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.

They should both get better paid jobs. And until then try to maximise their income by doing overtime/finding a second job if they can when the kids aren't with them.

The only quarter I would give on this is if the father is reducing his payments for his children due to their being additional children in his household now I would think that was a bit mean. Other than that, its really not the new partners business and certainly not hers or his responsibility.

Do you think the same of women too?

Absolutely. Both parents are responsible for financially, emotionally and practically supporting their children. It's up to them how they divide these responsibilities.

But when you get one parent funding 70% of the kids' expenses and having them 70% of the time, or any other sort of unfair split, while the other parent pays minimum CMS and has them 30% of the time, then it's clear who's doing the heavy lifting. I'm not saying this is the OP's husband's split, but it sounds like it comes close.

The OP described the mother as 'struggling a little' so I am assuming that objectively, on the OP's own account, things are somewhat tough for them.

Of course, if the kids are having five holidays a year, do countless clubs and sports, get £££ pocket money and the ex is kicking off because she can't afford a pony for them, then that's a different story 😂.

Really? So if the ex wife moved in a well earning new husband you'd get the ick? Somehow I don't believe that.

If the kids were living in relative poverty while the ex wife had new cars and nice holidays, then yes I would.

The thing is, aside from giving her money, how do you equal up lifestyles like that? So I can afford to take my family, inc DSC, on holiday but because DHs ex can't then we shouldn't go? Is that about the DC or his ex then?

Especially if he's not actually financially responsible for the new children in the household and his expenses have decreased on moving in.

This would be a really, really low thing to do. OP, I'm assuming your DH at least didn't do this?

The other children in the household are mine and DHs. There are no children living here that are not DHs responsibility.

Regardless he has never reduced maintenance payments and as mentioned already pays more than the calculator suggests. Which is right and fine. I'd never encourage him to lessen it. I just don't intend to top it up myself

He needs to step up and start maximising his income. He’s should feel very rubbish that there’s such a disparity in his children’s quality of life.

That seems fair.

But I still don't understand why your DH had more children when apparently he can't afford to provide a decent lifestyle for the ones he already had.

This isn't about you or the ex imo. You're entirely correct - not your circus, not your monkeys.

It just backs up my view that most relationship problems of this type arise because there is a fairly inadequate man at the centre of two families. In this case, one who had more children than he could comfortably afford.

As long as he's working full time and not minimising income to avoid maintenance. He should also be contributing to big ticket items so his older children within reason have a decent standard of living

Morally OP I’m with you but I have a feeling the courts would take your earnings into account as the fathers household income - it might be worth looking into this.

Realistically the dad should perhaps take on extra work to pay more for his child and the mum will find this very difficult to do if she has the majority of the time with them.

The courts have absolutely no interest in the OP’s income.

The DH is remarried. Presumably his divorce had a financial settlement. He’s not a high earner, so maintenance will be via CMS.

The courts are utterly irrelevant to this.

I'm in a wierd situation like this.....i'm the RP - higher earner , lazy workshy ex demands money from me to ensure the child get the 'same standard of living in both homes'.

I've got this t shirt OP, except I don't have any kids of my own and before DH and the even moved in together the ex asked for maintenance to be relocated to take into account my salary (I KID YOU NOT)

He's always paid maintenance +++ and she was working part time with two mid teens kids who got themselves to and from school so no excuses.

Step kids are now adults but benefitted hugely from our bigger home, nice holidays, days out all paid for by me and whenever any extras needed paying for the extra told the kids "ask Dolly, I can't afford anything on the pittance your dad gives me.

Some ex's just have an axe to grind forever I'm afraid, she sounds like one of them. Ignore her

Based on your presumption of a financial order… it’s worth being certain.

RTFT. He's working FT in a professional job as is the ex. How exactly do you propose he "maximize his income"?

Dh and ex were never married so there was no divorce settlement.

As far as I understand it legally my income has nothing to do with maintenance, his DC or his ex.

In fact it's a reason I'd be even more reluctant to start contributing so it could never be argued if anything happened between me and DH, that I financially supported DSC and should continue to do so. No thank you!

They aren't living in poverty far as I know, just feeling the pinch a little at the min.

The financial settlement wouldn’t cover child maintenance regardless.

Just distribution of the ‘marital assets’.

You are absolutely right that your salary has absolutely nothing to do with his liability for child maintenance payments.

Does all of that apply both ways round
if the RP is doing well and the NRP isn’t should she subsidise him? Should she help make sure the kids have the same standard of living?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that said on here…