To be upset my hubby is insisting I go back to work full time even though ...

[Willowwisp]

We could manage me doing 4 days compressed into 3 with strict budgeting and if he went to the CSA again to get the 1/3 for OUR daughter taken from his salary?

Ok long story cut short coming up .... Hubby has ex-wife, has two children who I adore and get on famously with. Ex-wife is a complete loony who has made our lives, particularly mine a misery since we got together (they were split 3 years before we met). She thinks he is a personal bank for her to delve into when she see's fit, he has always paid for his children, never missed payments and pays half for everything, but she still wants more!

When we met he paid an outrageous amount of money to her (over £600), we wanted to get married, get mortgage, have a family of our own etc and he asked her to reduce money by £100, she said no (blamed me, she refers to me as the 'bitch' to his kids) so he went to the CSA and they reduced it for us, which was fair according to his salary.

We now have a daughter (8 mths) and I'm due to go back to work in 8 weeks, I can't bear the thought of it but know I have to, I want to go back part-time and he is insisting 'I have to get my head around full time' as we can't manage financially. Ex knows we could go to the CSA to get the other 1/3 taken of his salary for OUR daughter so she has been Mrs Nice since DD was born, calling him mate, sending pleasant text and it really fecks me off! He forgets that last year she told his kids he was a shit Dad!

He point blankly refuses to approach the CSA to see about getting the 1/3 taken off his salary, ex has massive 4 bed house, convertible car, works part time and lives a life of luxury, BUT I'm expected to struggle through. He say WE will have to cut down and DD doesn't need all the nice things I think she should have, like his kids do!

So AIBU to think my DH is being unreasonable in expecting ME to finance his ex-wifes luxury lifestyle and miss the most precious days of my daughters life to a CM?? all because he says we can't manage, when he knows what has to be done!

Any suggestions?

Yes, I think it sucks for the OP, but I also admire her DH.
Maybe its a point of honor that he won't reduce the payments.
If I were in the same position as your DH, I would be mightily uncomfortable with reducing payments. It sounds like his ex is wealthy, so maybe all the more reason why he would not want ANYONE to be able to say at any point that he didn't do his best for his children.

I think it shows that he is a GOOD GUY, and its part and parcel of who he is.

Like I said though, it does suck for you.

"she went back to work PT why shouldn't I?"

that's such a fatuous and IMO unhealthy question - really.

it's like my saying Anna888 stays at home, why shouldn't I?

the reason I shouldn't stay at home when Anna does is that

(a) my DH does not earn enough to support us in the lifestyle to which we are accustomed
(b) I would go mad staying at home
(c) I don't see why I should rely on him for financial support - it doesn't seem equitable
(d) I like having my own money to waste spend

It would be utterly useless and ultimately self-destructive for me to eye Anna's sahm parisian lifestyle enviously.

Anyhow I think you like your DH for all those qualities - responsibility, fairness etc - so I think you should grit your teeth and be glad he is the man he is - and not try to change him into a man he isn't

Willowwisp, am completely on your side here. Your husbands payments are obviously funding the ex-wife's expensive house, clothes, cars whilst she sits on her arse and lets everyone else care for her kids. And also, unless your kids are in childcare, I'd dispute what most people say about kids "costing a fortune". To keep one child nicely fed and clothed, surely no more than £150 per month? And another £80 or so on going out, treats etc? It really does not cost the tens of thousands of pounds each year that people make out it does. I'd never suggest letting the kids suffer by cutting maintenance, but in this case it sounds like the kids wouldn't even notice if the maintenance was cut, but the ex-wife who kindly refers to you as "the bitch" might just get a taste of real life.

x-post with Purple - it's so good to hear a story about a man sticking to his financial responsibilities -

Quattro - I do work, you know .

Though admittedly it is not very time consuming as yet.

"Your husbands payments are obviously funding the ex-wife's expensive house, clothes, cars whilst she sits on her arse and lets everyone else care for her kids."

Yes of course £6k a year funds a house, clothes and cars ...

