Page 16 | To agree that DH should reduce maintenance

OhcantthInkofaname · 28/08/2023 01:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 28/08/2023 01:48

It is the mum's responsibility to provide a home for herself and her dd when dd is with her. The dad is already providing a home elsewhere.

This. Why on earth are people insisting that the father should support both households?

Talk about taking the piss. This woman has wasted 10 years she could have been boosting her earning power and people think she still is owed something from her long-ago ex, who has been a very equal parent all this time?

Insane.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 28/08/2023 01:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

The mother's had 10 years to do her fair share of that and apparently failed abjectly.

OP and her husband are doing well more already.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 28/08/2023 01:53

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 27/08/2023 23:44

Well done, OP. That sounds like a very reasonable solution for now. You and your DH are both very generous, and maintaining a good relationship with dsd's mum will definitely benefit her in the longer term.

The double standards on this thread haven't surprised me, they're a constant on MN. They do annoy me though. The OP has been very clear that the dsd's mother has worked FT throughout, and that the OP/her DH have actually facilitated a lot of the school pick-ups/drop-offs etc between them, so it's clear that the mother hasn't been left to manage everything by herself, and yet we're still told that the ex wife must need supporting because a mother couldn't possibly have a successful career.

When are we going to stop painting women out to be so hopelessly incapable that it's inevitable that they will need a man to support them, even when they are no longer in a relationship with them?!

Edited

Agree.

The bio-mum in this scenario is an entitled chancer.

FloydPepper · 28/08/2023 02:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

So you believe a resident mother should pay a non resident father to equalise the standard of living?

Helpmepleaseimbusy · 28/08/2023 02:32

dreamingbohemian · 27/08/2023 13:28

I can't believe people are making such firm judgments when you haven't divulged your salaries. If she's on 20K and your household is on 100K (for example) then yes he should keep paying some maintenance so that his DD can keep a roof over her head. Reducing, fine, ending completely is dickish.

CMS is based on the parents' salary, not the step parent. Why should OP be out of money for a stepchild? That makes no sense. Cost is the responsibility of the parents.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 28/08/2023 02:39

Exactly, @FloydPepper

If the situation were reversed imagine the people calling for the lone father's head on a pikestaff.

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 07:10

Findyourneutralspace · 27/08/2023 23:48

But the child needs a home, and a lot of those costs don’t go down when the child isn’t there. The mortgage and council tax remain the same, gas and electric may be slightly cheaper, Wi-Fi will be a fixed monthly cost. These things could be reduced if mum moved to a one bedroom flat, but if her daughter still lives at home some of the time or is likely to return, mum can’t easily reduce those costs.
Maintenance doesn’t just pay for clothes and food - it helps to provide appropriate housing.

Show quote history

Why isn't the mother paying for the house that her daughter lives in the majority of the time then? It's not free just because it's Dad's house you know, and they don't get a mortgage reduction for the two nights a week the child isn't there, either.

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 07:14

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I actually think the people who advocate depriving the child of resources in her main home in order to appease her mum are hating the child a bit.

DonnaBanana · 28/08/2023 07:18

I find it weird the DSD mother is jealous of your two incomes. If she really wants to live in a two income household then she can just shack up with someone else. It’s her choice to have a single income.

Milkkbottles · 28/08/2023 08:03

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

aSofaNearYou · 28/08/2023 08:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Cool, I will get my DP to let his ex, who has DSS all the time besides EOW, know that she needs to pay us money to equalise our standard of living. She must hate the child otherwise!

Absolutely bloody ridiculous. There is absolutely no logical defence for what you've said here.

CherryCokeFanatic · 28/08/2023 08:38

She is now the NRP. Make a CMS claim

Original poster

Tiamaria86 · 28/08/2023 08:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Oh you caught me. Yes I hate the child.

The child that I have helped care and look after since she was 3. Cleaned up sick for, cuddled in bed after a nightmare, took on all our holidays, stayed with her during a hospital stay because Mum and Dad were just so exhausted, helped her with her first period because Mum was in work. Plus a thousand other things I've done because I love the kid.

