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.

There’s nothing wrong with that, providing you don’t get involved with anyone who has kids, or adopt any.

No one is expected anyone to “give anyone half their wage” 🙄
but an awful lot of people are prepared to see their step kids go without and live a “lesser life” than their own children, which I find quite a repugnant attitude.

No, they’re not legally responsible for any kind of financial support for HIS children. I just don’t see any solution that would provide a “fair” system that works well for kids in the event that parents separate.

A new partners income isn’t taken into account in England either. Certainly not standard practice.

it is really offensive to many adoptive families to make statements comparing becoming a stepmother to adopting a child.

It’s a completely different situation and the child has two parents who retain parental responsibility. Financially supporting the parent you’re not in a relationship is not a requirement.

For all this you must love and treat them as your own stuff, it very quickly becomes apparent that this only extends to paying for the SC. It doesn’t extend to decision-making or disciplining. It’s more of a treat them as your own when it suits their parents (so you can pay for stuff and do the childcare and housework - must do it with a smile on your face no matter what) but stay in your lane if you expect anything else.

Moralising to try to insist that the OP has some kind of obligation to make up for the children’s mother’s career and lifestyle choices is ridiculous.

Did someone equate becoming a step parent and adopting a child? 🤔
The latter part of your post sounds quite bitter.

But you are expecting the step parent to provide a similar life for their step child if the parents don't earn enough to support that.

Hahahaha you are so wrong it is laughable, stop spouting this shit.

It can be taken into account in limited ways and under certain circumstances in determining a financial settlement. But it’s not a ‘what can she contribute to the pot to be shared?’ question. It’s only about determining the divorcing party’s needs. So his needs for housing costs will be reduced because he doesn’t need to pay 100% of his rent and bills.

If there was no marriage or the divorce was concluded with a clean break financial settlement before any new cohabiting occurred, then the new partner’s income is entirely irrelevant to the ex.

That’s what happens in England. But, as I said, no sensible person should move in with a person who hasn’t sorted out their financial settlement as part of their divorce first.

YOU did. Read your own post and stop being disingenuous. Why would you even bring adoption into anything?

’You sound bitter’ is clearly your way of pretending that this isn’t the very clear pattern of argument that recurs on stepparenting discussions all the time. Less bitter than fed up with this nonsense being thrown at women in these situations.

And…?

No I didn’t equate being a step parent to adopting 😂
I equated adopting to a statement saying that it was impossible to love a child that you hadn’t carried and birthed, the same way that you love one that you had. That is literally saying that an adoptive parent can’t love their adopted child as much as one they’ve birthed and carried, and many people feel that way, and there’s nothing wrong with feeling that way just don’t adopt, or get involved with someone who has kids. It’s not rocket science

You said “providing you don’t get involved with anyone who has kids, or adopt any”.

The thread has NOTHING to do with adoption. You brought adoption into the discussion of how (you think) stepparents should feel about stepchildren. You are the one that aligned the two situations.

But, I think you are purposefully being disingenuous to have a fight online. So I’m not going to engage any further.

My bloke’s ex took the same stance. It’s ridiculous.

Absolutely not. How much money your DH pay? How often does he have his child? This is key also so mum can work more hours?

Well you’ve hit the nail on the head. Somewhere along the line, people started to think everything must always be equal and ‘fair’ in any household a DC is part of, with anyone at all involved (ie stepparents) needing to contribute to ensure this magical fairness is ensured at all times.

It doesn’t.

I work really hard, DH’s does fuck all. Their DC are never going to have the life with her that I can give mine. I’ll be damned if I’m giving money to their household to allow their mother to look good in front of them and hide her fecklessness.

• DH’s ex does fuck all

Also you seem time and time again on here, people saying that father's should stump up the cash regardless of whether it will leave them worse off - nobody seems to care about 'fair and equal' in those cases. They'd rather the mother has everything.

Do keep up, it was never said that the dad doesn't supply adequate maintenance, he does +++

And even if he does not supply ‘adequate’ (by MN terms) maintenance to his ex… it’s not his new partner’s responsibility to top that up.

He does still have bills to pay. He does still need to support his younger children. If that means less goes to his ex’s household, that is just life.

It’s like insisting that your partner is responsible for ensuring you pay your taxes properly. It’s his financial responsibility.

At most the discussion is about what he can afford to contribute to the shared household. And how much more his partner is willing to contribute to maintain her own lifestyle.

We so often see posters on MN who are bearing sole financial responsibility for their children while their husband or partner pays zero towards that. The justification that he has a first family to pay towards seems to be used to make it ok that he is basically a deadbeat dad in the household he lives in. And some posters on MN are vindictive in asserting that this is what she and her ‘sprogs’ deserve because they’re just a second family.

When a relationship breaks down, there is less money to go around for the children. Two households have to be maintained. If the parents are both low earners, then the children will experience the lifestyle their incomes allow. If one or both parents have a new partner who is more affluent, then the children get to benefit from the nicer lifestyle in that household. People should view that as a bonus for the children, rather than trying to divert the new partner‘s income or assets to the ex on the basis of ‘fairness’ for the children (if she’s a woman that is; no one actually thinks a mother’s new partner should be paying to maintain the lifestyle in her ex’s house)

The baseline is actually the lifestyle the parents provide.

So in my case my DSS Mum lives in HA home, works 7.5 hours per week and receives the rest in benefits. She has 1 school age child at home (My DSS).

My DH did earn 50k per annum but got made redundant during covid 4 times and now earns half this as couldn't find another job giving him the hours off to see his son. He has not reduced the child support he pays.

I work 60 hour weeks, earn roughly 80kpa but I have a mortgage to pay, most other household bills and my own 14 year old to pay for.

Do you then expect me to 'level up' DHs ex to ensure DSS has the same at his Mums? Are you telling me that I should leave him part of my share of the house my DH and I jointly own when I was the one that paid the entire deposit and worked hard for it before getting into a relationship with DH?

DSS already benefits from my earnings. His father gets to see him more because he can work in a job that suits his contact better, he still pays child support as if he earns 50k still.

Just so we're clear there is no chance I am paying for DSS Mums lifestyle choice anymore than I already do through my taxes, and neither should any other step mum.

He does support all DC. Because he can't afford to give DSCs mum the same amount of money I bring into our household doesn't mean his children with her aren't supported. Plenty of people support children on lower wages.

Another person avoiding answering a question

would you expect a resident parent to pay a non resident parent to equalise the standard
of living across the households?

or where there is 50:50?

People are shortsighted.