Split families should have similar standards of living?

[kevinandgail]

AIBU to think that split families should have similar standards of living. Not one household living hand to mouth and the other wearing designer clothes and flying business class.

No, I don’t agree at all.

Yes i agree

Time for you to be a strong independent woman who don't need no man not his wallet and pay for your own stuff

Interested to understand your definition of split family first.

Families have become so complicated these days, it's impossible to say that. Does each child's living standards have to meet the highest of each of their half siblings (on both sides) and any step siblings?

It costs a lot more to house a family in 2 homes v 1, financially you are likely to be much better off as a 2 parent family having DC within that unit only.

It also matters who is doing the earning.

I think we need the backstory.

But no don’t agree in general terms- of course the kids shouldn’t suffer but if one parent is working like a dog and earning decent money but the other parent does 2 days a week in a hobby job, or one parent marries a someone rich and the other doesn’t, or inherits assets or money, I don’t think they should have to keep subsidising the other parent for the rest of their lives. I think once a marriage has ended it’s on both parents to make the best of their lives- for themselves and their children.

How does that work then?

Do I not take my kids on nice holidays etc., if I can afford it, just because my exH is a lazy arse?

No I don’t think so. Most people won’t be able to have the same standard of living if they split up because you then have two households to maintain. You need to get your fair share though.

Well that would be lovely for me! XH married a woman with plenty of cash. I am entitled to the same standard of living you say?

Unfortunately, as unfair as it may seem when you're on the poorer side of the split family, realistically as long as decent maintenance and costs for the shared children are split you can't expect someone to pay towards another household. It's not their fault they earn more.

As long as the kids are looked after properly, who cares. Why should one couple subsidise another?

No when I grew up my dad was extremely wealthy and my mum was on the breadline do you think my dad should have given up his career which he hated but paid well to fund my mum who chose to work part time doing something she loved ?

Oh look the manosphere has turned up. Do you feel manly, whining on the internet?

Do you mean your ex should subsidise your lifestyle?

No, I don't agree. One party shouldnt be relying on the other apart from child payments being fair

You mean a family after divorce? I know if me & DH split, he’d end up alone in a bedsit…

If a couple become ex partners you are no longer each others problem, if one is a much higher earner than the other there is no reason for them to help fund their ex’s lifestyle just because they earn less, as long as any dc involved are financially cared for that’s all that matters.

Exactly. My mum worked her socks off to provide a stable life for me and my siblings. My dad worked the bare minimum and used all his money on alcohol and cigarettes. Should my mum have been giving my dad money to ensure we had the same lifestyle when we were with him (it wouldn’t have worked as he would have pissed it up the wall)? Or should we have lived in poverty to match his lifestyle?

There is no way this could work.

I was in one of these families. My dad was an extremely wealthy man and my mum lived (and still lives) hand to mouth. He retired at 50, she will probably have to work until she dies. This sounds awful but there are a lot of factors at play (she was awful with money and made a lot of very big and reckless financial decisions when they were together, which he tolerated for their marriage, among other things).

It’s not always that simple. Not everyone makes great financial decisions and would reliably put the money towards the DC. I think my dad took the view it would be better if he kept the money and gave it to us as adults, which to be fair he did, he’s not a stingy man. He gave me a huge house deposit (and same for my 3 siblings) which I am very grateful for.

Oh look, a mans unwanted comment.

You disagree with me so you must be a man obviously

At the outset of a divorce then I think both parties should walk away reasonably equitable so that both homes should look similar. But I don't think you can match the lifestyle path of one another thereafter. I mean, what if someone married into wealth, won the lottery, got a massive inheritance? You can't ride that wave with them.

No definitely not. Once you are divorced you are financially responsible for yourself. If it's 50/50 so no child maintenance you each have the same amount of time without kids to focus on work and improve your income

In general no as that would be 1 person subsidising the other.
Depending on the set up/share of children there could also be a much higher child support bill then most single parents would receive.

Its different if the children are on the breadline, struggling to be fed etc in those cases the other parent should pick up other bills such as clothing, school meals, school trips and potentially childcare and a delivered food shop. But the food shop should be to help the other parent back on their feet not a forevermore subsidiary.

Not and all.

Apart from the morality of it, some families

Some families are so messy that a household might have kids who also live in two or more different households. Which in turn have other kids living in different households.

How do you propose that whole web is evened up?

I know what you mean. I keep reading threads where someone has children with an ex partner, has more children with someone new and where the ex partner also has children with someone else. This usually causes some issue (the reason for the thread) which could have been predicted.