Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:37

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.

but it’s the first two kids………. Home?

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:38

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?

Fine. She should buy a small house with him, put his name on it, then give him half in the future if they break up and he moves on to another woman. Does that sound better to you?

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:38

but it’s the first two kids………. Home?

It's not unusual for kids to move homes several times, it's hardly a traumatic event? And it's quite normal for couples to sell houses and split the proceeds when they split up, kids or not?

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:39

Fine. She should buy a small house with him, put his name on it, then give him half in the future if they break up and he moves on to another woman. Does that sound better to you?

If he contributes 50%

BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:42

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:38

but it’s the first two kids………. Home?

It's not unusual for kids to move homes several times, it's hardly a traumatic event? And it's quite normal for couples to sell houses and split the proceeds when they split up, kids or not?

Parents separating is a traumatic event!

Then moving home?

honestly this man cannot provide for all of his kids, neither could me and DH provide for more than two…..

so he shouldn’t have had any more.

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:44

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:39

Fine. She should buy a small house with him, put his name on it, then give him half in the future if they break up and he moves on to another woman. Does that sound better to you?

If he contributes 50%

What's the benefit to her of only owning half a house when she can afford the whole house? They aren't married. It makes more financial sense for her to invest in a house in her name only then have him contribute via bills and expenses. If they break up she will own the whole house. Unlike his ex who only owns half a house.

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:46
  • Parents separating is a traumatic event!

Then moving home?

honestly this man cannot provide for all of his kids, neither could me and DH provide for more than two…..

so he shouldn’t have had any more.*

The children were too young to be affected by the separation. They will not know or remember any different.

We agree he should not have had anymore but that was a decision he made long ago and can't be reversed now. The argument has no relevance now because it can't be change and has no bearing or weight on how the individual children are treated.

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:47

What's the benefit to her of only owning half a house when she can afford the whole house? They aren't married. It makes more financial sense for her to invest in a house in her name only then have him contribute via bills and expenses. If they break up she will own the whole house. Unlike his ex who only owns half a house.

But it sounds like she can't afford to buy a whole house alone

ScrantonDunderMifflin · 30/07/2023 19:51

How big is the house?
In my opinion, they could really downsize if the house is massive like you said.
Could get a semi-detached three bed one of it is eg detached 4-5 bedroom house.

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:52

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:47

What's the benefit to her of only owning half a house when she can afford the whole house? They aren't married. It makes more financial sense for her to invest in a house in her name only then have him contribute via bills and expenses. If they break up she will own the whole house. Unlike his ex who only owns half a house.

But it sounds like she can't afford to buy a whole house alone

"i earn my own money - I have a deposit for a small house but not own to accommodate a 5 person family"

Her words. She is the breadwinner. She has the most money. She can afford a small house. She can't afford a big house.

SpainToday · 30/07/2023 19:53

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.

You use dramatic language - the children could potentially be moving house, not quite the trauma of being ‘forced to lose their home’. I don’t know many children who have been damaged by moving house?

And plans for how to provide for that new child need to be made separately, based on the existing financial commitments.

Er, wrong. If a man has a further child, the CMS payments to his existing children will reduce. He can’t ring fence his existing commitments and only support the new child if there’s anything left

FKATondelayo · 30/07/2023 19:53

There's more projection on this thread than at an Odeon.
Everyone arguing about things they can't possibly know because the OP hasn't clarified - the financial status of ex-gf, the exact financial arrangements in place for first 2 DC, the names on the deeds, the current set up. Until the OP comes back and explains, it's all irrelevant.

Ontheperiphery79 · 30/07/2023 19:54

OP, there is time to save towards buying a property that will enable your child to have his own room. At 3 months old, your baby probably doesn't flying fuck about having their own room.

I hear that it feels unfair for you that your partner will not/hasn't yet made moves towards selling the home he shared with his ex partner and eldest children, and I imagine it feels harder for you now that your own child has been born. But, really?! You didn't just wake up one morning with a baby delivered by a stork and suddenly realise that your partner had two older children and an extant agreement regarding the family home (the family he walked away from when the youngest was under/around a year old,; remember that?).

You build your own empire for you own child and only you can decide whether you can contend with perceived imparity of esteem.

BlastedIce · 30/07/2023 19:54

popgoesthecat2 · 30/07/2023 19:46

  • Parents separating is a traumatic event!

Then moving home?

honestly this man cannot provide for all of his kids, neither could me and DH provide for more than two…..

so he shouldn’t have had any more.*

The children were too young to be affected by the separation. They will not know or remember any different.

