Page 13 | Partner still paying mortgage and child maintenance which is stopping us from buying

Mammacool84 · 2023-07-30T14:48:46+00:00

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

PassTheSnacks · 30/07/2023 21:33

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

That's CMS's position, yes. They are hardly the arbiters of morality. I was expressing the view that any decent parent would not choose to do further damage to children they have caused trauma to already, rather than thinking meeting the minimum (and widely accepted to be totally inadequate) legal requirements for supporting them. If he does that because his new wife said so, he is a shit parent.

EbiRaisukaree · 30/07/2023 21:55

OP hasn’t been back to tell us more, but my reading of this, based on the timings and the circumstances, is that she and he were an affair, or at least he left his partner and children for her, so he probably feels massively guilty about abandoning his family, and has therefore set up the current situation. I think I would be quite content, in his former partner’s shoes, to take him for every penny I could get hold of.

The OP is a fool to have got pregnant by him before sorting out their financial business and ensuring that her own child would have a decent future.

ConnieTucker · 30/07/2023 22:27

EbiRaisukaree · 30/07/2023 21:55

OP hasn’t been back to tell us more, but my reading of this, based on the timings and the circumstances, is that she and he were an affair, or at least he left his partner and children for her, so he probably feels massively guilty about abandoning his family, and has therefore set up the current situation. I think I would be quite content, in his former partner’s shoes, to take him for every penny I could get hold of.

The OP is a fool to have got pregnant by him before sorting out their financial business and ensuring that her own child would have a decent future.

In this situation op probably thought she would move into the nice big house and the mother and his children would move out. It didnt happen so she gets pregnant. Still doesnt happen. Baby arrives. Op doesnt get the big house. Op is now annoyed.

but back to my original point, op buy the house. Everything in your own name.

Twillow · 30/07/2023 22:31

YANBU to want a home of your own but YABU to want a 5 bed house just because you chose a partner who already had children. That's on you and him to have to compromise.

ostwest · 31/07/2023 06:54

In 13 years time, when younger child from first relationship turns 18, the situation will be this: OP has been paying for accommodation and supporting second family all by herself (bread winner) and DP has almost paid-off house which increased in value (presumably), which OP has no claim to whatsoever.

Mari9999 · 31/07/2023 11:13

@ostwest
That would be the foreseeable out of marrying a man with the available income level of the OP's husband. Assumedly, the OP did not find him living on a street corner, naked and begging for bread. So he must have some income to contribute. It may not be the income level that the OP desires, but it is the income level of the man with whom she knowingly and willingly chose to cohabitate and reproduce.

The OP may now be having buyer's remorse, but that is not a problem to inflict on the first family. A more reasonable suggestion would be that her partner join the ranks of the many, many men and women who work two jobs. It is not dishonorable to have a second job and is offer necessary.

In the case of a man who chooses .to reproduce beyond the level of what his current income can support he can either find a better paying job or secure a second job.

The OP did not state that her partner was in any way unhappy with the status quo in which case it might make sense for the OP to get a better paying job or find a second job.

TwinsPlusAnotherOne · 31/07/2023 17:40

Mari9999 · 31/07/2023 11:13

@ostwest
That would be the foreseeable out of marrying a man with the available income level of the OP's husband. Assumedly, the OP did not find him living on a street corner, naked and begging for bread. So he must have some income to contribute. It may not be the income level that the OP desires, but it is the income level of the man with whom she knowingly and willingly chose to cohabitate and reproduce.

The OP may now be having buyer's remorse, but that is not a problem to inflict on the first family. A more reasonable suggestion would be that her partner join the ranks of the many, many men and women who work two jobs. It is not dishonorable to have a second job and is offer necessary.

In the case of a man who chooses .to reproduce beyond the level of what his current income can support he can either find a better paying job or secure a second job.

The OP did not state that her partner was in any way unhappy with the status quo in which case it might make sense for the OP to get a better paying job or find a second job.

Lmao.

Only on MN can it be reasoned that an ex girlfriend should live rent free in her ex boyfriends house for 15yrs while he suffers all her housing costs. HERS. Not the kids, he already pays maintenance for their housing. She's a grown fucking adult, with no entitlement from a divorce, and needs to pay for her own house!

Yeah, you need two jobs OP, to finance this lazy arse living for free, while you and your family have to rent.

Fucketh me. I've seen some things on here...

PassTheSnacks · 31/07/2023 20:26

Mari9999 · 31/07/2023 11:13

@ostwest
That would be the foreseeable out of marrying a man with the available income level of the OP's husband. Assumedly, the OP did not find him living on a street corner, naked and begging for bread. So he must have some income to contribute. It may not be the income level that the OP desires, but it is the income level of the man with whom she knowingly and willingly chose to cohabitate and reproduce.

The OP may now be having buyer's remorse, but that is not a problem to inflict on the first family. A more reasonable suggestion would be that her partner join the ranks of the many, many men and women who work two jobs. It is not dishonorable to have a second job and is offer necessary.

