To say no to being a guarantor for SC mum?

[OhYesYouDid0]

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this.

My husband has children with his ex partner. I don't have a problem with his ex, we actually get on pretty well and she's a good mum. But I know she struggles with money and being sensible with it, I'm not judging but it's important context to this situation.

She asked recently if DH would meet her for a coffee to discuss something. It turns out she is in a bit of a mess financial and has a large amount of debt. Long story short she is having to leave her current home and downsize but due to poor credit she is having to put down a guarantor on the new property and she has asked that this be DH. She doesn't have much family around other than elderly parents and one brother whom she isn't close to.

DH came home to discuss this with me and I'm at a loss. Honestly I want to say no. We are comfortable financially but there are things we have planned for the next few years that are quite money heavy, an extension on our house, perhaps trying for another child (we have one 5 year old together) and I am reluctant to potentially have those plans put more financial strain on us or have to change completely if she were to need DH to help cover the rent. She assures us it won't come to that but really who knows. She lost her job a couple of years ago (redundancy) and has struggled since then on lower paid ones she says, having taking things on credit she really shouldn't have.

DH is obviously torn as its his children's home but has said he would not agree to anything if I wasn't fully on board.

It's hard, I have absolutely no issue with SC living with us if it helps or being here more often (currently 3 nights per week) but part of me does feel that's where our obligation ends. I am reluctant to put potential strain on my own life, children, finances because of exes money troubles and I want to say no.

WWYD?

OP said ‘It's their home and they can be here as much as they need or want to be, that absolutely is no question.’

Which is what a good step-mum would say.

The mum is not OP’s responsibility!

How on earth did you pay it

in struggling to cover the loan monthly but least it ends in 4yrs

Many landlords will ask for either six or 12 months rent upfront instead of a guarantor. Most don’t ask for a guarantor after that period expires because the tenant has proved they are reliable, so no need. The landlord can’t just evict a sitting tenant for not providing a guarantor or stumping up another six months rent unless that’s the rent agreement.

I would really feel for her, times are tough, but I think this would have a wholly different feel if a woman came on here saying her ex-boyfriend from 10+ years ago who she shares two teenage children with got himself in debt and bad credit due to some poor decisions and asked if she’d be his guarantor or pay 6 months rent in advance for him. 😂

Everyone would say absolutely not. He can get a bedsit or live with family and have the dc one night a week or EOW only.

TBH I would just agree to it, or at least do the 6m rent thing.
Otherwise your husband will end up resenting you and it will fester.

Agreed. She’s got herself into debt. She’s at serious risk of falling into arrears. Absolutely no from me

Many landlords will ask for either six or 12 months rent upfront instead of a guarantor. Most don’t ask for a guarantor after that period expires because the tenant has proved they are reliable, so no need.

How has the tenant proved s/he is reliable? The landlord has no idea whether he or she will pay monthly on time in future.

I haven't read the whole thread so not sure if this has been suggested already.

Assuming that the rent is more than £650/month and having gained the impression that the mother of your DH's children doesn't necessarily always make the best financial decisions, wouldn't a solution be that DH pays the £650 monthly contribution to supporting his children direct to his ex-partner's landlord.

This way he can then agree to act as guarantor knowing that his exposure to rent arrears is limited as far as possible. The children's mother isn't losing out because paying the monthly rent to keep a roof over the children's head should be her most important financial priority. He can ensure that she prioritises that because the amount he pays is not subject to any court order.

She does however need to start planning for what she's going to do once the children reach 18.

I would be tempted to pay the child maintence straight to the letting agent and then she pays the rest but on the same date. That way she hopefully is more organised. Could you both help her with budgeting. I think in your dh’s position he needs to say yes so his children are housed. If she ends up in emergency housing life will be a lot harder for the children.

I’m no contact with her and no she’s not sorry.

I have a life limiting illness and never had children because of that (I’m 38 now and will be lucky to get much beyond 40).

Her attitude is basically:

1. She has kids to support and I don’t therefore my financial situation doesn’t matter as much as hers.

2. I don’t have long left anyway so it’s not like I need the money for my “old age” so I should let it go and move on.

3. It was my choice to be a “mug” and pay it when I should I have paid £1 a week and then let the debt die with me (even though it doesn’t work like that).

