Payrise and maintenance

[Lillo7]

Keen to hear people's opinions about this.

Two DC, father is married with more children. Mother is single.

Father is not on a great wage however his wife has received several payrises in the years they've been together and works in a professional career which means as a whole their household is quite well off and can afford quite a lot of luxuries.

Maintenance is paid by the father based on his low wage. Mother is struggling a little as also on a lower wage.

Mother argues that they should pay more as a household instead due to wife's higher pay, obviously not officially through CMS as they don't take new partners into account, but morally. Wife disagrees and says what she earns is nothing to do with the mother and is for her household/children/ stepchildren when there, not at their mums.

Father stuck in the middle a bit.

Random poll options

YABU - wife should subsidise higher maintenance.

YANBU - Mother and father should care for their children on their own respective wages and what wife earns is nothing to do with the mother.

It’s Storytime again.

I didn't realise we were banned from making a conversation more general?

But it's not pointless, the op posed the question hypothetically initially.

If I knew this was all funded by my SM?

I think I’d wonder why my parents didn’t feel the need to make sure they both provided more for me.

I grew up with a single mum and a dad who didn’t pay maintenance. Do you know what my mum did? She worked FT. She went to university in the evenings. She worked two evening jobs. And she made sure that she paid the mortgage and kept us fed.

My dad moved in with my SM and still contributed nothing. He had a much better lifestyle because of her. I do not resent her for not paying his maintenance or whatever. I feel sorry for the poor woman for having tied herself to my arsehole of a father.

STBXH grew up with a single mum who received maintenance (and had no housing costs). She never worked more that very PT in a minimum wage style job. She did nothing to improve her situation. She never even learned to drive. But still, 35 years post divorce she is angry and bitter that FIL moved on and had a better life with SMIL (who worked and had to basically subsidise FIL’s entire lifestyle so he could pay MIL’s mortgage and pay maintenance).

The optics here don’t make me think that the SM should contribute to the RP’s household.

I am a single mum. My mum absolutely drummed it into me that I should ensure that I can always support myself and my children financially. Other than may leave I’ve always worked FT. When I separated I had to change jobs, giving up a good pension, lots of flexibility and far less stress to get a much higher salary (so I’m sacrificing my future and causing myself much more stress) so that I can pay my bills and provide for my children. I make sure that my kids can have swimming lessons etc.

Lots of women on MN make sure they provide for their kids. We don’t buy the argument that other women should be morally responsible for our household finances.

Children’s fathers: yes. They should make sure they’re able to properly support their children. But their partners’ salaries and assets are not some resource for SC’s mothers to tap into.

Men could choose not to get into a relationship with a more affluent woman.

Or they can help their child to frame it to see that it’s because SM can afford it and isn’t it great that they get to benefit for a nicer house/meals out etc when they are with him.

What isn’t ok is making the SM feel she cannot provide a lifestyle for her own children from her own income.

No where did I suggest thats what the ops husband is doing. But it is pretty normal for threads to move in a more general direction and this one already had by the time I commented

I am both a mum whose children have a step mother and a step mother myself.

I don't expect my children's step mum to subsidise my existence or pay for my children. But equally I would think less of her if she encouraged my ex to work part time to get out of his responsibilities.

That said, I work hard to give my children a nice life. And choose to treat my step children the same when they are with us. I would leave DH if he worked part time or hid his earnings to get out of paying maintenance. But equally I see no reason i should subsidise his ex's choice to work part time when he children are secondary age.

But equally I would think less of her if she encouraged my ex to work part time to get out of his responsibilities.

See, I would never frame this as her ‘encouraging’ him. I’d view it as his decision and I’d be annoyed that he was looking to get out of his responsibility to provide financially for his children.

Even if he had become a SAHD to their children. I’d be annoyed at him about it. Not her. He’s knows he has nonresident children to provide for. He’s making choices that mean he’s not doing that.

His new partner owe me absolutely nothing. At most I’d feel sorry for her for being daft enough to take on my ex as a financial dependent.

So long as dad is working full time it's not the wife's responsibility. My ex has a partner who earns significantly more and he dropped to part time and lives off her now so pays maintenance on part time work while having a better quality of life. It irritates me but he was financially abusive to me and I can see he's using his new partner for her money new partner is the victim as much as his kids who are missing out. It's not her job to support his kids. She's amazing in that she parents them for him while they are there, has a room for them in her house she pays for I do t expect more

I didn't say I would be annoyed. I said I would think less of her. And I would. Because I wouldn't stay with a man who did this.

I fully appreciate the blame would lie with the man. But no way would I stay with my husband if he tried to live off me to avoid paying his ex.

Most of the blame for these situations lies with the man in the middle, who is normally happy passively to offload his responsibilities onto the women around him.

Take you @Chocolatebuttonns . Why should you fund your joint child mostly on your own? That's not fair to you.

Most people have the number of children they can care for properly. Caring for children doesn't involve paying minimum CMS (or even slightly above that) and seeing your kids a couple of days a week, it involves making damn sure they have the best life they can even if you have to make personal sacrifices.

If you have four children in two different households, that's going to be a lot more expense/work than two kids in one household. You're going to really have to step up and navigate difficult financial and emotional situations to make it work.

Why does most of the discussion centre on the women when it's usually the dad who is the weak link for both sets of DC?

Sadly we are in this situation but the other way around.
RP provides everything for kids, they do not need anything.
NRP pleads poverty, food is sparce, no new clothes, shoes etc
Child told 'ask RP to send new xyz'.
No CMS required by RP.
At NRP there's always money for takeaways with the gf, booze in fridge and fags hidden in the car.....and they still somehow think RP giving £ to NRP would be appropriate.
How on earth is this resolved?

In what way is my husband living off me? H has 2 kids. I have 2 kids. We both have very similar (decent) salaries.

I’m not even slightly surprised he’s awful all round.
Your husband is right, and it will never occur to him that he’s the issue.
Well done on escaping him (for the most part).

My children aren't his.

We both contribute the same. We each have the same number of children. We each earn essentially the same (varies a little depending on bonuses/ overtime etc)

I don't see how I am subsidising him

Men could choose not to get into a relationship with a more affluent woman.

I’ve surely heard it all now.

And I wasn't 🤷‍♀️