In the case of a man who chooses .to reproduce beyond the level of what his current income can support he can either find a better paying job or secure a second job.

The OP did not state that her partner was in any way unhappy with the status quo in which case it might make sense for the OP to get a better paying job or find a second job.

Absolutely. Financial commitments to support your existing children should be non-negotiable.

If somebody wishes to have more then they need to work out the finances beforehand, just like anybody else who has children with just one partner.

If someone decides to get together with a man who has just left very young children and then have a baby with him as well without working out how to finance the life they want for the baby beforehand, within the existing financial commitments, then that is just plain stupid and not something that the other children should have to suffer even more for on top of the complications in their lives that adults have created already.

SpainToday · 01/08/2023 07:17

Financial commitments to support your existing children should be non-negotiable.

If somebody wishes to have more then they need to work out the finances beforehand, just like anybody else who has children with just one partner.

If someone decides to get together with a man who has just left very young children and then have a baby with him as well without working out how to finance the life they want for the baby beforehand, within the existing financial commitments, then that is just plain stupid and not something that the other children should have to suffer even more for on top of the complications in their lives that adults have created already.

@PassTheSnacks so based on you ‘first wife’ (I assume) logic, a man should not have to provide for any new children, if doing so impacts on the support for his ‘first family’ children? In a together family , if a new child arrives, then everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie, it’s just basic economics

Blossomtoes · 01/08/2023 10:03

A man shouldn’t have “new children” if it impacts on the support of his existing children. Why do childless women get into this situation? It’s not as if there aren’t enough childless men in the world to father their children.

applesandmares · 01/08/2023 10:15

Why is there so much focus on what he should have done? None of that really matters now when the facts are that he has 3 children. His previous 2 children don't have more value or say than his third, there isn't a hierarchy here!

If the ex can afford to pay the mortgage on her own, then maybe he can stop paying that and use that to save for a deposit with you OP. If she can't, then she can't afford the home and they should sell the house and she can buy a new home with her equity, and your partner can buy with you. There is a way that all children can be housed in homes that they own!

SpainToday · 01/08/2023 10:34

applesandmares · Today 10:15
Why is there so much focus on what he should have done? None of that really matters now when the facts are that he has 3 children. His previous 2 children don't have more value or say than his third, there isn't a hierarchy here!

@applesandmares People always tend to think that the 'first family children' get treated less favourably if 'second family children' come along - this thread is probably the best illustration ever that the reverse is true.

Readyplayerthr33 · 01/08/2023 10:35

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?

Their mum and dad have been split for 4 years. It’s normal life for them, not some new big traumatic event. Just normal life at this point.
They have a new sibling. Big whoop. Happens all the time.

Their mum cannot afford the mortgage on her home with her income and child maintenance…. Then she has to sell and move house. Which children do literally every single day. It is not traumatic or a big deal. It is a house move because their mum cannot afford the house and cannot expect her ex boyfriend to pay her mortgage for the next decade. Courts very very rarely order that during divorces; couples are expected to sell, split the money and move on with a clean break.

This thread is absolutely batshit because mumsnetters do not like step mums or second partners. That’s the only reason the OP didn’t get the answers on her side. It is childish and pathetic of every poster here.

The completely normal and standard thing is to sell the family home and split the equity. Then they both move on and have to be responsible for their own housing, whilst he still pays child maintenance and hopefully they agree to split additional costs like clubs etc.

Baconisdelicious · 01/08/2023 10:43

This thread is absolutely batshit because mumsnetters do not like step mums or second partners. That’s the only reason the OP didn’t get the answers on her side. It is childish and pathetic of every poster here

People are not pathetic for not agreeing with you. There simply isn't enough information to make a half-informed response. What we do know is this is not new and the OP has been happy to go along with it. She's changed her mind - which is not unreasonable - but without understanding of why the status quo arose in the first place, plus information about the ex's personal and financial situation, it's difficult to offer reasoned advice. The OP states she is able to buy property - just not of the size she would like. She is already in a better position than thousands out there in the current economic climate. The rest we need to understand with more information.

popgoesthecat2 · 01/08/2023 11:21

This thread is absolutely batshit because mumsnetters do not like step mums or second partners. That’s the only reason the OP didn’t get the answers on her side. It is childish and pathetic of every poster here.

This with bells on. Some MN'ers are worried they could one day be the ex in this scenario.

popgoesthecat2 · 01/08/2023 11:28

In a together family , if a new child arrives, then everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie, it’s just basic economics

Exactly this. I was the eldest of 4 children, we all had the same parents. I had significantly less as an individual in ever way than I would have had as an only child.
it seems MN'ers only think this is an issue if the children have different mothers, when actually the older children in a together family have always had to deal with getting 'less' when a sibling comes along. It's because MN'ers hate second wives /mothers, they wouldn't have an issue with older children getting less in a together family - it's just life.

