Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Partner still paying mortgage and child maintenance which is stopping us from buying

373 replies

Mammacool84 · 30/07/2023 15:48

Hey there,

hoping I can get some advice or guidance- my partner and I have been together over 4 years we now have a beautiful 3 month old and we are in a rented house. My partner owns a house from a previous relationship where he has two lovely children and pays child maintenance. Thing is I want my little boy to have his own room and a house that is ours but all my partners money is tired up in the house he owns with his ex and he says he can’t sell until his two kids are 18!! But this is stopping us from getting a property which I think is so unfair - I don’t get child maintenance etc why should his ex have maintenance and a massive house???!!! I feel like I am paying for his exs lifestyle and kids - why can’t they downsize so his ex can get a solo mortgage? Any suggestions? Thank you in advance

OP posts:
BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:21

You don't treat children equal by taking away from some so they all have less. What he should be doing is providing the new baby with the same level of support as he gives the first two. If he can't afford to do that, he shouldn't have had another child until he was able to provide that.
But he didn't make this decision on his own. The OP knew his circumstances and still chose to continue a relationship with him and start a family. So there are two people responsible for this situation - neither of them are the ex.

PassTheSnacks · 30/07/2023 19:22

Mammacool84 · 30/07/2023 16:09

i earn my own money - I have a deposit for a small house but not own to accommodate a 5 person family - I want all children to have their own bedrooms…is that fair??

So they should all have their own bedrooms with you but not in their main home? Not convinced this is motivated by some desire to make your step children's lives pleasant, based on what you have said. 🤣

TwinsPlusAnotherOne · 30/07/2023 19:23

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:21

You don't treat children equal by taking away from some so they all have less. What he should be doing is providing the new baby with the same level of support as he gives the first two. If he can't afford to do that, he shouldn't have had another child until he was able to provide that.
But he didn't make this decision on his own. The OP knew his circumstances and still chose to continue a relationship with him and start a family. So there are two people responsible for this situation - neither of them are the ex.

Yeah the ex girlfriend isn't responsible for a lot it would seem. Lives in free housing for the next 15 years, as we all do...

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:23

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:21

You don't treat children equal by taking away from some so they all have less. What he should be doing is providing the new baby with the same level of support as he gives the first two. If he can't afford to do that, he shouldn't have had another child until he was able to provide that.
But he didn't make this decision on his own. The OP knew his circumstances and still chose to continue a relationship with him and start a family. So there are two people responsible for this situation - neither of them are the ex.

So you think because he can't give the third what he gives the other two, the third should just get less because the other two were here first and tough shit?

No, in that situation you do have to take less from the first two and share is out equally. That's the case even in families that are not 'split' - another child in the family often means less to go round with the existing siblings.

grunttheterrible · 30/07/2023 19:24

Thank you @AutumnCrow. I got a lot wrong and shouldn't have had a baby with him. I wouldn't be without her at all but he's ruined my life and I'm constantly stressed by him. I'm disappointed in myself for trusting him and hate that me and other women are treated this way. Not saying this is true of OP, who knows? Just fine it hard to believe he's a committed dad to his first two but is fine with OP bankrolling his third independently

DivineLillith · 30/07/2023 19:25

My friends lost the plot and made terrible choices in men in their late thirties because they wanted children, looking at your username I’m guessing you were born in 84. It’s a sad state of affairs that you do not seem to understand the situation at all.

You are the breadwinner, this means you are subsidising him. If her name isn’t on the mortgage as she wasn’t married she has zero rights to the house which means he has an asset that gains with neither of the women who have given birth to his children having any kind of security. When he sells he gets all the equity, neither of you get anything. She could fight a case that she has lived and contributed but that would be for a court to decide.

RedToothBrush · 30/07/2023 19:26

WasJuliaRight · 30/07/2023 19:06

In the 4+ years has the subject of his financial commitments never been discussed before now? You’re with a man who is standing by his commitments. I’d rather that than a guy who doesn’t contribute at all.

I’ve noticed is that you have been together over 4 years and has a 5 year old. He doesn’t waste much time.

OP a breadwinner and he moved on very rapidly after finding himself effectively homeless?

Funny that.

Listen to the wise ones on this thread who have the t-shirt on this. He's pulling a fast one somewhere to someone in this mix.

Lilyt14 · 30/07/2023 19:27

I’ve reading through most of this and this set up sounds like a very good deal for your DP, he gets to build his asset on the first property, whilst having his living costs subsided by you as the breadwinner. It may or may not be a good deal for his ex, depending on how much he is paying compared to what his maintenance liability should be. It’s clearly not a good deal for you, as I think you know.

You can’t force your DP to force the sale of the family home. It’s likely that his ex can’t afford to buy him out, going through the courts could be very timely and costly (I know this from personal experience) and most importantly why would he? The current set up is working well for him as he’s still accumulating his asset and having himself and all three of his children housed at your expense. If he’d not got into another relationship soon after leaving his previous one, then he may well have chosen to force the sale so that he had somewhere for his kids to stay, but he didn’t need to.