And for the record the first wife does work

Gosh where does all this envy come from? It's really really not healthy.

I quite agree that there is no point being envious, Quattrocento.

But I remain very surprised that you, as a lawyer (and Xenia too, for that matter) defend a position re the CSA payments that is not the legal one.

I do think it is important for the CSA payments to be recalculated. After that, it is for the OP and her DH to discuss together whether they wish to maintain payments to the ex-wife at their previous level out of their joint income.

I think that CSA payments are extraordinarily miserly and truly unfair to most first families.

What I am defending is the agreement reached between the husband and the first family, which is binding to the husband and he should be applauded for that.

The other thing I would say is why not channel all this energy positively?

Use it in your work so that you get a better job, you find fulfilment and it would be better for you and your family too

Quattrocento - the agreement is not binding once the husband's circumstances have changed.

Those circumstances include a change in income and further children.

Quattrocento, it could be that ex-wife took him for everything she could and is now mortgage free, earning a healthy part time salary. Whatever the circumstances she can afford a swimming pool and hot tub so she's obviously fairly well off. I just don't see why the new-wife should be in such a totally different position that she couldn't even afford to drop 1 day a week at work, surely that's not too much to ask? Also, it sounds like the ex-wife is a complete cow to the new wife, so that's another reason why I can't have too much sympathy for her. No-one's suggesting the ex-wife should get no maintenance or lose all her standard of living, I'm just trying to make the point that I don't think it's unreasonable that willowwisp should want to work 4 days a week instead of 5. And I'm really not envious of the first wife, I'm in a very happy, stable and financially comfortable position myself, my husband has no previous wives or children for me to feel bitter about. Without any bias, I just think that willowwisp's position seems unfair.

And the husband, by not recalculating the payments, is signalling to the second wife that she is endebted to the first.

That is wrong.

Willowwisp, your dh's £500 or 600 (I can't make out) is NOT funding the first wife's lifestyle. It could not possibly pay for luxuries when most and more would be eaten by the children's needs alone. And they are your dh's children as much as they are hers.

The first wife sounds independently wealthy from the sounds of it, whether from savings, family money or work.

So even if your dh agreed to reduce the payments by £60-100 (again I am not sure), I don't think it will pull the swimming pool rug from under her feet. She will still be living the life of riley. She won't need to go ft to make up the difference.

So forcing your dh to reduce her payments won't pull her down a peg. It might allow you to work pt with scrimping, but it could mean your dh's custody to his children gets curtailed, which I am sure is paramount on his mind. The first wife does not sound accommodating at all, I'm afraid.

Just out of interest, why did the first marriage break down and were you a party to it? Sorry to be blunt, don't answer if you don't wish to, but it would shed light on the dynamics at work, which are all importnat in these things.

I was careful not to say that the agreement was legally binding. But it seems to be to be a fair agreement and clearly the husband thinks so too.

Think of the first wife, why should she be faced with continually moving goalposts because the first husband's circumstances changed? And the change of circumstances was not something like losing a job, ie unavoidable.

What if he were to remarry a second time and have five children with wife number three?

YANBU Willowisp. Whilst your husband is trying to be noble, it's not really fair on your DD in that she'll have her mother around less because of this. It's not equitable at all if his first wife stayed at home when their children were small. Also, it's not as if you want to give up work altogether, you merely want to shorten your hours temporarily while your child is small. If your DH is worried about not providing adequately for his first dcs, then let him contribute to the odd extra expense outside the CSA payment, but the payment should be reduced. This provision exists so that subsequent children should not have to go without either, just the way costs would be spread if there were further offspring within the same marriage. I'm sure there was a similar thread a few weeks ago.

BTW, I'm not a SAHM mum, I work ft and my DD has been in ft nursery since she was 15mo. Quite apart from the economic factor I chose to go back to work because being a SAHM mum was not for me, but I fully understand your pov.

Also on the point about her 76 year old mother doing most of the care - presumably this is because the first wife can't afford childcare? I would assume that must be part of the reason.

