To think dp should stop paying child support....

[VindalooVindalooVindalooVindalooLaLa]

....for his eldest

He has 3 DC, 22,19, 18. Eldest graduated last year and works full time. Middle is finishing year 1 at uni. Youngest takes A levels this year. He has been paying maintenance for all 3. Above the level the CMS would demand, regularly, always. As he should do of course.

He continues to pay for all 3. Directly to his EXW. Up until now, their arrangements as far as I am concerned were none of my business, other than I'm happy he is a regular no quibbles maintenance payer and is a good dad.

So as not to drip feed - we have been together 9 years. He was 3 years divorced when we met. I have two DC who are in their 20s. I work hard, earn about the same as him. I am not financially dependent on him, we maintain separate finances despite living together for 3 years and paying into a shared pot. My concern is he has no exit strategy for paying child maintenance. And I don't see that it is child maintenance any more. He leaves himself short and that affects what we can do or plan together at a time when we should both be able to think about our lives together a bit more.

None of my friends are in this situation, they're married to the fathers of their children, or childless, or single parents but not in this blended scenario. So I don't know, should he stop paying for the eldest? Id have also imagined giving the middle one maintenance money directly now he is at uni, but that's a different question.

YABU - it's normal for a dad to keep paying for three DC at this point
YANBU - It's reasonable to stop paying for the eldest

That’s true but we were told in court that our daughter could make own application to the court for support from her father at the point of university, he would have to explain why he agreed to it and then decided not too.

You’d like to hope she wouldn’t need to!

And me. Your DPs attachment to paying for his ex has meant he's not paid fairly for his uni aged DC.

I agree with countless others. Your partner should have been paying directly to his children once they were over 18, if that’s what he wanted to do. Of course he can still support his eldest here and there but definitely not child maintenance to the ex!
No wonder she doesn’t work much - she doesn’t need to!

But then he should be paying them directly.
Sorry OP, he's being a Mug.

DSS turns 18 and goes to uni this summer. We’ve had number of conversations about this and are letting DH’s ex know that we will be supporting him directly with uni costs from September. Once he graduates we’ll be expecting him to get a job! It’s not an infinite payment plan - at some point it’s reasonable to ask adult children to support themselves. All our DC always have a room here if they need it but they need to get out there and start behaving like adults at some point.

This is a good point. I kind of expected the poll to be a little more split, but it's pretty strong, even among this specific group of mostly mum's. I imagine if this was a divorced dads forum it would be even more heavily weighted the other way, but it's other mum's perspectives I mostly want

If he still wants to support her financially he should be paying her directly now, she is an adult her money does not need to come through her mother

At this point he’s just supporting his ex. Does he want to do that forever?

Have you actually had a sit down chat with him about why this is happening?

It always strikes me as odd that a parent(s) in a ‘together’ family are not legally obliged to fund uni, and beyond, if they can’t afford it, or choose not to. But separated fathers are fair game …

He should stop paying the exwife for the eldest, and give money directly to his eldest if he wants to. The other two I would say keep paying for now.

DH’s arrangement only went up to age 18 if in FT education, although we chose to pay DSS’s uni accommodation, the payments went directly to DSS

This isn’t child support, it’s spousal support. The money is being spent by his ex-wife on herself and no one else.

I am sorry but none of your business :/ he isn’t not a dad after CMS says he can stop paying. His child should absolutely benefits from his finances/work…

If he wants to carry on he should at least be paying them direct, it sounds mad to pay the exW. . My ex gives our youngest an allowance while he’s at uni. He stopped with our oldest once he got a job after graduating. I think once they are earning a liveable wage it’s time to at least review the situation.

My ex stopped paying the day my eldest started his apprenticeship on minimum wage, I think your guy is going above and beyond tbh!

Generally child support stops at 18 when the young adult goes to university, where they are sustained by student loans not the household budget. He can continue paying it for the youngest 2 while they are in full time education but there is no legal reason for him to do so- they 22 year old is a fully fledged adult with a full time job , why on earth would they need or expect support from elsewhere?

YANBU as eldest is working, unless there's a specific reason your DH wants to top him up - but like pps I'm surprised he's still paying direct to your ex. When my DSD hit 18 DH continued to help her out financially until she was earning enough to support herself, but paying it into DSD's account instead of his ex's as she had a habit of spending it on things that didn't directly benefit DSD. As pps have said, it might be an idea for him to start paying the younger 2 directly so they have control.

Your DP needs to stop paying to his ex and directly to the 2 youngest children directly and can treat the eldest if/when he wants to. His exw can do like everyone else, get off her arse and get a job

I'd stop paying the eldest CM they dont need it, but I'd set aside money for them in a pension or something. For the one at uni, I'd give them money directly. He probably needs to provide until they finish full time education. The youngest id still pay until they finish full time education. His ex i assume works or could work, so she def shouldn't need funding...

I thought maintenance was paid until age 19, or they finish FT education, whichever comes first? And that paying whilst at university had to be court-ordered in any case?That’s what it was when my DH was paying 10 years ago anyway.

He should pay the eldest direct not to the mum.

Whether he should pay it at all I can't decide.

Legally, he still has to pay for the youngest until they complete A levels (or turns 20, whichever comes first) but the other two are adults. He should tell his ex that he's only paying for the youngest from now on and give money directly to the middle one for uni. I'm guessing there's a backstory here or he wouldn't be feeling this guilty.

Is he doing it because someone expects him to or because he wants to? Obviously he doesn't have to pay his ex anything for his adult children, or pay his adult children anything, but it's quite sweet that he wants to help them out.

@VindalooVindalooVindalooVindalooLaLa

My thoughts are that I will just do my thing in the bounds of what I can afford, without him, over the next few years. I've been raising children since my early 20s and it's time to do things for myself more. I have worked hard and continue to so I can afford a bit of treats.

Agree with this 100%. You do you, you deserve it! And as I mentioned upthread, it may quietly encourage him to rethink what he's paying to the exW.

We do have separate finances but we live together. We have not bought a house together because of his finances, and we have not married for the same reason, so I don't agree that his money is none of my business, or any woman's in a similar scenario. It very much becomes your business when you enter into a serious relationship, unless you're reckless. It's only my business up to the point it affects my life,

But I disagree with this. IMHO, a 'living together' couple's finances are none of the other's business as long as they are able to pay their share of the living expenses (rent/mortgage, utilities, food, etc). They aren't required to match the other's 'discretionary' spending if they can't or don't want to. This is because one member has no liability for the other's expenditures or debts. In your case, if you really couldn't tolerate your DP continuing to pay his exW money for adult children, you could say "Nope, not dealing with it" and leave. Obvs you aren't going to do that at this point. But you easily could if you wanted.

Living together or married with joint finances is different because each person would have the ability to spend that joint money. Therefore it is each person's responsibility to consult with each other and to question 'out of the ordinary' expenditures.

Married with separate finances the issue becomes murkier. But if marriage means being liable for each other's debts then there needs to be financial 'transparency'. Even if accounts are kept separate, each should know what the other is doing. We've seen any number of MN threads where one spouse has run up or defaulted on debts and the other spouse is being held liable (or expected) to make payments.

Proviso is that a home purchase needs absolute financial transparency no matter what. It's too major a purchase to be in the dark about the other person's ability to pay for the mortgage and other necessary expenses. Personally, I'd never buy a house with someone I wasn't married to. Especially if I/we had 'separate' adult children.