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

[Mammacool84]

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

Why should his ex's money be tied up in the larger property required to house their children but his should not?

Maybe they have a 50:50 custody agreement and the children spend equal time at both houses?

Mesher Orders' usually have a re-marriage/co-habitation clause stating they come to an end upon marriage or after a set number of months of co-habitation. The situation is not the same as we are hearing about here. Probably. There is too little information to be able to say that with conviction.

@popgoesthecat2
Ex partners are entitled to whatever the 2 parties agree to between the 2 of them. CM is the minimum amount that a parent is required to pay. Many parents want more for their children than a minimum standard of living.

The OP was not privy to any discussions that her partner and his ex had in relation to what they wanted for their children and how they were prepared to accomplish those goals.

It would seem that the OP and her partner did not have those types of discussions prior to her pregnancy and they seem not to have reached any agreeiments post pregnancy.

Except that isn't the situation here, is it?

Except that isn't the situation here, is it?

Has that been confirmed?

@PassTheSnacks I don't think it says anywhere that he pays a contribution towards the mortgage, the title says "partner still paying mortgage and child maintenance" so unless OP comes back to confirm, we don't know either way.

We also don't know what their contact arrangements are, but as he's paying maintenance I'd assume it isn't 50:50.

If OP was to just buy a small house on her own, where would his older two children stay when they stay over? Arguably OP needs more bedrooms than the ex, who presumably only needs three. And shouldn't he be contributing to housing this third child, in addition to the extra bedrooms he'll need for his own two? Because you seem to be suggesting that OP should be buying a home which will house children that aren't even hers! Or does that not matter because the older two were here first?

I also don't buy into all the dramatics about moving house being some hugely traumatic event!

The first wife mentality is so fucking ridiculous.

Children aren't traumatised by house moves. Inherently, moving home is not trauma. We are moving soon, to somewhere nothing like our current home, and the DC will love it. Children are traumatised by a house move when the adult is projecting or exposing their own distress/disgust/indignance at having to move on to their children and making it traumatic.

You think he is paying the entire mortgage for his older children's house that is jointly owned with their mother? Seems highly unlikely. 🤣 Happy for the OP to correct us if that's the case but her posts appeared to imply it's still jointly owned and he has continued to pay his half of the joint mortgage since leaving because it is his children's home.

Children don't require a room each for short visits to a non-resident parent. Again, OP's posts imply the older children live with their mother and just visit their father, hence him continuing to fund the costs of them being raised in their home with their mother.

She has confirmed that this was all in place before she decided to move in with this man and have another child with him. She's also confirmed that - despite these existing financial commitments to his older children that she was fully aware of before deciding to move in with him and have another child with him - they can still afford to purchase a house with plenty of room for their new family unit.

However, she'd like to force the older children to move to a smaller home so she can have a larger one than them, and she resents ger partner paying his share of the costs for raising his older children because it means she can't have the size of house she'd like to buy, without forcing him to reduce the financial support for his older kids so that they have to leave their home, which sounds like the one bit of stability they've had through this shitshow in their early lives.

I'm not sure I can imagine a much more selfish way to behave towards young children who've already been through a great deal in their early lives, than to propose this not because it's necessary but just because you want an even bigger house for yourself with bedrooms that will sit empty much of the time.

Horrible. Fortunately, it sounds like her partner is not amenable to her attempt to validate all of the worst stereotypes of stepmothers from Cinderella etc. 🤣

Children who have already been through the trauma of parental separation and then had their father move in with another woman and have a new baby with her all in a very short soace of time would undoubtedly be very negatively affected by being forced to move out of their home, potentially away from schools and friends, when this is completely unnecessary and has been engineered purely because their new stepmother resents their father providing his share of their living costs, and wants to force them out of their home so that she can buy a larger house than is required for their new half-sibling to live in.

If you can't see how this would compound the damage already done to these children by selfish adults, and cause long-term and perhaps ireperable damage to their relationship with their father and half sibling and a likely breakdown of the co-parenting relationship due to breaking established financial agreements and the absolutely justified anger the mother of the older kids would have at their father inflicting this further pain of feeling rejected and unimportant on them, then I don't know how to help you. Think of it from the persepective of those children. It is obvious what will happen if he cowed to the OP's selfish and totally unnecessary demands. Hopefully he has the spine not to.