Why Quattro? Because continually moving goalposts are a fact of life.

Being a divorced first wife does not make you immune from the vagaries of the economy or other people's personal circumstances.

It is English law that people may divorce and remarry and have more children, should they so please.

I am immensely surprised to see you defending a position that is not legal in a case (divorce) where so much is clearly enshrined in law and with great clarity.

You may not like the law. But you cannot rewrite it, let alone accuse the OP of being unreasonable because she does not agree with the law that you would like written.

blueshoes, OP sais the first couple were split for three years before she and dp met.

Haven't read all this thread, But isn't this the story of all second wives??

They can't stay at home to look after thier new children, as a lot of money from the household goes to support the old . I think it is very common and the norm tbh, rightly or wrongly.

I'm in a similar situation, except dss live with us, and dp's ex-wife doesn't pay any maintenance, so it is almost impossible for me to stay at home to look after my dd. I have one day a week off, and money is horrendously tight.

Haven't read all this thread, But isn't this the story of all second wives??

They can't stay at home to look after thier new children, as a lot of money from the household goes to support the old . I think it is very common and the norm tbh, rightly or wrongly.

I'm in a similar situation, except dss live with us, and dp's ex-wife doesn't pay any maintenance, so it is almost impossible for me to stay at home to look after my dd. I have one day a week off, and money is horrendously tight.

when i was single and childfree and dating, whenever i found out the bloke had kids, i left skidmarks.

now i know why.

Furthermore, the first wife is at liberty to have another relationship, to have more children etc. Her goalposts are as likely to change post-divorce as his.

The question should be are both of the parents responsible for the first children contributing financially in an equitable manner to their upbringing? Just because they are divorced it does not mean that wife number one should not work full time to support her children, especially if that is what is expected of wife number 2 to support her baby!

The question the op asked was whether or not she was being reasonable. My answer to that is yes.

Her question was not whether she is able in law to change the position - that was clearly given.

I certainly think women should work for all the reasons Q gives above and also one issueo nthe thread is those of us like Q and Anna and I who earn quite a bit ourselves and in their case presumably have reasonably off other halves see £600 as a pretty small sum if you're paying for child care so you can work for 3 under 5s which can cost £25k a year for a start, never mind school fees and other middle class stuff. But the basic principle remains - that English law allows a divorced father to give up work and look after his baby whilst his wife works full time on £200k a year and thus can deprive his first wife and children of any money., whereas if the husband stays in work he continues to have responsibilities to pay for his first children. There are too many ways that both parents can get out of paying for those children who never asked for their parents to divorce and didnt' choose to live in straightened circumstances.

OH LORDY!! What have I started, right lets get this sorted once and for all ....!

I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE HER £60 AWAY FROM HER, SHE CAN KEEP IT!

XENIA - Reading your posts has made my blood boil, who do you think you are, oh I know a bitter and twisted person who delights in upsetting others! JUST A POLICEMAN what the f--k! I hope you don't have to call on him one day if you happen to need him, I mean he is just a Policeman how could he possibly help you? MY HUSBAND IS A LOVELY MAN WHO IS DEVOTED TO HIS CHILDREN AND DOES NOT WANT TO DEPRIVE ANY OF HIS CHILDREN - HE IS JUST WORRIED THAT SHE WILL STOP HIM SEEING THEM!

Oh and by the way, we don't make the CSA rules, they decided how much we pay, not us and for the last four years we have paid exactly what is required and as the others have mentioned the 'CSA rules' a change of circumstances can make the payments different, so get your facts straight!

Its me thats got the problem and I came on here for advice, OK I knew people would have different views and I expected that, but you Xenia are something else, get a life and play with your kids instead of spending your life on here upsetting anyone you can lay your hands on! I've read other posts by you and you love controversy, I won't give you any more time, I can't waste the energy in my fingers typing about you!

To the other people who have replied, thanks so much for your honest replies, they have helped and I'm just going to leave it now, I'm definately going back four days a week, my daughter needs me, lets not argue anymore about this!