I must hate her to agonise over a decision that legally is very simple but me and DH don't want her to be disadvantaged in anyway. I must hate her to provide childcare and DH agree to continue to provide maintence to allow her Mum to continue her studies.

What a monster I am.

OP posts:

Bellsbeachwaves · 28/08/2023 09:00

Tiamaria86 · 28/08/2023 08:49

Oh you caught me. Yes I hate the child.

The child that I have helped care and look after since she was 3. Cleaned up sick for, cuddled in bed after a nightmare, took on all our holidays, stayed with her during a hospital stay because Mum and Dad were just so exhausted, helped her with her first period because Mum was in work. Plus a thousand other things I've done because I love the kid.

I must hate her to agonise over a decision that legally is very simple but me and DH don't want her to be disadvantaged in anyway. I must hate her to provide childcare and DH agree to continue to provide maintence to allow her Mum to continue her studies.

What a monster I am.

Show quote history

Honestly, don't feed the troll OP. So much black and white thinking on this thread when only you really know the ins and outs. Best of luck 💐

Original poster

Tiamaria86 · 28/08/2023 09:00

Bellsbeachwaves · 28/08/2023 09:00

Honestly, don't feed the troll OP. So much black and white thinking on this thread when only you really know the ins and outs. Best of luck 💐

Show quote history

You're right. I regretted that as soon as I posted haha.

Thanks for your kind words x

OP posts:

CrabbyMcPatty · 28/08/2023 11:29

Findyourneutralspace · 28/08/2023 00:58

As I said earlier - it depends what he can afford. I don’t disagree, I just know that a single income household is likely to suffer if a part of their income gets pulled away, and it’s a question of how to manage that reasonably, which OP and her DH sound like they are doing.

Whether either parent is a single or double income household should be entirely irrelevant. OPs income is irrelevant, it's not for her income to subsidise her partners ex because she happens to be single.

Both parents should be viewed as single in that sense because they are singularly responsibly for financially providing for their children from their singular income, not the income of any partner they may happen to have.

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 18:29

Legally as others have said, Mum should potentially be paying CM. However morally if she's already on a tight budget then that would be a dick move. The main reason she's obviously retraining is to provide a better life for her and her daughter. That said she can't expect your hubby to foot the bill for maintenence whilst also having their daughter at yours the majority of the time? That's just unfair.

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 18:58

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 18:29

Legally as others have said, Mum should potentially be paying CM. However morally if she's already on a tight budget then that would be a dick move. The main reason she's obviously retraining is to provide a better life for her and her daughter. That said she can't expect your hubby to foot the bill for maintenence whilst also having their daughter at yours the majority of the time? That's just unfair.

I would absolutely agree with the moral argument if OPs household was wealthy, but they are also on a budget.
So money is being sent to a household that the DSD isn't in the majority of the time, to her detriment and that of the other children as their household budget is tight.
I don't know how OP can tolerate her childrens financial security being compromised in this way.

celticprincess · 28/08/2023 19:37

The other thing to keep in mind is that if your DJ claims to be the resident parent then the mother could lose child benefit and any universal credit or tax credits paid to her.

My ex tried claiming he was 50:50 at one point so he didn’t need to pay maintenance but he never actually is 50:50. At the time we went with 3/4 nights with him a week. And he’s never done 50% of school holidays as I’m a teacher. However gradually over the years it’s decreased. Both the time they spend with him and also how much he pays me. He’s still single so doesn’t get the tax credits I get or the child benefit. One child also gets DLA which uplifts tax credits. He’s not paid me in months now and I know that he genuinely can’t afford it so I’m not pushing it.

Bjt your situation sounds a bit like what could happen to her if you then claim to be the resident parents. I’d have lost my house (mortgaged) if I didn’t have the tax credits and child benefit etc. I can actually manage without his money, just. He used to go halves on things but doesn’t now.

it’s tricky.

