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?

£600 doesn't fund a luxury lifestyle. And I think it's pretty honourable of him to stick to the original agreement. I'm sure that between you, you can earn the money you need for your own family and leave his commitments to his first family untouched.

I agree with the PP. If your husband were still withthe mother of his first child, he'd be spending a lot more than £7000 a year on him. That is a fraction of what it costs to bring up a child.

I'm sure Xenia meant 'just' in terms of his salary. He 'just earns'. At least, I hope so!

I have respect for Policemen, nurses, firefighters, paramedics..... They could all earn more money if money alone were their motivation, so thank goodness we do have people whose GOD is not Moneytoburn.

I never thought I'd say this, but I do agree with Xenia on one point. The first set of children should come first because they are pre-existing commitments. Anyone who remarries or forms another relationship should consider if they can afford more children. Sounds harsh but it's true. We might have the legal right to reproduce in any and every relationship, but not a moral one if we can't afford to support the children.

However, I then part company with virtually every other word Xenia said. 'Just' a policeman, £600 a month being a paltry sum, every mother should work full-time and indeed every single mother should be FORCED to work full-time!

It just reinforces once again how little Xenia knows about the real world or perhaps how much she delights in being provocative.

I really don't see how anyone can say £600 a month isn't a large sum of money, given that the average salary in this country is supposedly about £24,000, and that's gross, not net as the £600 a month is.

I think that figure was a contribution towards 2 children, and I'm sure the majority of families in this country don't spend £300 per month feeding and clothing each child. I'm assuming no childcare costs are involved, since I believe the children in the original post are older, given that the husband had been separated for 3 years before they became a couple.

Willowwisp, I think you are probably right not to try to reduce the contribution (despite your husband's legal entitlement to do so), especially if this could make things more difficult for your husband to see his children. It's sad so many women will use their children as a weapon like this.

I hope you find a way to cut costs or restructure your working week to enable you to be at home more.

havent read the thread but i am liking the name ecoworrier

£600 a month for 2 children:

a) not a lot
b) does not fund a luxury lifestyle

To an extent I agree with Xenia. I don't see why the children of family 1 should suffer financially because wife #2 has a child. I also think wife #2 isn't entitled to work part time if family finances don't allow.

It has nothing to do with the first wife. What she earns/spends is none of the second wife's business imo.

Btw, I get that in maintenance for 1 child (voluntarily and agreed between ex dh and I). It's a drop in the ocean compared to what it has / does actually cost to bring him up.

I also think the OP is being unreasonable and should go to work ft if that is the difference between reasonable family finances and dire straits. I don't see what is has to do with ex wife, I think that's a red herring here since the difference between what she is paid and would be paid if it were recalculated isn't enough to mean the OP can work pt.

I would also say this of husband #2 btw. I wouldn't agree to my dh working pt if it meant we were broke and unhappy either.

I think most women wouldn't want their husband to give up work or work part time if that meant the family had less money even if he wanted to gaze into the eyes of the baby all day. Most of us male and female now, abroad and in the past have always had to work full time. It's nothing new or strange. It's just how life is.

As for whether £600 a month is much or not depends on all kinds of things and your income etc. Most people paying for childcare for 2 under 5s receiving £600 a mnoth would find it covered hardly any of the cost which is why I say fathers should be forced whether they want to or not to have the children every other week and then they have to pay for all that childcare or arrange it. Even if you just use a cheap childminder for 2 children full time I still don't think £600 is a huge contribution. Just wait until you have teenagers too - the baby who loves to play with a cardboard box is not quite so cute when it demands XYZ trainers and yes resident parents do try to curb those demands if the choice is pay the mortgage or have the shoes but it's a daily battle.

it's one reason the first wife here shoudl never have given up work and shoudl have had a carer which enables her better to uspport her children and something we can all right in terms of our own daughters as they get to the stage of picking careers - point out the realties for them of how their lives will be if they choose one job over another. Too many girls don't give that enough thought.

'Secondly I think all women should work full time when they have babies as I always did. It's better for your relationship with your husband, more equal, less sexist.'

Last I checked, looking after babies IS work. That's why you have to pay someone else to do it for you, no?