Tacitly, yes. OP described the house her partner jointly owns with his ex as the older children's "home". And "where they live". And said she wants a house with separate bedrooms for each one when they come to "visit" their father. Therefore it appears to be apparent that this is not a 50/50 arrangement. Aside from numerous other parts of her posts that make it totally implausible to suggest he has 50/50 residency: not least that then there would be no need to pay maintenance in the first place.

@PassTheSnacks I don't know what you're reading but nowhere does OP imply that the mortgage is being paid jointly (or otherwise) - just that he is paying "it". Nowhere does she imply that the children live with their mother and simply visit their father. The only time she's mentions the children in that way is where she says "when they come to stay" - that could be once a month or twice a week for all we know. You are assuming things that support your own opinions.

She didn't shack up with her partner and have a child straight away. It's not unusual for a parent to have another child 4 years after separating from their ex partner. It's also not inherently selfish to leave a relationship. We have no idea of the facts surrounding that situation other than they began their relationship when his youngest child was around a year old. How long should someone stay single after a separation before it is no longer selfish?

You keep talking about doing the best for the children but continue to ignore what is also best for the 3 month old baby. As a collective, it is ideal for all of the children to live in a home which is owned by their parents - not a home that is theirs for the length of a year to year long tenancy (or even month to month).

If the house is sold, both parents can buy with the equity. All of the children can live in their own homes. Yes that would mean all of them having one house move (heaven forbid) but they would then all have security.

You seem to believe that the older two should have more space than they need, at the expense of the youngest child, when there is a solution that leaves them all suitably looked after.

Paying "it" when referring to a joint mortgage means paying half of the total cost, because half is attributed to each of the joint owners. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the OP's partner was paying for the entirety of his older children's housing cost rather than his 50% share of this then the OP would have mentioned this very explicitly, given that this entire thread is about her being grabby about wanting to reduce his financial support for his older children. Again, happy to be corrected by her if I'm wrong and he is in fact paying the entire mortgage of the house where his children live... but won't hold my breath. Because that's just not plausible and doesn't match her other comments.

It's pretty weird for someone to leave a one year old and a 4 year old and have another 3 month old baby within 4 years, yes. Usually people would spend time establishing a stable co-parenting relationship and living situation for the very young children before even looking for a new partner and focus on the impact on the children first. To have met someone new, moved in with them and deliberately conceived another child in the space of 3 years is fast, to say the least. Nothing inherently wrong with that assuming you've made sure the existing children are stable in their home and emotionally ok after what's happened and that your subsequent choices won't impact your financial commitments to them... oh, wait.

All of the children can live in a home owned by their parents. The OP has stated she can purchase a home suitable for the new family unit her and her partner have created. The issue here is not that they can't afford that, it's that she wants her partner to withdraw some of his financial support for his older children and force them to move out of their home so that she can buy a house that is much bigger than she needs with lots of spare bedrooms. Callous, by any standard.

How would her purchasing the house she can afford, with ample space for her new family unit, mean that their new child is not "suitably looked after"? Why does this child need a house with multiple spare bedrooms at the expense of their older siblings losing their home?

@PassTheSnacks where do you propose his older two children sleep when OP buys a small home for their family unit? Bearing in mind we have no idea how often they stay (despite you making up quotes in your previous response to another poster 😂) And don't you think her partner should be contributing to the cost of that small home or should that all be on OP? Or is it just that it's too bad because his other two children come first?

If his ex cannot afford to buy him out of that house, or buy a similar sized home, with her salary and maintenance, then she should downsize. They don't need a massive house.

The children can stay without all having separate bedrooms is that isn't feasible. Surely it makes more sense for them to share on visits to the non-resident parent's house than be forced to move to actually live in a house where they cannot have separate bedrooms day to day?

Where has the OP said her partner is not contributing to their own house and living costs? She stated she is not happy he can't pay MORE than he is so that they can have a 5 bedroom house for 3 people because she's cross he is paying towards his older children's upbringing as well as their own child's. Not that he is paying nothing to their own household.

Honestly, the knots that people will tie themselves in to try to justify shitty and selfish behaviour from adults to the detriment of children's wellbeing. Including the OP's own child, who would be likely to have a very strained relationship with their siblings if her husband gave in to her demands.

@PassTheSnacks I don't think the two older children should share a room at their mums, I'm just saying that they don't require "massive" house - just a three bedroom.