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 19:58

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 18:58

I would absolutely agree with the moral argument if OPs household was wealthy, but they are also on a budget.
So money is being sent to a household that the DSD isn't in the majority of the time, to her detriment and that of the other children as their household budget is tight.
I don't know how OP can tolerate her childrens financial security being compromised in this way.

Show quote history

I agree. It's just a tricky situation I think. He risks alienating the Mum. And also, they are a two household income as opposed to a single parent income. A compromise somewhere in the middle needs to be reached.

aSofaNearYou · 28/08/2023 20:06

I agree. It's just a tricky situation I think. He risks alienating the Mum. And also, they are a two household income as opposed to a single parent income. A compromise somewhere in the middle needs to be reached.

But "somewhere in the middle" would really be just not claiming the maintenance she owes to them. Actually giving her money is not a compromise.

MadinMarch · 28/08/2023 20:33

Thing is technically, you may be right. But if you are a dual income family and the mum is not, and retraining to provide a better quality of life for her and the DD, would the morally right thing not be to just keep the status quo to support this? If you can do it without significant hardship? How is the DD going to feel if suddenly mums house is much tighter for money and you've got extra? I know your income as a step parent is not relevant for CMS maintenance purposes but ultimately you have created a blended family that ought to be about mutual support and doing the best thing for all concerned..if that means your household can accommodate a couple of extra meals a week for the DD without a stretch, why not keep things as they are at least until the mum is qualified?

This! In Buckets.
We don't know the background info, but maybe DSD's mum didn't advance her career as much as she could have when still living with your now husband, didn't expect to separate, and is therefore disadvantaged in terms of earning ability etc.
Also, you have a two person income unit to her one person income- that's such a HUGE difference in this current economic climate. If you live in the SE she could be reduced to living in a studio flat with her daughter and still not be able to afford her bills!This would be so totally inappropriate and morally wrong.
You need to come to an agreement for the daughter's sake so she isn't hugely disadvantaged by the potentially impoverished time she spends with her mother.
I really have no idea how the majority of single parents survive at the moment- UC doesn't cover the rent in the majority of the cases and utilities and food is just so expensive! Let alone any of the other essentials that parenting involves!
I'm speaking as an ex single parent (daughter is now fully grown up and qualified in her profession) and in the rare position of being fortunate enough to be very financially independent and able to fully support her and myself without any support from anyone else, including her father.

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 20:43

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 19:58

I agree. It's just a tricky situation I think. He risks alienating the Mum. And also, they are a two household income as opposed to a single parent income. A compromise somewhere in the middle needs to be reached.

Show quote history

If I was the mum, I'd be more worried about alienating the dad to be honest. She's not paying and she's not looking after the child that much so what has she got to negotiate with?
She's just bloody lucky that OPs household has been able to suck up all this additional expense so far.

Grrrrdarling · 28/08/2023 21:04

Tiamaria86 · 27/08/2023 13:16

I have a DSD. We previously had her 2-3 nights a week in general. Sometimes it was more and sometimes less.

Her Mum has decided to retrain in a different career and this has meant late nights and early starts so we now have DSD more like 4-5 nights a week.

DSD has her own room with us and has friends round and we take her to all her hobbies and clubs etc.

DH pays for half her uniform and we buy her clothes and trainers and electronics etc.

DH has approached DSD mum and suggested that maintenance shouldn't be paid anymore. He's happy to go half's on anything she needs as well as continue to buy her things but really monthly maintenance is no longer appropriate.

DSD mum doesn't agree and is really shocked he has suggested this as we are a 2 income household and she will really struggle without it.

DH has suggested paying a lesser amount for now as a transition period which I think is really reasonable. DSD mum is really unhappy about it and can't even believe its been suggested.

My PILs also think DH is unreasonable and should continue to pay.

Am I going mad? Maintenance isn't appropriate in these circumstances is it? Or are we wrong?

You are now, in essence, the resident parents/the parents with the most time caring for the child so I am almost certain CM would be 100% cancelled out.
Continuing to help out with extras is really good & a positive but mum will need to learn to live without CM unless she is the main cater for the child, which she isn’t right now.
She should have checked instead of just assuming 😬