I don't think it's very fair to decrease the money for the first family, though. Those kids have already suffered from losing a resident father - that's something the child(ren) of the second family have that the first simply don't. So there's already a considerable advantage to the OP's baby, and disadvantage to the first kids, right there. And at a time when they probably already have anxieties about being replaced at some level, sending them the message that the new baby means they get less of Dad's money is not an ideal one. Children of divorce have a hard row to how as it is - no need to make it tougher.

*row to hoe

omg my blood is boiling!!! £600 isn't that much??? add another £50 on top and that's what DH makes working full time in a care home. we still have bills to pay and even with WTC it doesn't stretch. we now have DHs 2DDs living with us but because his ex is refusing to sign over child benefit and TC we're having to stretch what was only covering 4 people to cover 6. we've done all the notifying but nobody seems to be chasing her for any money. i know DH would rather crawl over broken glass than ask her for the money but it's what the DCs are entitled to.

DSD1 has a part time job and is paying for her school dinners, clothes etc out of her wages. we give her money but she gives it to her granny just in case we're ever short. much as i love her for it, it makes us feel like shit. DH has taken on a second job but tbh by the time the taxman is done with him he's killing himself for a whole £30 more..... we now have to find the money to pay for DSD2s church camp (which we have always paid including spending money) as well as 3 sets of uniforms (all different schools) school trips etc. where's her financial obligation to DSD1&2???

How the buggery can any of you say that £600 a month is not a lot in maintenance for two children? How??? To me that is untold riches.

Saying it doesn't even cover the cost of raising one child - what are you spending it on? My dd and myself live off just under £100 a week, and get £1.75 a week in maintenance from her dad.

I get £1 a month from my children's father for both of them.

Every penny I possess will go towards bringing my children up.

I'm not talking about toys you know. The cost of mortgage, council tax, uniforms, heating, food, school trips, birthday parties, haircuts, dentists etc etc must all be covered by the parent the child LIVES with.

£600 a month is a lot of money to many people but it doesn't fund luxury unless you make the definition of luxury so elastic it includes good quality basics.

To be honest, I was rather surprised to hear that the CSA does reduce maintenance payments to the first wife if the ex-husband has more children.

If - and I know it's not true in this case - the man's marriage broke down and he went on to father 10 children in short term relationships, would the the maintenance to the first family reduce accordingly?

Presumably, you husband, and his previous wife married with a view to spending the rest of their life together. Likewise, they had children, she and he knowing that they would raise their children together, shouldering all the emotional, physical and financial cost of bringing children up together. Roll forwards a few years, they are no longer married, nor living together, and so are no longer sharing the responsibility of bringing the children up equally - It can not be so, can't be helped, but needs redressing. Those children, and their mother have lost that life, and she, on the whole, is shouldering that responsibility. As you now know yourself, bringing up children is not just financially taxing, but is hard work. Those children are your husbands too, and he chose to have those children with her. By offering that small amount of money each month, he is not only redressing the financial imbalance that has occurred with his (for what ever reasons) no longer being part of that family, but also (I suspect, and certainly hope is the case) he is using it as a token gesture. By handing that money over he is not saying 'here I can see you can not afford their upkeep - I'll provide what is lacking' rather, he is saying 'I recognise these children are mine'. Perhaps a way to look at this is to see his paying maintenance as a form of compensation to those children - for their loss of a 'normal' family. Why should the amount he pays to those children differ according to their mother's financial circumstances? Why should the mother's income effect or be reflected in the value of the children's recompense?

And what's to say she is using the money to fund a luxurious lifestyle? She may well be old money and so have that wealth regardless of the maintenance payments. Alternatively she may well have worked bloody hard to earn that wealth - either way, why should the father begrudge a miserly £600 to his children, simply because they are well provided for anyway? His ex wife's wealth should in no way mean that he should relinquish his financial responsibility towards his children.

He should pay that money regardless - and you should not question that arrangement. You married a man knowing that he already had children - you made that decision, you must live by it!

The OP does not want to stop the maintainance payments though, but simply reduce them as per the CSA guidlines.
She does not want to work full time as she wants to spend more time with her dd.
If she just wanted more time for herself I could see her dh point, but staying with dc rather than working is hardly selfish.
First children have had the benefit of a mother at home, why shouldnt the new dc.
To say any children are more important than others is surely wrong.
I think the OP has got her priorities exactly right.

