Lone mum asks "Ex's new wife supports him, why not us?"

[Matrushka]

I lived with my ex for nearly three years and we have a gorgeous 5 year old son.

When we split, three years ago, things were not great but eventually he agreed to a standing order of £200 a month in child maintenance.

A year ago he married, moved 50 miles out of London and has cut the maintenance to less than half, claiming he's earning less than before and that his solicitor has advised him he doesn't need to pay as much as he has a new family to support. Recently he said, in writing, that he revised the payment as I refused him access.

You've probably guessed that none of the above is true.

I didn't refuse ex access but I did insist on meeting his then wife-to-be and her son (he introduced our son to them without telling me). Is this unreasonable? I've since met them and ML sees his father, with them, every second Sunday. His father almost never sees him alone. Fortunately ML adores his stepbrother and gets on with stepmother.

Ex's stepson's father provides more than adequately for his own son.

Ex may not be earning as much, there is a recession going on and he does work in the events and entertainment industry however his wife, when I met her, made it very clear that she soesn't like his line of work. He used to mix with a lot of pretty women... She earns £45k a year working part time. She pays for her family's holidays and ex has recently bought himself a brand new car. Between them they have three properties (his are heavily mortgaged). She doesn't want to know about his maintenance, when I approached her, she said it was sour grapes on my part.

Grapes of financial wrath more like!

Anyone out there know any law that says she in anyway responisble for ML's lost maintenance? I earn a quarter of what she does (hopefully more now ML's in school)but I'm not in any way envious. I just think the system is unfair. Tried the CSA when we first split and they awarded me £16 a month! Ex is self emplyed and has a "creative" accountant.

If you guys tell me to move on, I will - and wait for the new 2011 child maintenance act to come in. It can't be any worse. It's scary to think what kind of justice we have.

Yes I do get tax credits and yes they can be generous, especially if you need childcare, thank God for that. Otherwise with the current child maintenance act, children would suffer.

But no, HappyMummyOfOne, I would still be working if I had a wealthy new partner, as work is important to me and sets a good example.

I think anybody who lives off a new partner, when they have prior children to support is equally despicable, male or female.

Do you think foster carers should get less money violethill?

I think it's a different situation to that of the OP.

OP, I am curious as to your thread title. It looks like a DM headline...

DH and I earn more than that and I still wouldn't be able to afford a weekly food shop of £325!

I'm beginning to see why now!!!

I know a couple who between them decided the man would be a SAHD while his wife worked as they would 'save maintenence' that way. They didn't see it as rightly paying for his kids and instead said they were paying for exWs holidays etc etc (he paid £50 a week for 2 kids!)

Laurie,

Didn't realise you were a foster-parent,totally different you deserve every penny.

I think you're missing the point slightly there pithy. Laurie stated that £150 per week is the amount specified as needed for a teenager. It's not about 'rewarding' the carer (which I entirely agree is something that is difficult to quantify anyway - I wouldn't do it in a million years and take my hat off to those who do).

This is nothing against carers. It's the system which states an amount as 'standard' when it's a world away from the reality for so many ordinary people.

Laurie - so agree that it's natural to want to compensate for things your kids may have missed out on if they're from a broken family. That means emotionally and financially. BTW, you did a great character analysis of all the participants involved in my sorry drama earlier on!

i agree, even if your dd has never had any clothes laurie - it's not realistic to expect to have £15/week, every week to spend on clothes - my teenaged sons don't get that a month for clothes. Scouts is £1.50 here, what's the random £30 for? I manage to feed 6 of us, including meat, and plenty of fruit and veg for £100-120/week - by ss reckoning I should spend £300 - what planet do they live on? The school meals estimate isn't so far out - at the school i teach at a standard school dinner is £2 for main course and pudding, but the rest of the costs arte vastly inflated.
I'm not sure that splashing loads of money on a child who has had nothing makes up for anything - she needs, and i'm sure she gets. your love and attention, and the chance to have an education. for ss to reduce it to lavishing the cash around does not remove her problems.

Loshad - i evened it out over the year to include the weekend and the week long scout camp plus uniform and it's £5 a week here for subs

I did the same with the other activities.

OP it's a red herring to harp on about how much his wife has. You are wasting your time and energy wishing that your ex's new wife pay maintenance for your son. She has no legal nor moral obligation to do so. You will get nowhere going round in circles wishing it so.

Your son is the responsibility of you and your ex.

I do think it's crap that ex has claimed he can reduce his payments because there is a child in his new home especially when that child already has maintenance paid for by his father. Unfortunately legally he is correct. The CSA's calculator states "Please tell us the number of other children living in the non-resident parent's household" It asks nothing at all about what relation the children have to the person involved or their circumstances.

