’t hers” because if she wasn’t in the picture and the father had taken a pay cut, the responses wouldn’t be the same. Which is vastly different to the last thread that was similar. A mother thinking the fathers girlfriend should help with the cost of school uniform because she was rich. She had her ass handed to her saying it wasn’t the girlfriend’s responsibility. Interesting. Maybe it depends what day of the week it is as to why responses you get on mumsnet?

People “suffer” changes in life style all the time.

But he isnt 'suffering' life style changes. Thata the difference.

A mother thinking the fathers girlfriend should help with the cost of school uniform because she was rich. She had her ass handed to her saying it wasn’t the girlfriend’s responsibility. Interesting. Maybe it depends what day of the week it is as to why responses you get on mumsnet?

It was a different situation. From what I remember that couple hadnt been together that long.

Also, op and her dp looked at their finances jointly and decided she would take on his financial responsibilities. Except this one.

Money is either joint. Or its not.

It would be different if he wasnt still living the millionaire lifestyle.

No sympathy whatsoever for your partner. The reality is that if he hadn't been with you, and therefore able to continue to enjoy a nice lifestyle for himself, would he have given up his job to retrain? Of course not.

Many parents, single or not, are in jobs that are making them stressed and miserable, but hey ho, they have to support their family, so they stick to it because that's the commitment you make when you chose to have children.

It is also absolutely laughable that he couldn't cope with his stressful job but decided that teaching was a good option! I've just had my friend over the week-end, in tears, because she ended up giving up her teaching job because she couldn't take it any longer. The difference is that she only has two children with her partner who will be able to support them.

If he was so stressed in his job, he had an option to look for something less a bit less stressful, but that meant he could still pay a decent level of maintenance.

You've done nothing wrong yourself going for a lavish wedding, you don't owe his child anything, but it is poor taste indeed when he can't even properly support his kid. If you went on about the fantastic wedding you were planning, I think I too would have made the same comment.

I would like to know, why op decided to take on his financial responsibilities except this one.

I imagine because it’s ridiculous. No child costs £100K per year to raise. I don’t even know where I’d begin to spend that sort of money on a child.

If her partner had a £100K per year phone bill I imagine she would laugh in his face and tell him she wasn’t paying it.

£100K per year isn’t a responsibility. He has a responsibility to pay for half of everything she needs.

Your partner has taken a MASSIVE drop in salary because his health was affected by the stress of his previous job

He's currently training to be a teacher and paying £1300 maintenance out of savings

Once he finds a job I'm assuming this figure will drop again. So more upset for his daughter

How is he going to cope with the stress of being a teacher if his health is already stress- compromised?

Why has he chosen such a low paid high stress job which will not be good for his health nor will it be good for his role as a father provider?

As shown by this thread, lots of people will disagree with you (from a moral perspective). In real life, lots of your friends/family will be judging you both too, whether they say so or not.

However, people will find something to silently (or maybe not so silently) judge you on anyway. You’ll have seen the number of posters who consider extravagant second weddings, or even first weddings of the bride is over a certain age, as being incredibly naff, tasteless etc even without the financial issues/background here.

It’s up to your conscience to decide whether you fell guilty or not. But I always thought others cannot make you feel guilty if you are certain you are in the right. You are arguing your point, but do you really feel you’re being reasonable deep in your soul ? If so, why do you feel guilty ?

A child and a phone are completely different.

It matters that he had made an arrangement. He had provided a lifestyle. He made a financial commitment to his child. Had it have been a phone he woild pay off the contract.

It's now changing. But he isnt absorbing the the change his daughter is. That's the problem. His life style.

That's what most peoples issue is. His lifestyle is remaining a luxury lifestyle. But his childs, who he ensured had that lifestyle isnt remaining with a luxury lifestyle.

Like I said. As a step parent, I couldn't do that.

Your friend sounds rude and nosey. Your partners daughter has 2 parents capable of supporting her. It's not for you to top up her mum. I earn significantly more than DHs ex but then I went to uni, persuaded a career and went back to work when DD was 10 months whilst she chose to stay home for 6yrs. You should also protect your own finances should you split later on because should you have children you can be sure that DPs ex isnt going to suddenly offer you money to support them (and why should she).

£100K per year is £8333 per month. Anyone who says they spend £8333 per month on their child is either full of shit, or beyond ridiculous and creating an absolutely spoiled brat.

I think it’s safe to say that money was funding the mothers lifestyle.

Urgh, how distasteful. What a clear signal to the child that you intend to utterly change negatively her and her mothers life, and in her inexperienced and highly emotive frame of the world not give a shit about her. Without the tools of life experience or a fully formed emotional brain you may possibly be setting the scene for this child to have mental health issues later in life. It’s not the money, it’s the huge show of what she can at her limited emotional age, only see as a father who once was a solid presence in her life now choosing another woman and her money over her and her mothers security. She may understand later in life but it will be too late then and the emotional damage will have been done. It’s one day yes, but it will be symbolic to her on many levels and I think you are being horribly crass.

it's not that you should contribute to his child (you aren't responsible for her) but he has been very unreasonable.

when he was earning mind-boggling amounts of money he was giving enough money that his ex would have had no need or reason to work - and tbh that wasn't really wrong as it would have been unreasonable for him to have a luxurious life while his child spent 80% of her time in a poor household.

his expectation that his ex would use the opportunity to start a business or set herself up to be financially independent in future would have been very unreasonable while the child was at primary age when the best and most important thing the ex could do would be being focused on making a great home and being a great mum and being fully focused on her child. obviously many parents have no choice but to work and aren't wrong to do so, but with an income of £100k and on housing costs the best thing she could do for the child would be to give her time and attention.

I couldn't see an age for the child but have got the impression that she is mid teens. is that right?

while he was still earning loads he should have sat down with the ex and made it clear that all this support was for the child, during childhood and that it would be drying up as dd got older. he clearly didn't do that.

when he decided to change career he should have set up a 3-5 year transition process (which depending on the kid's age might be until age 18 anyway) - a year is no where near enough.

and while it's not your responsibility to support his child, it is his responsibility to ensure that his child has no worse a standard of living than he does himself. he is clearly still living in the lap of luxury (albeit funded by you) so should be doing more to ensure his child shares that. for example he could be giving the ex 100% of what he earns as a teacher and your lifestyle as a couple wouldn't suffer. whatever level of support you are giving dh, he should be wanting to pass on to his daughter enough so that she benefits as much as he does.

plunging ex from £100k to £16k a year was wrong. not that £16k is a poverty income (most single mums don't get anything like that) but the change is so drastic and a year is nowhere near enough notice for a change of that scale.

next steps for your dh should be to work out a plan, in negotiation with ex, which enables dd to share your dh's level of lifestyle until she leaves full time education, and allows for tapering down support for ex to enable her to gradually build up her skills and qualifications and earning power (but using only the time when dd herself is in school, with you or elsewhere, as dd should still have the benefit of her attention when she is around) with a view to becoming self-sufficient when dd leaves full time education.

whilst you have no obligation to this child, your dh comes as a package deal with this child and he has responsibilities to her. therefore it is unreasonable of you to want to compartmentalise between dh and his dd and try to subsidise a much more comfortable lifestyle for him than you do for her, because whatever he has, he has a duty to share it with her.

And for those saying the mother and child do not need the money they were getting - no, quite likely the don’t, but the adjustment in their lives will nonetheless be huge - and not of their choice - a child can not grasp the reasons and has not the breadth of experience nor brain maturity and growth to emotionally understand. It’s not just the ££££ at stake here!