To say no to OH increasing child maintenance

[Nastyurtium]

Need a sanity check here.

OH pays maintenance at CMS level to his ex for their three children. We have them every other weekend and half the holidays and provide everything they need whilst they’re here, as well as paying half of school uniform and trip costs.

I earn double OH’s salary and pay around 75% of our household costs. He is paying off joint debt from his first marriage; I pay for the children’s holidays, clothes and hobbies whilst with us. We live ninety minutes from the children (his ex moved after the split and this is as close as we can be with OH working in his field - if we weren’t worried about proximity, we could both earn double living further away in the UK).

His ex has been commenting a lot on the children costing more as they grow up (they’re primary age), the cost of living going up and the fact that she’s had another baby so can’t work as much, and I’m expecting a formal request for more maintenance money soon. We have a cordial relationship. She has a partner, who is self-employed and she works some hours for his business. I don’t know a lot about their finances but they take more holidays than us and seem to have a similar lifestyle, albeit in a cheaper region. We’d happily have the children for more of the holidays or even full-time but this has always been refused.

AIBU to just say no? If OH was paying half our living costs, it’d be his choice, but he isn’t and has nothing left at the end of each month, so realistically any increase would be coming from my salary.

I’m sure you’ll agree that £400 a month for 3 kids will not provide even half the basics. You’re absolutely right, if it’s all that’s available it’ll have to do but is it good enough?

No, it will be the same rule for all the children, thank you.
DSD didn't get a say. My sons didn't get a say. They all must share what their father can provide. One is not more important or deserving than the others.

I’m sure you’ll agree that £400 a month for 3 kids will not provide even half the basics. You’re absolutely right, if it’s all that’s available it’ll have to do but is it good enough?

Of course it's not and if the op doesn't want to have to pay more she shouldn't have got together with a low earning man with three kids. And to think she wants to have a kids with him!

What part of they’re not her children are you failing to understand? Why don’t you make up the shortfall? You’re as much responsible for those children as she is. When I married my bloke I didn’t take on financial responsibility for his children. Of course it ended up that way because I paid more than my share towards our household expenses - just like OP but I wouldn’t have contributed to his maintenance payments and he wouldn’t have asked it. No decent person would.

If you paid his expenses because he couldn't afford them due to paying for his children, you 100% paid for his children. You may not have sent them a check, but you did pay.

No I didn’t. I didn’t pay “his expenses”. I owned the house we lived in initially with a very small mortgage so I saved him paying rent for a place of his own. That was it.

Why don't I make up the shortfall? Well for one I haven't decided to live with their father and am planning more kids with him....

So you subsidised him enabling him to pay for his kids...

I continued to pay my mortgage on my house just as I had for years. He actually subsidised me because he paid half the bills.

And OP has just as much responsibility for his children as you do, ie none.

I really don't get what the attraction is with these debt ridden low income men who have several kids women keep choosing the shack up with. Then when there's any question that they may have to pay a more fair amount for their kids the new woman gets arsey, this can be avoided altogether by avoiding men with such baggage

She will be their step parent if god forbid she has a child with him. So no of course a poster on MN doesn't have 'as much responsibility'
If people are so dead against someone's existing children having a good standard of living which may impact on their own pocket CHOOSE BETTER MEN!

when there's any question that they may have to pay a more fair amount for their kids the new woman gets arsey

Allow me to correct that for you when they’re paying what’s for their kids the new woman refuses to subsidise their ex wife.

Well the ex laid it on thick to guilt trip him to pay more. She should’ve kept her legs closed. Not your problem.

when they’re paying what’s legally required for their kids the new woman refuses to subsidise their ex wife.

When you get to a certain age everyone you meet has “baggage”.

The op doesn't so I'm not sure why she feels the need to pick someone who a earns a very low wage b has debt c has three kids that will add to the financial strains she is already subsidising and d planning more kids with him

Maybe she is not a gold digger.

The OP doesn’t what? In what world is £36k a very low wage? It’s £3k above the average wage.

Not a gold digger but an absolute mug who is enabling laughing boy to pay the bare minimum for his three kids and will subsidise and more seed he produces

Totally agree.
Nothing would induce me to date someone with kids.

This.

It's nothing to do with being a gold digger - its more about common sense. He has financial obligations to existing debt and to his children, this was always going to mean that his ability to contribute financially to his new family will be restricted. Knowing this the op decides to have children with him.

I put YABU because CMS is the legally enforceable minimum, and isn’t a reflection of how much kids actually cost. And this is between him and his Ex and nothing to do with you.

If you are paying for the kids now, just stop. He’s got commitments, his kids, which are his responsibility. Don’t provide him with a shield by bolstering him up and saying CMS is fine, it’s not. He should be providing more and that’s on him, encourage him instead to pay more to you and to his Ex - or to move out and into smaller accommodation on his own and provide.

I don’t think OP should make up the shortfall but I also don’t think she should be pretending that £400 per month is enough for.3 kids to live on. Yes the guy is paying off marital debt which could be seen as unfair depending on how it was racked up. Either way, those kids are not being provided for properly by their dad.

Why are we back to pretending that the children are costing the DP £400pcm and not a penny more?
He pays the £400, plus puts and additional £200 back in mum's pocket. He pays half of big ticket items on top. Their bedroom/clothes /food/transport on his time are not free so that goes on top.
There are very few months in the calendar year that don't have any school holidays, so in a typical month it's not just 4 days he will be having them.

There are a mandatory 190 school days. OP said they get them half the holidays. So, 3 summer weeks, week at christmas and easter each and half week each mid term week off. plus 5 assorted off days. Somewhere between 77-92 days per year. So, mom has them 190 days min plus 52 weekend days plus half the holidays. So, mom has them between 272-287 days a year and OP has them 78-92 days a year. It averages out to about 25% his time and 75% her time.
Unless someone comes on here and says that the debt came from mom alone, we are not counting it against her. If she spent that money on heating, rent, kids clothes, his and her clothes, transportation, trips they all took, household furniture, etc that was all things he agreed to pay for when they made their arrangement for her to be a SAHM. He can't come back later and claim she pay for them when he is the one that agreed to pay for it in the first place.
The OP claims that his income is around 2400 per month. 28,800 per year. According to the internet, his after-tax income is about 1935 per month. After 400 to children and 400 to debt, he has over 1000 per month left to cover his own expenses plus his 25% of child care. The OP claims that this is barely enough for him to live on. He cannot contribute fully to their bills as a two person household because his is too broke after child maintenance and debt payments. So, where is the rest of his money going? What is he doing with it? If the man cannot be a roommate with $1000 per month in income that only he uses, then are we really supposed to believe that it was the ex who was running through money and racking up debt? OP claims her partner cannot live on 1000 per month having kids 25% of the time, but also claims that the 500 per month he and she contribute to ex mom during her 75% of the time is more than adequate and mom is just being greedy.
If you are wondering where 2400 income for him came from, the OP claimed that 400 maintenance and 400 debt payment took 1/3 of his income.
And none of this factors in the fact that being the primary parent just costs more in money and way more in time. I think everyone is just piling on ex mom because of the fact that it is claimed she cheated.