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.

Well I suppose 10 years of receiving £100k per year and not having to pay a mortgage will mean at she has plenty of money in savings.

Read the thread!

Wonder whose name the house is in?

(I’m far too invested in this crazy thread!)

@ThunderR0ad78 ..... why don’t you RTFT. Wasn’t really an ex partner, rather a 2 week shag. The ex “partner” if you want to call her that got bought a nice house, mortgage free, and over £1 million in CM (which is a little less than £50 a minute for the length of their relationship)!! Poor woman, how has she managed to survive??

Also, she was consulted a year prior to the CM dropping from £100,000 per year, to allow her to adjust. I’m pretty sure if she had her input, he would have continued to work himself into an early grave (just in case you missed the part of him having a cardiac arrest, probably due to stress)!

I see you are taking the OP at face value.

It’s enjoyable watching people comb over the details of a story that makes no sense whatsoever. I’m not gonna lie.

A few years ago I might have said yabu op but after seeing someone close to me going through a breakdown because of the stress of their job I would now tell anyone to take a pay cut if that’s what was needed to prevent a breakdown. If the person i know had left his job (he was told to) he might not have had his breakdown but he didn’t and it was one of the hardest things I’ve had to watch, seeing someone that depressed and broken was heartbreaking and I wouldn’t want my worst enemy to go through that. So no op yanbu 100% if that’s what he needed to do then good on him, would his dd rather have a ski holiday and a dead dad or a healthy alive dad? I’m sure she might be upset now but as she gets older I’d like to hope she understands he didn’t do it because he fancied it he done it for his health, also if explained to her now if she’s old enough I’d like to hope she’d u derstand to a certain degree. He’s also paying quite good matience now of £1300 that’s is plea to for a child to have some extracurricular activities and to save a small amount each month to go toward any big trips which after the savings have been put towards it could then maybe be affordably paid for betweenness her mum and dad. Please remember the mother is meant to pay half of the child’s upbringing as well as the father I assume she wasn’t paying 100k a year towards her dd aswell as him? He is only paying for his dd NOT his ex wife’s lifestyle aswell.

For goodness' sake. If you don't believe the OP, walk away. It gets so tedious when a thread turns into a troll hunt for no apparent reason. It never adds anything to the discussion.

If he was still with his ex and and living with his daughter, would he be able to dramatically drop his income like he has and retrain? Probably not. I don't get why people do it when they're parents unless there's money saved up and it won't affect their children or there's some sort of government help to ensure the household income doesn't drop too much.

Sorry but I really despise men that do this. I haven't even ever had to claim maintenance either as I'm with my DH and we have a son but it just irks me so much. My job is literally stressing me so much but guess what? I have a child I need to pay for and I don't have a partner that can earn more to help me dodge paying so much for my child. So yes, splashing about your big wedding while your DSD has had her lifestyle dramatically changed is shit

Well if he and the OP split up, I guess he’s going to be fucked really.

Also, was he fuck paying £8,000 a month before and still paying £1,300 now on a teachers salary! Do you think we came down the stream on a banana boat OP? No one earns half a million a year and jacks it in when they aren't even married yet to their super high earning partner to earn 5% of what they earned before. What a load of bull this thread is

I think the crux of the matter is, assuming it’s true, is that the OP’s friends and the majority of mumsnet, seem to think it’s now the OP’s responsibility to maintain the previous level of CMS. It’s not. This is up to the child’s parents, and should be doable given both his previous income, and her previous CMS.

Literally ANY other thread of someone asking if a new wife’s income should be taken into account when calculating CMS is met with a big fat NO WAY. Even the ones where dad is living the high life and holiday it with his wife while the child isn’t. Literally everyone will say that is her money, and she has no responsibility to the child. The only people responsible for the child’s expenses is the parents.

I have no idea why this one has gone so differently.

The problem is he is keeping his lavish lifestyle, that makes him a CF

Surely the mother should get a job and be thankful of the generous handouts that she has benefited from previously (and should have saved from?)

I don’t think anyone has said that though TotalRecall. I don’t know know what the answer is, but I do think it’s unfair that the Ex and his daughter have had a massive change in circumstances and they are going ahead and planning this lavish wedding. It probably just is what it is. Unfair of course, but that’s life.

I totally understand why the friend said what she said though. Good on her!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3260735-to-think-that-sometimes-a-new-partners-income-should-be-considered-by-cms?pg=1&order=

Very different responses. And by all accounts the dad in that scenario sounds like a huge twat.

I mean on this thread. I don’t think many people are saying that the OP should be topping up the maintenance or anything like that. I can just see how it grates that dad is off on an all-expenses paid trip to Maui for his honeymoon while pleading poverty that his daughter can’t go on her school ski trip. It’s a bit shitty really.

It's true that mn tell us not to trust etc. But surely you have to have a bit of trust when they say they have looked behind the scenes. If the op posted normally about a completely different lifestyle, they would have pulled the thread. That should be enough to assume there is some element of truth in this.

@BlackCatSleeping posters have been saying exactly that throughout the thread. That the op should top it up to the level that has always been paid.
As @TotalRecall pointed out, any other thread the op would be told not a chance, and the cheeky fucker who suggested this to her would be told to jog on.

Regardless of when it stopped, it would have stopped. And you have to be one daft person not to account for this. The mum has had 10 years to plan for this day, and a part of the condition was that the mum uses this money to make something of herself.

And let's be honest. Even if the mum has managed to spend all that money over the years, they aren't going to be starving. 1300k a month and without savings, full benefits. There's also no rent/mortgage or private school fees to pay. This should be more than ample for them to live a decent life, just with things like labels will have to change. There's still plenty for the horse and the ski holiday.