I don't see why his first children should loose out to his second family. And I don't just mean financially, but in reducing his payments he is symbolically degrading their importance (whether he intends to or not - it is an unavoidable fall out of doing such a thing)

My point is that OP knew when she married him, and when they discussed having a child together that he already has other commitments/responsibilities. She must have known that this would increase their financial outgoings and restrict their/her own flexibility and that this would have implications on their own ability to provide a 'nice' life for any extra children.

I do feel for her - desperately I do, and I know how frustrating and difficult it is to make the decision between more time with family and better financial security. However, he already has previous financial and (as she will most likely later learn, time commitments) with the children from his first marriage. She walked into marriage and parenthood with an already existing family, and must accept the financial repercussions of doing so. There is no point debating or begrudging his ex's financial stability and their own (the second marriage's) contribution or lack of towards it. She must accept that, when budgeting they must take these payments into account; there is little use debating it - it is present and always was, before they even married, let alone chose to have another child.

The issue here, is for the OP to find a way to be able to work fewer hours, and focusing on that alone. She must disregard this whole issue of ex wife living in luxury.

Perhaps an option could be that the OP returns FT for the time being, but begins an immediate search of better paid work so that she can drop a day, with no financial repercussions to anyone.

Wise post, Jojo.

Why marry someone who doesn't earn much duo or why marry someone with children already and why have more children if he can't afford the first? That's the issue isn't it? Most people can only afford 2 children with a first wife yet they go on having more they can't afford and damage the first children. It's very unfair.

Like madam above just about everything I earn goes on the 5 children (their father pays nothing) and on the huge mortgage debt we have incurred simply to pay him off on the divorce which feels like monthly maintenance to him to me and yet he never sees most of the children, never helps with them and pays nothing.

As for the £600 issue - it's unanswerable. Benefits in the UK are untold riches for many abroad. It's all just relative but anyone with a mortgage of say £100k to pay plus full time childcare for two children because the mother works full time as plenty of mothers so will very very quickly get through £600. My twins' school fees are about £1700 a month out of taxed income for a start. Their music lessons £120. Either the mother gives up work and loses what she would have earned whether that's £20k a year or £200k or she employes someone to look after the chidlren and if you've got a lot then that's likely to cost for full time working about £1,500 a month at the least out of after tax income. You can see that virtually no ex wife paid £600 for children is thus given very much even towards full time childcare. Anyway it's all relative.

The point is most full time single mothers are spending almost 100% of what they earn on their children and the husband only has to pay `5%, 20% etc although of course he has to house himself too.

This man is paying what is required of him with regards to maintainance.
Once a relationship has ended the wife no longer is entitled to the benefits of being in that relationship- for example only working part time, or a more luxurious lifestyle.

Aren't these child support payments? Are the children no longer entitled to benefit?

The husband in question is paying the required support payments, that is the point.
Should he pay over and above this so that the wife can work part time, whilst his 2nd wife works full time and misses out on time with her own dc ?

He is paying what the law says. Richer men (or women in my case) have court orders which deal with other things like ours says I pay school and university fees whoever the children live with but the standard order and the CSA rules are 15% first child, 20% second and 25% for 3 or more of net income of non resident parent with deductions (looks like £50 a month) if he has a new child and also deductions based on the number of nights they spend with the other parent which is why some fathers who never showed much interest in children before on divorce suddnely want the children 4 nights a week so the children are mostly with them, support is less or nothing and they get the child benefit and any tax credits too. Or the man just stops work and lets the new wife work full time and then doesn't have to pay the first family a penny. Lots of abuses of the system go on. But this is good father paying what the state requires (no that I think those percentages are fair). It would be better to split all child expenses 50/50, children be with each parent half the time and both parents work full time.

Haven't read ALL replies - just a smattering.
Here's my advice - work part time if you want to with less money. You will find a way to make it work and just adjust to your new situation.
I was worried that we wouldn't be able to survive maternity leave for a year on my reduced earnings. We've more money than ever for some reason. Be frugal.
MONEY ISN'T EVERYTHING.
Incidentally, I always thought that people married for love, not money but perhaps not all of us.

the 'required' amount is a percentage pittance no matter what the actual amount because it does not take 20% of your income to raise two children. i don't get any maintenance for three children and i guarantee that i probably spend less than 25% of my wage on myself ( a lot less) let alone 25% of my wage on supporting the children.

I can categorically state that my children are far more important than any subsequent children my ex had because they are my flesh and blood. why wouldn't i put my Dcs first? I'm very unlikely to take food from my childrens plate to give to subsequent children.