I think you just need to decide whether you are willing to continue accepting this, and if not you need to leave and let someone else subsidise his living. I’d also be interested to know how much of this you were aware of before you were pregnant? If he wasn’t upfront about this then that in itself is a massive red flag.

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:27

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:23

So you think because he can't give the third what he gives the other two, the third should just get less because the other two were here first and tough shit?

No, in that situation you do have to take less from the first two and share is out equally. That's the case even in families that are not 'split' - another child in the family often means less to go round with the existing siblings.

Show quote history

I said the third deserves what the first two have. Responsible parents don't have more children than they can provide for. If you're having to take from the others in your family to accommodate another child, that is on you. Don't have 3 children then cry because you can't give them a bedroom each. Accept responsible for your decision in life and don't try blame other people.

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:28

It seems these threads often go down the road of attacking the OP for her poor judgement in the past, rather than addressing the current issue.

Some MN'ers seem to think you can turn back time if you condemn something enough.

RedToothBrush · 30/07/2023 19:29

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:21

You don't treat children equal by taking away from some so they all have less. What he should be doing is providing the new baby with the same level of support as he gives the first two. If he can't afford to do that, he shouldn't have had another child until he was able to provide that.
But he didn't make this decision on his own. The OP knew his circumstances and still chose to continue a relationship with him and start a family. So there are two people responsible for this situation - neither of them are the ex.

Would be interesting to test that in court.

applesandmares · 30/07/2023 19:29

Could you both afford to buy his ex out of the house and move in there (obv with the ex moving out) so that the two children aren't displaced from that home and have some stability?

BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:29

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:23

So you think because he can't give the third what he gives the other two, the third should just get less because the other two were here first and tough shit?

No, in that situation you do have to take less from the first two and share is out equally. That's the case even in families that are not 'split' - another child in the family often means less to go round with the existing siblings.

Show quote history

No, you don’t have a third you can’t afford, it’s really that simple.

hey DC2 1 & 2, you’ve gotta have less because I want

3,4,5,6 children with other women…

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:29

@BadNomad yes, true but what if you can't? What then? If you can't afford to pay for two houses, what's the solution?

It isn't to say 'well he shouldn't have had an extra child if he couldn't afford it' because it's gone way way past that.

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:30

@BlastedIce yes, you don't, but what if the third child is already here (which it is). What do you do then?

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:30

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:28

It seems these threads often go down the road of attacking the OP for her poor judgement in the past, rather than addressing the current issue.

Some MN'ers seem to think you can turn back time if you condemn something enough.

None of this is a surprise to the OP, though. Unless he hid this arrangement from her until she got pregnant. She knew this was happening. Why is she complaining about it now?

BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:31

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:29

@BadNomad yes, true but what if you can't? What then? If you can't afford to pay for two houses, what's the solution?

It isn't to say 'well he shouldn't have had an extra child if he couldn't afford it' because it's gone way way past that.

But they are affording a house and can afford a house, but not a four bed that OP wants!

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:32

@BadNomad it's not about the OP though, it's about the living breathing child that's now here, and they are just as important as the man's first two children.

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:32

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:29

@BadNomad yes, true but what if you can't? What then? If you can't afford to pay for two houses, what's the solution?

It isn't to say 'well he shouldn't have had an extra child if he couldn't afford it' because it's gone way way past that.

The OP should buy a house that she can afford in her name only.

PassTheSnacks · 30/07/2023 19:33

He probably shouldn't have had more kids. But he did. So now they are here, that's done, and they are equally important.

But have not been through a trauma of parental breakup, do not have to adjust to a step parent and splitting time between homes and a new sibling on top, do not have to see a half sibling live with their father while they only see each parent some of the time. Therefore to force those children to lose their home also because of the new half sibling would be ridiculous. Can you imagine the damage that would cause? No decent parent would ever contemplate piling more disruption on top of all of the above. Whereas the half sibling has been through none of that. And plans for how to provide for that child need to be made separately, based on the existing financial commitments.

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:34

The OP should buy a house that she can afford in her name only.

So the ex has financial support when it comes to housing this man's first two kids, but the third child not benefit from this same arrangement?

PassTheSnacks · 30/07/2023 19:34

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:21

You don't treat children equal by taking away from some so they all have less. What he should be doing is providing the new baby with the same level of support as he gives the first two. If he can't afford to do that, he shouldn't have had another child until he was able to provide that.
But he didn't make this decision on his own. The OP knew his circumstances and still chose to continue a relationship with him and start a family. So there are two people responsible for this situation - neither of them are the ex.

Absolutely.

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:35

OP wants a big house. She can't afford that on her own and resents that her partner can't provide her with the big house either. She's jealous because she sees the ex with a big house and wants to take that from her and the children so she (the OP) can get a big house instead. She's pretending it's because she wants all the children to have a bedroom, but that's bull. She's just jealous.

BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:35

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:32

@BadNomad it's not about the OP though, it's about the living breathing child that's now here, and they are just as important as the man's first two children.

And they don’t care if they live in a rented or mortgaged house…. Do they?

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:37

And they don’t care if they live in a rented or mortgaged house…. Do they?

Neither do the first two kids.