We agree he should not have had anymore but that was a decision he made long ago and can't be reversed now. The argument has no relevance now because it can't be change and has no bearing or weight on how the individual children are treated.

But it clearly does, because he’s not bothered about making it equal?

clearly can’t or won’t treat the “3rd” the same..

TwinsPlusAnotherOne · 30/07/2023 20:10

BadNomad · 30/07/2023 19:32

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

Show quote history

And his ex girlfriend shouldn't, for some reason.

TheWorldisGoingMad · 30/07/2023 20:10

Mammacool84 · 30/07/2023 15:52

They aren’t married they made the agreement privately. Thing is I know he wants his kids to have a lovely house and he feels guilty that he left but why can’t we have a lovely home for all five of us when they come to stay?!

Did he leave her for you?

inloveonholiday · 30/07/2023 20:13

If he's not married to his ex girlfriend then his only financial obligation is to his children. So yes he has to pay child maintenance.

Morally he's made an additional commitment to carry on paying towards the house his children live in. This could be for a variety of reasons, but whatever they are this is what he's agreed to do. It's not legally binding if they haven't been through divorce and family courts or had a legal agreement drawn up.

So this is firmly with him not you. He might feel like things are ok as they are. He is the one you should be discussing this with, he may not want to change his agreement with his ex girlfriend. There really isn't anything you can do other than talk this through with him and listen. Your goals sound at odds with each other.

I'm glad you are the main earner it puts you in a strong position. You might be better buying a small place for your future security yourself with only your name on the deeds, especially if you are not married.

Jl2014 · 30/07/2023 20:18

The previous house needs to be sold and the proceeds split between him and his ex. He will still need to pay maintenance but this will allow them to go separate ways. This is the norm for people I know who have kids but are separated.

I think he’s invented and alternative scenario due to guilt or some other reason.

ruthgordon123 · 30/07/2023 20:20

Your partner sound like a private income type. The ex got there first....or did she?
Does the ex even want her kids staying with you?
It sounds like all this has been arranged behind your daft back.
He's run out of good luck and money.
You don't say your age.
Can your parents help you.
Best of luck

SpainToday · 30/07/2023 20:32

Jl2014 · 30/07/2023 20:18

The previous house needs to be sold and the proceeds split between him and his ex. He will still need to pay maintenance but this will allow them to go separate ways. This is the norm for people I know who have kids but are separated.

I think he’s invented and alternative scenario due to guilt or some other reason.

Yep, it doesn’t need to be complicated

Mari9999 · 30/07/2023 20:52

@SpainToday
If the OP's partner entered into an agreement with his prior partner that the house would not be sold until his children were older, he should honor his agreement. That is what an honorable man would do. An honorable man would not place the whim of a new partner above an encumbrance that he knowingly and willingly entered into with his prior partner.

His youngest child has an adequate roof over his or her head. If his current partner wants more perhaps it was unwise to tie her lot with a man whose funds were already encumbered.

SpainToday · 30/07/2023 20:56

Mari9999 · 30/07/2023 20:52

@SpainToday
If the OP's partner entered into an agreement with his prior partner that the house would not be sold until his children were older, he should honor his agreement. That is what an honorable man would do. An honorable man would not place the whim of a new partner above an encumbrance that he knowingly and willingly entered into with his prior partner.

His youngest child has an adequate roof over his or her head. If his current partner wants more perhaps it was unwise to tie her lot with a man whose funds were already encumbered.

So the man should not provide support for his youngest child?

TwinsPlusAnotherOne · 30/07/2023 20:59

the whim of a new partner

That's one way of saying "his youngest child"

Mari9999 · 30/07/2023 21:26

@SpainToday
Of course he should provide maintenance for his 3rd child. That does not mean that he should try to invalidate his prior agreement.
Providing for this new child does not mean that he needs to purchase a new house. That seems to be the wish of his new partner as opposed to the need of the child. This child will not experience any difference between living in a rental vs living in a home purchased by his father. Clearly , the partner is not bothered by not having a 5 bedroom home as his children's 2nd home. Nor does he seem bothered by living a rental.

PassTheSnacks · 30/07/2023 21:31

You use dramatic language - the children could potentially be moving house, not quite the trauma of being ‘forced to lose their home’. I don’t know many children who have been damaged by moving house?

I was. So were my siblings. And many friends. It's not "dramatic launguage". Parental separation is a traumatic event. This is well documented. It's compounded if one parent then immediately cohabits with and impregnates someone else and they are presented with a half sibling. Their home will have been one of their only pieces of stability and now you think it's reasonable to tell them they must move because their father would rather spend his share of the cost on his new family? And you don't think that will be damaging?