It wouldn't be limited though.

Even if the rent is an extra £500 on top of that, it could take a year or more to get her out the house, then court fees, bailiff fees, legal representation, any potential damage, it would still run into 10s of thousands and impact his credit, which will impact the op.

The problem is that the ex will never actually take responsibility for herself. She was the one who got into the debt by getting higher purchase agreements on probably unnecessarily flashy cars that she couldn't afford. It is extremely unfortunate for the children but you just can't get yourself on this track or it will never stop regarding her "just" coming to you for "this" or that".

I have to agree tbh

And I disagree completely that the children can just come to live with you full time. It sounds dismissive of their relationship and time they have with their mum. Why on earth should his children lose a home with their mum if he is in a position to help. It's not a given she will default.

Yes it's a commitment but the children's mental health and happiness should carry as much weight in the decision as potential financial implications. They aren't secondary considerations. They may feel lot of resentment at their forced change of circumstances that could have been avoided.

This is actually a really good idea!

I’m genuinely surprised by some of these answers! They have been divorced for over 10 years for goodness sake. He’s paying far more in maintenance than he’d be made to pay through CMS. If the ex lives beyond her means then that isn’t the guys fault. Once they become adults, and that probably isn’t far off, then he won’t even have to pay maintenance anymore. How is she going to afford the rent then? Do not be a guarantor!!!! You sound very nice, but this is the kind of thing that could go terribly wrong. You have your own bills to pay for! You say the kids can be with you as much as they want/ need, so it’s really not like the kids are going to end up on the streets.

I agree, the children shouldn’t be taken from their mum

I think you should only be a guarantor if you can afford the financial and the emotional hit if it is called in. I had no problem guaranteeing my dd's rent when she was at university because I could afford it and I wouldn't have resented her in the very unlikely event her 4 roommates and their nice parents all defaulted.

I would not sign a guarantee in this situation. Apart from the financial hit, if you end up paying her rent you will be angry and she will be defensive. It will not work out well.

But I would offer some other help - upfront loan of money, pay a fee to a guarantee company, help with a deposit etc. I'd get your dh to sit and ask her how could he help other than the guarantee.

I'm with you OP. Being a guarantor for your child when they're a student or maybe just starting their first job is one thing, but offering to carry the can for someone who has already got a history of making poor financial decisions is crazy.
My SIL recently asked us to be a guarantor for her and we said no. Like your DH's ex I have no doubt that she was sincere in saying she'd be the perfect tenant and always pay on time and I don't think she would ever deliberately rip us off. But unfortunately she has a long history of terrible financial management and no matter how many times she says she's learned from her mistakes and will change, it just never happens. We have our own bills to pay and children to support and weren't prepared to risk our own financial security. Yes, it did strain relationships at the time, but not anywhere near as much as her actions putting us under financial strain would have done.
I can kind of see where people are coming from saying that your DH has a responsibility to ensure his children are appropriately housed, but it's not going to be in their best interests if their Mum destabilises their Dad's finances and both parents end up in difficulties is it? And that is a realistic possibility if you act as guarantor for someone who isn't financially prudent unfortunately.

I’ve been a guarantor twice for close family and never been asked to continue beyond the end of the initial tenancy agreement.

As l understood it, the children are old enough to decide for themselves.

None of this would sway me into being a guarantor for someone who had a track record of being financially irresponsible. It’s recipe for disaster and it’s far beyond OP and her DH’s responsibility.

100% agree with OP here

The op yes.

Her DH no. Nothing in the world should be more important than his children's wellbeing which will clearly be massively affected by being forced apart from their mother.

Men don’t finance women. Men depend on the free labour provided by women, if anything we finance them. Look up “the motherhood penalty”.

If OPs husband is able to be so comfortable because he has had to make zero sacrifices to his career to care for his children then his ex has effectively supported him to achieve his present comfort level by taking the hit in her own career (and his success if being facilitated by two women if OP shoulders any of his childcare responsibilities while the kids are on “his” time).

I just don’t think it’s right OPs husband should risk his and OPs financial security because his ex can’t manage her finances properly. That doesn’t sound fair to me .