SpainToday · 01/08/2023 11:31

popgoesthecat2 · 01/08/2023 11:28

In a together family , if a new child arrives, then everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie, it’s just basic economics

Exactly this. I was the eldest of 4 children, we all had the same parents. I had significantly less as an individual in ever way than I would have had as an only child.
it seems MN'ers only think this is an issue if the children have different mothers, when actually the older children in a together family have always had to deal with getting 'less' when a sibling comes along. It's because MN'ers hate second wives /mothers, they wouldn't have an issue with older children getting less in a together family - it's just life.

Yep - we are dealing with The First Wives Club here!!!

Blossomtoes · 01/08/2023 11:34

SpainToday · 01/08/2023 11:31

Yep - we are dealing with The First Wives Club here!!!

Show quote history

You’re really not. Second wife here.

FourTeaFallOut · 01/08/2023 11:35

I've only been married to dh

Mari9999 · 01/08/2023 11:41

@popgoesthecat2
Adults who chose to have the number of children that they can adequately support both financislly and emotionally do not necessarily face the need to reduce material or emotional resources because of the birth of a new child. Family planning allows adults to determine in advance what load that they are capable of handling. If a man's resources can only support 2 children comfortably, then he should only have 2 children. It does not matter if these children have the same mother or not, his resources are not tied to the child's parentage.

Some women reject the idea that a man or woman should plan on working 2 jobs if that is what is required to support their reproductive plans.

popgoesthecat2 · 01/08/2023 11:45

Mari9999 · 01/08/2023 11:41

@popgoesthecat2
Adults who chose to have the number of children that they can adequately support both financislly and emotionally do not necessarily face the need to reduce material or emotional resources because of the birth of a new child. Family planning allows adults to determine in advance what load that they are capable of handling. If a man's resources can only support 2 children comfortably, then he should only have 2 children. It does not matter if these children have the same mother or not, his resources are not tied to the child's parentage.

Some women reject the idea that a man or woman should plan on working 2 jobs if that is what is required to support their reproductive plans.

People keep spouting this but in reality it means nothing, because the third child is already here. Born, living and breathing.

You can't turn back time or put the third child back into the womb can you, no matter how much he should have thought about whether he could support the child before. It's here now, so the pie gets split three ways, not two.

Mari9999 · 01/08/2023 12:20

@popgoesthecat2
Unfortunately the OP, she cannot undue the terms of an agreement whic myh preceded her and in which she has no standing. Her child needs adequate housing and he seems to have that housing. The OP wants a 5 bedroom house and her child's father is either unwilling or unable to provide that.

The OP's child is here and living in a home. The father seemingly has met his obligation to house this child. If the OP feels cheated she can petition the court for CM.
'

PassTheSnacks · 01/08/2023 12:36

SpainToday · 01/08/2023 07:17

Financial commitments to support your existing children should be non-negotiable.

If somebody wishes to have more then they need to work out the finances beforehand, just like anybody else who has children with just one partner.

If someone decides to get together with a man who has just left very young children and then have a baby with him as well without working out how to finance the life they want for the baby beforehand, within the existing financial commitments, then that is just plain stupid and not something that the other children should have to suffer even more for on top of the complications in their lives that adults have created already.

@PassTheSnacks so based on you ‘first wife’ (I assume) logic, a man should not have to provide for any new children, if doing so impacts on the support for his ‘first family’ children? In a together family , if a new child arrives, then everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie, it’s just basic economics

Nope. I'm saying - like all people - existing financial commitments need to be considered before deciding if you can afford another child. If you can't then don't have one. Of course it's not reasonable to materially disadvantage the lives of existing children and force them out of their home where they are happy because of yet more selfish decisions that adults in their lives have made.

HunterHearstHelmsley · 01/08/2023 12:36

popgoesthecat2 · 01/08/2023 11:21

This thread is absolutely batshit because mumsnetters do not like step mums or second partners. That’s the only reason the OP didn’t get the answers on her side. It is childish and pathetic of every poster here.

This with bells on. Some MN'ers are worried they could one day be the ex in this scenario.

If/when she buys a smaller house by herself that doesn't accommodate her partner's other children, she'll be criticised for that too.

PassTheSnacks · 01/08/2023 12:39

Their mum and dad have been split for 4 years. It’s normal life for them, not some new big traumatic event. Just normal life at this point.
They have a new sibling. Big whoop. Happens all the time.

This is exactly the sort of dismissiveness of the impact of adult decisions on children that leads to so many mental health problems for children. Of course parental separation is still traumatic for them. Of course seeing their dad almost immediate shack up and have a kid with someone else will compound that trauma. And it's pretty obvious that then being told they have to move house so that their father's new child - who gets to see him every day - can have a nicer house - is going to make that even worse. No sane person would do this.