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.

Why should one fund the lifestyle of another, what about getting a job?

Yes one should pay what they should but funding a lifestyle is not right

Maybe to start, right after divorce and the financial settlement. But this very quickly will change depending on the actions and opportunities of the two exes

I dunno, DH earns double what I do (been the same trend when we first met, before kids etc so there’s no “he’s not be earning that without my efforts” in play) but he works in a high pressure job I would hate to do and puts the hours in after DD is in bed while I doom scroll on the sofa. If we split up, would I expect him to fund my lifestyle accordingly - not sure that would be equitable.

@PollyBell I agree. But then my opinion is both bio parents of any child have a financial responsibility to them; never just one or the other. You make them, you provide for them.
I also don't think that stepparents should have to take financial responsibility for other people's children.

You might think this is a helpful comment but this bland sweeping assertion completely ignores the many factors that lead to female poverty. Including it’s the woman who goes through pregnancy, labour and possibly bf, all of which can and often does impact negatively on her career and earning power, chances for promotion, pension contributions etc.

Not always, but more often than not it’s the mother who is expected to stay home when the children are young and when they’re are ill. Again, these career breaks negatively impacting on career prospects.

It tends to be the mother who is expected to do school pick ups, dinner, bath and bed so more likely to have less time to network, go to industry events, play golf with the clients etc. Plus, not always, but often it’s the mother who is expected to organise play dates, costumes for world book day, take children to appointments, sort homework, remember dentist appointments and the 1000s of myriads of family life. Again, leaving less bandwidth for climbing the work ladder.

Many mothers I know end up on part time hours and/or term time jobs in order to accommodate their family’s needs. All of which negatively impact on skill development, industry contacts, pension contributions and savings, career prospects etc etc etc.

All the while, the ‘D’H gets to have the joy of a family and his successful career. But 20 odd years later, moves on, saying thanks for all those sacrifices but I’m done with you now. And to cap it all off, the courts have reverted to their misogynistic practices and allow men to get away with hiding assets, not paying maintenance etc because they can afford the high price solicitors but no more legal aid for the NMW wife.

Then some helpful random woman on the internet makes a comment implying the mother has not pulled her financial weight in the family.

If a man had to pay for all the services provided by the wife/mother, he’d be paying a minimum of £30k per year and likely closer to £50k. Instead single mother after single mother ends up financially struggling. And that seems to be her fault. It would be great if more women supported women.

Poverty is gendered. It is a structural and enduring reality that women face higher levels of poverty than men, driven by inequalities in pay, unpaid care, access to resources, and power. For generations, women have carried the burden of poverty due to the way society and the economy are organised.

Assume you’re the poorer parent?

How would that be implemented?

The poorer side just find money or the richer side give their money away?

Depends. Of course it shouldn’t be a blanket rule though as that could potentially be absurd if one party works their arse off and the other does fuck all.

A good solution to that unfair childcare sharing you describe is to refuse to be in a marriage where this is expected simply because you are a woman.
Having children should never be an excuse to have to give up work / a career because the full responsibility of childcare falls to one parent.
In my marriage we both work as we both accept that out daughter is equally ours and we have a financial duty towards her. Husband shares school drop-offs and is Priority Contact for school (and yes, it irks me when they still call me if they need to tell us something re our daughter - I can't take calls in work time whereas husband can!)

Op are you pissed off that your ex has money while you don't?

Lovely idea, but it never happens I'm afraid, unless it is a very rich household indeed which splits. In the past divorce was discouraged by functionally making the wife and children destitute, now the house often went to the wife and kids until they finished school, but most of the earning capacity is still usually the husbands- so splits still rarely result in equal households. It's also worth remembering that there is only so much money and resources to go around, so it's obvious both of the household will be poorer once split.

Well yes, but I did that by working hard to provide my children with a good life and not relying on their father to subsidise me - or, in recent years, me subsidise him. We were equal parents before we split up and remain equal parents now nearly 20 years later.

In what way? Do you mean a child from a split family has 2 homes, 2 bedrooms, 2 family holidays, 2 Xmas Days so kids from 'traditional' Mum & Dad together homes should be expected to have the same 2 homes, 2 bedrooms and 2 holidays and 2 Xmases?

Are you saying that when a couple split up, the one earning more should financially support the other forever so that their lives are ‘fair’?

Then, no.

What if one spouse works hard and earns well and the other is lazy, feckless and doesn’t want to work at all? Should the first not have holidays to nice places? Should the first have to pay double whenever they do something nice so the second toucan do it as well?

Who would enforce that rule? You? The family court? A new government agency to be created for that purpose? Would the party who feels aggrieved need to make a complaint or would every 'split family' be subject to random checks? How often? Financial circumstances can change rapidly. Would there need to be a fresh assessment every time someone moved to a new job, or inherited money, or had a bit of luck on the horses?

Not equal, no, but good enough in each home.

If you're flying business class to your 7 holidays a year, your child shouldn't be living in poverty. Each parent has a responsibility in as much as they're able to ensure that the child is properly housed, fed etc. Whether that means paying above CMS or taking a larger custody share etc.

However no, if Dad has shared custody but gets three other women pregnant so the kids are sharing bedrooms and he's working on minimum pay, then he should expect to be subsidised because his ex and invested in her career, got promoted and is now earning 6 figures. How woudk that work? Despite the divorce they share all finances? And if she subsideses the Dad's house for their kids, does he then pass that on down the line to his other baby mom's? Does the one well off parent have to bring the entire collection of half siblings up?

OK so this is just unique to one household flying business class type money and one not.

A lot of split households don’t have this sort of cash.

But yes when parents split each household should have adequate essentials for the children. So an appropriate bedroom, clothes, food, school/hobby equipment, transport. Until those children are out of education.

But it doesn’t necessarily have to be of equal standing. You don’t need a Range Rover for example.

Having a child with someone doesn’t mean you are entitled to a business class lifestyle funded by the other if you split. But adequate accommodations for the children (and that means their other parent) should be taken into account.

It’s then up to the two individual parent adults to work to provide any standard of living for their children and themselves at their household.

How could this ever be a blanket rule?

A couple who earn similar amounts split up, 10 years later the parent who has the children 90% of the time becomes massively well paid? Do you really think they should equalise lifestyles with their ex?

Or a couple split up and one of them goes on to marry someone very wealthy. Should the new spouse pay to make sure the ex has a similar lifestyle?

A couple split up and one of them goes on to have 5 more children, significantly impacting standard of living due to increased costs. Is the ex responsible for that?

No I don't agree.. just because you've had a child together that you'd be stuck supporting them personally ( outside of child support of course) until the children are 18z some people are lazy or bad with Money and it's not on the other parent to make up the gap .

She’s not the first and won’t be the last. I see women complaining about what their ex earns or where they live on MN all the time.

It’s valid and makes sense to be pissed off if say an ex isn’t paying maintenance because he “doesn’t earn enough” whilst being a self employed builder who drives a Range Rover and holidays in Bali.

It’s not valid to bitch about a reduced standard of living after separating from a higher earner especially if there is shared care.

I couldn’t care less if my ex won the pools, it’s weird and bitter to be so invested in what your ex has got.

This is very true. Not forgetting too that the DC are likely to benefit from their wealthy parent's good fortune.

In theory sure, the reality though…

It depends. If your husband/wife cheats, chooses not to work despite being able to, should they get to live the highlife on your dime?
I've heard stories of professionals leaving their jobs to avoid a cheating ex mooching. Not sure if it's true.
I do feel sorry for any kid affected by their parents ruining things, though.

Surely both bio parents have an equal financial responsibility to any child? That will mean both parents going out to work at the very least.