As he is self employed it could be very difficult to pin down what he earns. You could actually come out worse off if you went through the CSA.

Yes he should pay what he due for his son. Yes he is being a git if he is not doing so.
But if it cannot be proved, you are going to get nowhere.

In reality you are getting something, just try to accept that.

Loshad - that's exactly what I was getting at.

The issue of remuneration for the carer is a totally different issue, but as far as Social Services setting a standard tariff for what a teenager needs - it should be an amount that bears some semblance to reality! £150 per week is very far from the reality for many families.

Yes, of course there are 'start up costs', such as if you have a child arriving without clothes (and I'm a teacher, and yes, these situations do happen, some children in care are from horrific backgrounds). But the actual routine living costs.... well, I still don't get how £65 per week on food for one teenager is anywhere near normal.

The worrying part of it is like you say, it implies that their huge problems are going to be overcome by throwing loads of money in their direction, when the reality is far more complex.

Anyway, slightly off topic.

Stewie, that is interesting about the Canadian system, and seems to reflect the reality of the OP's situation better than the British system.

Jess. I know this is not AIBU, but OP you are being utterly unreasonable if you expect another person to be financially responsible for your child - two people alone share that responsibility: you and your ex. It is down to you to negotiate with him (not his new wife), through the CSA/courts if need be if you are not happy with his contribution.

Just under 3 years ago, when I was about 6 mths pregnant, DH lost his job. He was paying his ex £900 per month in maintenance and CB (they have one son together, who at the time was 16). He spoke to her, explained the situation and said that he'd need to reduce the payments until he found something else to £700 per month. Her response? That I (yes me) should make up the difference. As you appear to share the same beliefs as this woman, perhaps you can explain to me why on Earth I should be making financial contributions for someone else to maintain her lifestyle.

I had a damn good job, which paid very well and which I had worked long and hard for. What I chose to do with my money was entirely up to me; just as what your ex's wife chooses to do with her hard earned money is entirely up to her - foreign holidays, property, gambling, cocaine and fast cars....tis nothing to do with you.

Haven't read all posts but why should the OP's XH be able to stick two fingers up at her and stop/reduce maintenance.

If the XH's new wife has been instrumental in him giving up work, then surely she should have thought about that before she did so.

Yes, I agree that she (the new wife) shouldn't personally have to pick up the bills but there is a bigger picture here. Why should men just be allowed to fuck off and get away with crappy or non existant payments for children that they have brought into this world on the pretext that they have "new" families to support.

Spot on Tryharder.

Rindercella - your situation was different from mine. Ex initially stopped and then halved his paymnents in the month he married, it was a malicious move. I know someone has said that one shouldn't see spite in this sort of thing but, in his case it was almost totally motivated by anger that I'd insisted on meeting new wife and also the convenience of not having to pay as much because the law says you don't have to.

To be clear, I don't really think that new wife should fund my son but I threw that out there because the current system is unfair. Wish I lived in Canada!

I'm sorry that your situation is hard Matrushka, but some of your posts aren't making sense.

I am a stepmum and would do everything I could to ensure that my SD has a decent standard of living while she is in my DHs care. What happens in her mums time, is her mums problem and her mum has been most clear about that.

You have no reason whatsoever to meet and vet his new partner in anyway shape or form. The judge in our case was perfectly clear about that to my DHs ex. Ex in our case wanted to supervise OVERNIGHTS the first few times and for me to get rid of my cats to facilitate this. This was over a year ago and she is still refusing overnights despite a court agreement to the contrary.

You say that ML does not stay overnight with his dad because he doesn't want to, but then say that ex won't have him overnight, which is it?

Finally, if, as a stepmum, you want me and the hundreds if not thousands of other women in my position to support you, then I wil need the following extra rights:

Automatic Parental Responsibilty on first payment
The right to contact with 'my' child apart from you and my DH, and continued contact should my relationship with DH fail.

Sorry to sound harsh but if I am to be financially responsible, I would like the rest of the responsibilites that go with having a child. I accept that my DH pays his maintence and this is calulated from his wages. If mine are to be considered, then I want true fairness, and to be considered an equal parent.

Anita - by having the right to meet and deal with your SD without her mum's interference, you pretty much have the rights of a full parent anyway so don't get this point at all.

In my case, wanting to meet new wife was I think understandable as ex is an alcoholic (now recovering under her influence, so well done to her. BTW, I am not responsible for him becoming one - so please, people, don't jump on me for that!) Bearing this in mind, perhaps you'll understand that he has not been the best judge in the past and to take his word for something is difficult if I want to be sure of my son's safety.