And like people say a lot on here, mum will have to learn to live within her means and budget. Just like millions of others do.

I can just see how it grates that dad is off on an all-expenses paid trip to Maui for his honeymoon while pleading poverty that his daughter can’t go on her school ski trip. It’s a bit shitty really

That’s the bit as to why this story has holes. A parent previously on £800k a year, with savings, now paying £1300pm CMS, and another parent previously getting £100K a year CMS, there is NO WAY between the two of them they can’t afford a ski trip. Like literally no way. Unless they both have a coke habit or gamble thousands a week. There is no way it can be one or the other.

If this thread is fake why is it still up?

100k a year was enough to get a full time nanny so the ex could pursue a career if she wanted and have plenty left over to pay for anything the kid needed plus extras to save

If she’s pleading poverty now than she clearly didn’t do the above. 1.3k still is enough for help with before/after school and some expenses so what’s the problem here?

Everybody saying if he died there would be no money? Really? No life insurance and he has disinherited his daughter?

I think the crux of the matter is, assuming it’s true, is that the OP’s friends and the majority of mumsnet, seem to think it’s now the OP’s responsibility to maintain the previous level of CMS.

I don't think thata what people are saying. I certainly don't think there should be a legal obligation, in this sort of situation.

However, I have asked about the thinking behind it. Op and her dp decided that OP would financially support him for the rest of their lives. And she will. As I said, its unlikely they will live in a house that he can pay half of, for example.

So when she decides to take in all his financial responsibilities, why was this one different. To both him AND her. I dont believe that judgement about the mother, didnt come into it.

I also want to know how he justifies the fact that the only persons life that changes is his daughters. Not his.

As a step mum, I would have tried to find some sort of compromise.

It's true that mn tell us not to trust etc. But surely you have to have a bit of trust when they say they have looked behind the scenes. If the op posted normally about a completely different lifestyle, they would have pulled the thread. That should be enough to assume there is some element of truth in this.

There might be elements of truth. But its obvious OP hasnt told the full story. People are entitled to ask about the huge holes in the story.

The fact that he, more than likely, has lots of income not connected to his current job means he is sitting back watching his daughters lifestyle drop whilst still having loads of lonely coming in. If he is a hedge fund manager that's an almost certainty. Or he is taking the piss out of OP.

If he does have wealth, he isnt being generous towards his daughter, now. Op isnt taking on his financial responsibilities. They have, instead, decided to drop his income on paper. But not in reality.

You dont have an issue with that?

That said, I do hope this isnt real. Surely pp knows prenups arent taken into account for long marriages. If he does indeed only have an NQT wage, and some savings. If they are married for 10 years, he will get a wack in a divorce. By which point he won't be paying for his daughter. Its win win for him.

If OP's fiancé has been taking home ( conservatively, assuming no financial knowledge of clever shenanigans and just PAYE) £330,000 a year for 10 years, where has that money gone? There will of course be investments that he can use towards his daughter.

This is not about a school trip. It is about punishment and a curious view around money. OP's argument is that she was raised just fine without, thank you very much and so it is time for her step daughter to be taught the same. While simultaneously showboating her wealth now.

There is just a calculated meanness and lack of empathy, towards the child, that hits a very bad note.

Sure reduce maintenance to the ex. But covering the costs of one child, at state school is not going to affect the new couple's lifestyle in any way.

There are arrogant and punitive elements to the child's treatment, which are triggering people to respond.

There’s some harsh responses! Just because you spend money on your wedding doesn’t mean it’s tacky! We got married ‘late’, had our children first and then married so I was 40. It was a small ish wedding but we spent money on choosing a lovely, quiet venue which had a Michelin star restaurant so spent our money on lovely food and free wine all day. I had a very simple dress, cost less than £300. Provided all transport. Evening was all back to ours in a marquee for hog roast, more free booze and a dance! It was expensive but understated not tacky, god I hope so anyway!!!
I think with your partner’s daughter this is a bit tricky. The mother really should have saved a vast amount of money if she had that income for years with only one child and no mortgage to pay. Unless they both dressed top to toe in designer clothes and holidayed in the south of France for every holiday I just don’t know where all that money has gone. This woman has been very silly to not put some by realising that they were never married and so she could have had this payment taken away at any time. But maybe she has been daft and spent the whole lot?
Your partner and you have a combined huge income. I therefore cannot see why you wouldn’t pay for the odd ski trip for her as a treat. Has she always gone on expensive school trips? Ours all go to local state school but there are expensive trips from year 8, Barcelona, Iceland, Ski trip, New York. Mine have done a ski trip and New York and it was one of the best things each had done in their lives. I am so glad they did these trips and have the memories of doing them with their friends. For that reason I would want to provide this for this girl. Of course many don’t do this and you didn’t do it in your childhoods but it won’t make her a bad person by going on them! In fact mine have now decided they love travel and want to have a well paid job so that they can do these types of holidays.
I would also hope that you (jointly) but something nice for Christmas and birthdays? Sounds like the Christmases and birthdays she used to have have changed and this may be hard for a child to understand and not wonder what they may have done wrong?
So I guess I’m saying it would be nice to treat this girl and isn’t that a lovely way to spend some of your hard earned money?

Yep l think this needs to go into classics.

I have been tickled about the accusation being thrown around and demands for the thread to be pulled

Definitely one of those threads that make me glad lm not male or a stepmum. The child is more than adequately being provided for, ski trips etc are hardly out of reach. The father is providing way more CMS then legally he has done and always has done apparently. No mention about the child’s actual mother working or putting her hand in her pocket. Why should the step mum get involved, the situation isn’t her problem or concern