When I said "don't you think her partner should be contributing to the cost of that small home or should that all be on OP?" I was responding to you saying "The OP has stated she can purchase a home suitable for the new family unit her and her partner have created."

The point is, it's acceptable to you that he doesn't contribute towards buying a small home for his 3 month old to live in (OP has said he can't as his money is tied up in the other home) but unacceptable for him to not contribute towards a house for his other two children to live in. In other words, he is an asshole if he expects his ex girlfriend to buy a house on her own, but he is not an asshole if he expects his new girlfriend to buy a house on her own?

Who has said that he shouldn't contribute to the new home? She didn't say anything to imply he is not paying towards their own household as well as the maintenance for his older children. I presume she would have mentioned it if he was providing no money towards their current home and her child, given how much more sympathy she'd have received if that was the case!!

His older children existed already. He had financial commitments already which the OP know about when she decided to have a child with him. If from her perspective it would only be acceptable to have another child if he reneged on the financial commitments he had made to his other children and forcing the sale of their home then she should have raised this before conceiving another baby with him.

There's no indication in her posts that he's not providing also for his new child. Her gripe seems to be that she wants to force him to sell the home his older children live in so that she and he can buy a larger home than they need. Obviously that isn't ok.

Nobody has said he shouldn't provide for his new child as well. They have the money to buy a nice home for that child, too. And he is clearly able to pay his share of their l. If she wants a house with three spare bedrooms then perhaps they'll need to save up more like everyone else does, or get a second job, or work for promotions, to make that feasible. In no sane person's world would it be ok to turf the older children out of their home so that he can have more spare money to buy a huge house that the OP thinks is suitable for her.

Sorry, post went weird.

*pay his share of their living costs, where they live now or in a new house they buy.

This thread just seems pointless now, the same basic points having to be reiterated over and over again when all of them are so obvious to anybody with an ounce of morality that they shouldn't need stating even once. Straw men knocked down repeatedly and around we go again in circles with nobody refuting the basic facts that show that the OP is 100% in the wrong.

Also, the house where his older children live is jointly owned. So he is contributing there to an asset that he will get money back from eventually.

If the OP was to buy a house in her name only, she'd have him living with her and funding a significant proportion of the costs but with no legal claim over the house, if she's wise enough not to marry him. Very good setup for her.

Or they can save more money and buy a larger house with joint ownership, in proportion to the deposits they each provide for it.

Quite often - for many reasons - one partner contributes a larger amount of deposit than the other. Not remotely unusual. Ownership structures can reflect and protect that. And then both contribute to the ongoing costs of the mortgage/ household, which is sounds like he is doing. She may well have more capital and spare income than him partly because of his existing financial commitments, but again it's not unusual for one partner to be richer than the other in capital or income even without children from a previous relationship that one must provide for being the reason for that. And clearly she knew this would be the case before deciding to live with him and have a baby with him. So 🤷🏻‍♀️.

Wow . I honestly can’t believe what I am reading. Sorry you can’t afford to buy a nice big house but why one earth should his children from his first marriage have to move out because you cant afford a house? It’s bizarre you would even ask that .
You knew he had children when you got with him, they are going and his ex has to raise them alone - no matter how much he contributes and helps out she is there alone at night with two young kids.

Leave the children alone! It’s their home and you should have had a baby with a man that didn’t have kids!

When couples split, it’s normal practice to sell the house and divide the proceeds. And of course maintenance should be paid. It’s no good arguing that the OP and her partner should not have had a baby - the child has now arrived, and should be entitled to as much support as the first two children.

The ‘new’ child should not be disadvantaged because his/her father still bankrolls his ex. As I said earlier, if a new baby arrives in a together family, everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie.

Even the CMS system recognises that principle, if a father remarries and has more children, the maintenance he is paying to his ex can be adjusted?

So rip another family apart over money

Sadly this often happens when people divorce

It’s sometimes the case that they sell the family home and proceeds split. But often the mother can’t afford to purchase another house or raise a mortgage because she’s been at home raising children so the court try to keep the children in the family home for stability until they are 18. This is very common.

CMS are a ridiculous barometer. Court where each case is heard individually will always rule in favour of the children. They would never say sell the family home to house a new family . Even if you slightly adjust maintenance monthly they wouldn’t release the family home unless it was so big the mother didn’t need such a big house.

It’s more alarming to me that as a step parent she is putting her needs above the settlement of the children from the first marriage.