What I said about overnights is that ex never wanted to put his son to bed, BEFORE he married. He is now keen on overnights because it saves him driving an extra 100 miles. When our son is ready, I won't have an issue with this.

Anitablake - very sensible post.

It always seems to fall back to the fact that the ex and children are more important than any subsequent partner and children. And all the shouts of "well he should not have had more children, or got married to somebody else when he has responsibilities elsewhere" are just too unreasonable.

Does it mean that the non-resident parent should spent the rest of their days at the beck and call of the ex and their children because their relationship failed and it is not FAIR that he move on and have a life for himself?

I honestly do not get this line of thinking...and as stated I am an EXW and a second wife.

The things that come to my mind are revenge, bitterness, cash cow, so many other things can be said in this vein.

It is horrible to think that there are women out there who just want to screw their ex's for every single penny they can get as some form of compensation or revenge but people are human beings, make mistakes and are still entitled to live their lives without control or manipulation over money or children.

I know a man (friend of my mum) who earns £3k a month. The relationship broke down and she threw him out. He could not afford to get divorced and she threatened that if he did not maintain her lifestyle he would have to go to court to see his children, which she knew he could not afford.

So for the last 5 years he has been paying her £2500 a month from his salary leaving him £500. He lives in a room at a friends house and is "stuck". He is in his early 50's.

Meanwhile she has kept the house, still has every bill paid and receives maintenance for herself and the children, kept the car and does not work. She has given up a job claiming she needs to look after the children yet her youngest is 13 and her eldest is 21.

HOW is that fair? To me it shows me that there ARE women out there who will take every single penny they can get whilst the father of their children lives on the breadline. But it is not ok for it to happen the other way around?

I have been saying this since the beginning of the thread but if people stopped being so bitter and focused 100% on their children, maintained respect for each other as a parent of your child then it would be easier to communicate about money and people would be more reasonable.

All this "she's got, he's got" is futile and immature to be honest.

Totally agree with that post Fruity.

Yes, there are some men who are feckless and have children and bugger off and won't accept their responsibilities, but equally there are some women who shirk their responsibilities, such as the woman you describe, who kicked her husband out and still expects him to hand over nearly all his wages so she can sit on her arse and be kept in comfort.

And alongside this kind of ridiculous scenario, we have a welfare system that does bugger all to encourage couples to stay together, so across the country there are hundreds of thousands of families where both parents live under the same roof, both go out to work, and struggle to support their own nuclear family.

Mad mad world.

Great post Fruitysunshine. I've been on the receiving end of many of those comments on here in the past. It's as if people think that unless the man can afford to pay for everything his first children could possibly ever want and need, then he has no right to have any more DCs in a happier relationship. Very unfair, especially if he didn't cause the original split.

Another point I would make is that it is not always the case that men "choose" not to work and support their DCs. Shit happens to people, and if the man had still been in his first relationship at the time then his ex would have had to deal with it then as well. If he happens to have had a DC in his new relationship, and as a result of his employment situation it makes sense for his wife to be the main breadwinner, then so be it. If you're an ex you have to deal with that - it's none of your damned business.

Good point Violethill with "Yes, there are some men who are feckless and have children and bugger off and won't accept their responsibilities, but equally there are some women who shirk their responsibilities, such as the woman you describe, who kicked her husband out and still expects him to hand over nearly all his wages so she can sit on her arse and be kept in comfort."

There are millions of both men and women who dont financially support their children yet it only appears to be the men that get ranted about. How many women claim IS and various other benefits rather than working to support their child/children but expect the man to work and pay as well?

Both parents should be financially responsible not just one.

I think it is easy to cover up a lot of sinister agendas with emotional heart pulling.

Not all women do this but I think it happens a lot more than people realise.

I know a woman whose decision to end her marriage was made on the basis that she would bring home more money than her husband in tax credits, 16hrs a week working and other financial entitlements plus maintenance if she was on her own.

Speaks volumes to me. It is not just men who behave with irresponsibility towards money but women also.

One other thing that shouldn't be forgotten, which has been partly been mentioned before, is that the PWC receives tax credits for her children, which are not reduced to take account of any maintenance payments.

The second family on the other hand, regardless of which parent is the main earner, have a proportion of the tax credit they receive for their own children taken away, because these are taken into account when calculating maintenance payments. Plus the maintenance paid for the first DCs is not disregarded when calculating tax credits for their own children.

The system is skewed towards the so-called "first" family at every turn.