To refuse to work full time even though DH wants me to?

[Arabella3]

I think I’m 100% in the right here so asking for validation 😂

DH and I had a baby DD last year and I’ve reduced my hours to do a four day week. DD is in nursery for those days. No family nearby.

It’s emerged that DH is expecting me to go back to five days a week in a year or so. I have no intention of doing this until DD, and hopefully a little sibling, are at school.

Even with my pay cut I pay 60% of the household bills. We have SC who are with us most weekends and all holidays, so my Wednesday off is the only routine time I get with DD. We can’t afford to save much or do fancy holidays after my pay cut but I don’t care, I’d rather have the time with DD.

AIBU?

No @Billydavey I dont believe its a farer split because she has to manage her partner like a child and he will only do what he is told to do. He is an adult with eyes, funny enough the OP (as with most women) dont require someone to tell them what to do, they manage to figure it out yet most of these incompetent men, can walk past mess and ignore things because "they werent told" even if it were 50/50, the fact he only does it when told is ridiculous, the man is a grown up yet doesnt act like it.

If he isnt capable of doing things for himself, he should do a larger split to make up for all the managing she has to do. But any man that requires his wife to instruct him on how to be a grown up, is just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

And you may think that I am just a typical person on mumsnet hating on men because thats the usual excuse you guys spout, but its not the case at all. I am actually married to a competent and capable man, one that doesnt require instructions in order to participate in day to day life. You know, an actual partner.

My youngest is nearly 30, I’ve not worked full time since I had my eldest in 1989!
I didn’t go back to work until youngest was 12.
Why does he want you to work full time, when you’ve got a child?

I was forced to go back to work full time when my ds was 4 months old because my ex partner refused to get a job himself and I have always been the main source of income. He then used to whinge about how hard it was being at home with him. It’s a huge contributing factor to why we are no longer together (along with a lot of things I have learnt are actually abuse) as I am still seething that I didn’t tell him no. I say stick to your guns and do what makes you feel happy-I missed so many firsts and it’s something I cannot repair and it’s awful.

By this reasoning no family would ever have more than one DC. Because when a second and subsequent DC is born resources have to be shared. When I had my second DC I had less money to spend on my first DC. Surely this is how families work.

No family should have more than one DC if they can’t afford it. Yes when your second is born you have less for your first. But there is a minimum that children need - food, clothes etc. it’s not possible to take from that.

Il not in the UK so not familiar with CMS but to me if you agree a child support payment with a ex that’s what you agreed to. You shouldn’t get to turn around and say you chose to have another child so you’re not going to honour existing commitments.

And I fundamentally don't agree if you have DC you can't have another DC because the first DC might get a bit less money spent on them. It is up to parents to decide if they can provide enough resources to still provide adequately for however many DC they have/want. That may mean earlier DC get a little less spent on them but still enough to provide adequately for their needs. Remember DC have 2 parents both should be providing resources for their DC not just the Dad.

True but it’s also let’s face it some nrp pay barely enough for school lunch per month and continue to have more children while the resident parent has no choice but to support their child fully.

In a together household a couple wouldn’t have another child when they cant feed their first. Yet men and some women will use even step children to pay less for their own child.

But is the child support payment not supposed to reflect their needs?

@UndermyShoeJoe if there are 3 DC getting 30 percent of Dads resources between them then another DC is born each DC should get 7.5 percent of Dads resources each or do you really believe 3 DC should get 30 percent and one DC none? That would equate to no birthday gifts, no Xmas gifts etc because all Dad's resources must go to first 3 DC? Can't you see that would be fundamentally wrong.

This 100%

I imagine some child support payments are even that high and don’t reflect the actual cost, and then daddy dearest knocks out a few more kids and gives even less to the first ones. That’s v v wrong.

No all dc should get 10% if that’s the minimum is my point. Even the one living with. None of this daddy only supports those he doesn’t live with leaving mum to pick it all up either.

Yes, the needs of ALL the DC not just the earlier ones. And child support is worked out as a percentage of absent parents earnings shared between all DC. Nothing to do with their needs or wants just a straight forward percent shared between ALL DC. That is what CMS do.

So it doesn’t reflect need i.e. the actual cost of raising a child.

No one is saying earlier DC are going without essentials. OP and her DH have decided they would like 2 DC. Both earn so DH provides equally for all his DC. OP provides for her DC and his ex provides for her DC. It shouldn't all be down to one parent to provide the resources. If DC live with ex she will be receiving the child support payments too.

But if their household income drops of course they could be going without essentials?

If a woman and 3 kids have X income and suddenly they have X minus whatever it isn’t a given that the shortfall was somehow spent on stuff that isn’t strictly necessary.

I don't recall OP saying anything about not being able to afford to feed any of the DC. Just her DH wants to spend money on new cars and wants OP to work more so she can pay for him to take his DC on holiday every year. The ex can also take the first DC on holiday. OP shouldn't have to give up time with her own DC when still a baby to pay for holidays for dsc.

@Arabella3

DH and SC’s living standards went up when we got together,

It sounds like he's got used to you being the bigger earner & wants you to subsidise his more extravagant tastes.

I personally traded in working less to have more time with mine when they were tiny. We had Eurocamp as a big treat (glamping tent) and camping or hostelling or a Travelodge as our holiday. He just wants flash holidays & a nice car & doesn't see the bigger picture.

Also his ex never even worked when SC were tiny. I wonder if he is jealous you earn more in 4 days than he does FT?

No the point doesn’t seem to apply to the OP

Are you sure that after tax, travel, nursery and student loan you'd actually make "enough" to really make more than the pay increment. I'm on an 0.8 contract at a uni over 5 days and the maths for me going to full time would be very marginal as we'd need wrap around childcare, and tax, NI and student loan would all take a good chunk of the difference... If you might creep into higher rate tax the margin gets even worse.

Other plus of not being full time is once you reach school age you can go to working 0.8 over 5 days and make pick ups from wraparound easier or drop a day or 2 of wraparound

But it's morally right for OP to indirectly subsidize a bone idle ex wife?

She has a husband who provides as well. I think that's why she only works weekends so he doesn't have to provide much money for his SC.

CMS child maintenance payments does not reflect the cost of bringing up a child, no. It simply states all DC should get a share of the absent parents resources. The likes of footballers, e.g. Kyle Walker pays thousands every month for each of their DC which we all know DC don't cost that much. Other parents who maybe don't work at all, don't pay enough to feed their DC. CMS takes a percentage of whatever they do have and awards all DC an equally percentage. That is how it works. I have a relative who works for CMS and she gets all kinds of abuse when she explains this to the parent who provides most care for DC. For example a Dad might have 2 DC with his partner. They split up and he remarries and has another DC with new spouse. Mum remarries and has another DC with new partner. Let's say the original Dad is a high earner and pays £800 per DC each month and has DC to stay with him 2-3 days each week. Then after h has a new baby with new spouse he might be told by CMS to pay £533 per DC so ex gets £1066 pcm for 2 DC. Ex has a baby with new partner he is unemployed. First 2 DC are well provided for by their Dad but her new baby won't be because it's Dad is unemployed. Dad and new partner both provide well for their new baby so that baby is well provided for. Each of Dads 3 DC get £533 of his resources each month. Life is not always straight forward and can be complicated. But that's how it works.

DC have 2 parents to provide resources for them. It's not all down to Dad.

Read the thread OP doesn't just work weekends she works 4 full days a week. Her DH wants her to work 5 full days so.he can have new cars and take dsc on holiday. No idea how much ex works because OP has not said.

It's the ex wife that just works weekends.