To say to DH that these payments to his ex should stop now?

[yardandbard]

When me and DH first met he has a set up with his ex (who was single at the time and on a lower wage) where he'd contribute towards her going on holiday every year with their children. There was no maintenance paid as they've always done 50:50 but he used to pay towards her holidays.

We've now been together for nearly 6 years and this is still ongoing. Its not just expected and imo should stop. DH has made suggestions before in the past that it stops but it's always met with complaints and kick offs and to keep the peace he ends up carrying on for another year.

The ex is now with someone else herself and has been for a couple of years, we also have joint DC to think about too, a bigger home than before etc etc.. all meaning spare money isn't as easily found as it was before. Its not that it's not affordable but more that the money could be used for more important things for OUR family and in my opinion she should now be supporting her own holidays with her own job and partner if she wants to go away, I've always thought the arrangement was odd and a bit cheeky but I lived with it at first. Now I just think it's ridiculous.

Aibu to say to DH this really needs to stop now? He'll agree with me as he's wanted to stop for a while but I know she'll likely moan she can't go away with the children otherwise so it's just about getting him to keep saying no despite the fall out.

What does contribute towards her going on holiday every year with their children mean?

Does he pay for the entire holiday (both children plus ex), bar a little bit that she pays for herself?

Does she pay for the entire holiday (both children plus herself) with him contributing towards the cost of her going?

Now that she has a partner, what is your DH paying?

It's insane that some posters think the OP's DH should pay for the children to have a NORMAL family holiday when he's already paying for that.

I would suggest that after so many years of the husband contributing to their holiday, it's definitely time that the children's mother steps up. She isn't contributing to their normal family with their father.

Does the new partner go too? Surely they should be paying together as a family unit just as you do. I do as PP-I will give you x amount this year and no more than that and next year I won’t be providing.

What exactly does he pay OP? Because there's a world of difference between him paying for his ex, her new partner and the DC to go on holiday, and paying a 'contribution' towards the costs of his own DC having a holiday. If he's better off than her its a nice gesture to cover the DCs costs (even though he also pays for their holiday with him) as it enables his DC to have a holiday with their mum they wouldn't otherwise have, its being a good dad.

Nope. They have them 50%.

They go on holiday with their dad. Why should he pay for both his and the mother’s holidays?

It doesn’t affect her finances if he’s paying out of his income for his children to spend quality time with their mother.

Some real misers on here, it’s sad.

This appears to be a pre-existing agreement and good on the dad for honouring that.

I don't think it's generous. I don't think paying for your family to go on holiday every year after you move out and move on and start another family counts as bare minimum.

You can still get child maintenance if the incomes are not the same between the exes. Since the childrens mother has a low income it’s quite possible she is owed maintenance that he isn’t paying so a contribution towards a holiday might be fair.

I can't believe pp think he should be paying for his ex wife to have "quality" with their children. That's literally her job. It sounds like he provides at least half if not more than he legally and morally has to. How many children get more than one holiday a year? Not many I bet.

I may get flamed for this, but I do think that when a couple decide to have children, if one is a significantly lower earner and their earning potential has been or will be limited by having children, when they split the higher earner does have some ongoing financial obligation, even if they split care 50/50. The sensible thing would be to marry, so that a proper divorce arrangement can be put in place, but in the absence of that I don't think it's unreasonable for your DH to contine to support his ex financially in some way. Did his ex take any time off work or work part time when the children were small, which affected her career? That's all relevant imo. If a child free couple split, it's not difficult for a lower earner to adjust to the financial consequences of that, they can work to earn more and improve their circumstances. But kids make that so much more difficult, and often the lower earners career has been impacted by having kids. Given the decision to have children was a joint one when the couples income was shared running a single home, I don't think it's unreasonable for the higher earner to help mitigate some of the financial consequences if a split, and the costs that come with running two households, even if they don't legally have to. The lower earner presumably didn't think they'd be a single parent shouldering the costs of running a household that's appropriate for two children when they decided to have them, and they might have made a different decision had they known what was to come. Contributing to a holiday is hardly a fortune in the grand scheme of things.

My ex still funds holidays I take our daughter on because he’s a generous man and the most important thing to him, is that she has many and varied experiences.

He also hasn’t presented a partner or other children this may bother, so no problems there.

How old are the children now, OP? Is there likely to be many more years of this? The fact he hasn’t stopped it despite saying he wants to, suggests he is just making the right noises for you, but has no real intention of discontinuing this contribution.

Isn’t the earning potential of a majority of women damaged in some way due to pregnancy, childbirth, maternity leave and childcare (even if it is a „fair“ childcare arrangement)?

I am not saying the OP‘s DH should continue to pay. But even „just“ pregnancy, childbirth and mat leave without any additional childcare have the potential to disrupt a career. Especially if it’s a repeated occurrence (OP wrote about children)…

@Hayliebells makes absolute sense to me!

Mmm I’m not so sure. Is it really 50:50 ? Has she had to limit her career and earning potential to be the primary caregiver? If she earns significantly less than your DH becouse of the kids then I’m afraid that he should be contributing more towards their costs. Also he is not paying for her holiday - but the kids. In any case it’s between the two of them really

Yeah, the ex has moved on and has a new partner. She should be doing the bare minimum and contributing to the holiday that her children take with their father.

@HunterHearstHelmsley but that’s not the agreement so entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I would be OK if he paid for his children's share... I.e. if she wanted to go on a holiday that was her, her partner and the kids... he should technically pay for 50% of each of his children... and maybe half of her's, but that's all.

As they have a 50'/50 split it's hardly a 'bare minimum', there are a lot of grabby ex wives on here tonight. Not only is it generous, it's crazy, the ex contributes nothing to her children's holidays with their father, she's doing very well.

It's absolutely relevant when the discussion is about whether the payments should stop.

He pays for half the kids cost surely not half the whole?

@HunterHearstHelmsley well I disagree

No one said he 'should' just that he might be a particularly nice dad who is happy to, because that way his DC get to enjoy an extra holiday with their mum. Being a parent isn't just ticking off a list of the minimum you SHOULD do and not a thing more, is it? Sometimes parents like to do bit more for their DC, and aren't that fussed if that means an ex inadvertently benefits, because the priority is the DCs happiness.

She hasn't been the primary caregiver for many years if the children have only been with her 50% of the time.

Nothing of her holiday, why should he? The ex should be paying for her children's holidays with the OP's family.