Help, I just took a beating in 'Am I being unreasonable'

[Bebo1980]

I posted the following in 'am i being unreasonable' and after a LOT of abuse a kind person suggested I come here for more balanced advice! please be gentle I'm still recovering!

My dh has a daughter with an ex, they currently have an amicable relationship although it hasn't always been so. We have his daughter frequently, take her on family holidays, she has her own bedroom/clothes at our house etc etc. My dh used to give his ex money informally until several years ago she involved CSA and actually ended up receiving less money than she was originally. Since then my dh has been very conscientious in sending pay checks in voluntarily and making sure he is making the correct payments. What I am trying to say is that he wants to support his daughter and is in no way a 'deadbeat dad'.
When he dropped his daughter off yesterday his ex mentioned that she had started taking her to ballet classes and 'is he going to contribute to half?'. The money is not a massive amount (although I've recently gone back to work full time after having a baby and we are in no way loaded!). The problem is the principle. Is CSA meant to just cover basic living amounts or does it include extras?is she going to continue to ask for more contributions? In my view she took him to csa to ensure she received an adequate amount of money a month and now she wants more.Don't get me wrong I believe that she is entitled to the money she receives but how far should this go and is it worth rocking the boat by saying no?

rights obviously

So should I be asking for 50% back from DPs exW for the music lessons, karate, climbing club etc etc etc that I pay for?

It doesn't always seem fair does it?

You do not need to pay for any extras, the CSA are clear about that (I called and asked them), it's entirely up to you.

I think it doesn't seem fair a lot of the time...not in our house either.

However, for me, if I use a calculation, I can make it as objective as possible and then I do what I think is morally right (which is never ask for more money), and try not to resent when DH's exW does what IMO is morally wrong (which is demand more money).

In reality I object to RPs behaving as if NRPs are their personal building society. However I also understand that good NRPs are prepared to make sacrifices for their DCs, sometimes more so than the RP, and sometimes vice verca.

When you lose is when you are the parents that both do their best, ie not ask for money from one NRP and give extra money to the other NRP.

But if you fight it all too hard, it'll eat you up. live life and too soon the DCs will be grown up anyway!

incognitofornow

"I for example give to my exh money for outings he takes ds on, as a ded from my maintenance."

I wouldnt' do that - in my world what DCs do with us, we pay for, and what DCs do with their other parents, they (should) pay for. I guess we all do things differently. And qute rightly so, because we all talking about different amounts of monthly maintenance.

As a matter of interest (no judgement or anything), can I ask why you do that?

incognitofornow,

Thanks :) It seems that you both co-operate and can trust each other to both do the right thing....which sounds ideal.

So, while I wouldn't give exH money for outings he takes DCs on, he also wouldn't give me money for DCs' sports, outings or holidays. For me that is simpler, but your set up, sounds fab.

I think these threads are fascinating. One can always learn from other people's experiences. For me, Pandygirl made a really good point I never thought of before, which has slightly changed my perspective.

OK, I've given this some more thought

Isn't the fact that the DCs go on trips out, for example, with both parents, both have to provide things like a bed etc (albeit used for less time), and that both parents have associated bills (electricity, gas, petrol, phone, Internet, groceries etc), but that the RP's are proportianally higher, taken into account by the adjustment in payments made by the CSA regarding the number of nights the DCs spend with the NRP?

I think I'm asking, if the amount of maintenance I receive (whether through the CSA or not) has had that adjustment made, if I were to make it again, i'd be doing it twice wouldn't I? Or vice versa for maintenance paid to RP for DSCs.

So incognitofornow, if your maintenance is worked out using the CSA calculation, haven't you already given that £25 back?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not uptight about this...you have all just made me think a bit more deeply about it, and now I've started, I can't stop! that said, I stand by my initial conclusion, that if maintenance already covers half DCs' expenses, NRP oughtn't really be expected to provide over and above, but that if it doesn't, it probably isn't unreasonable for RP to ask for more in advance for justifiable expenses. Up to NRP to decide whether to do so, or whether thay can afford it though...

incognitofornow, I hope you didn't think I was prying. I am genuinely interested in what other people do, particularly people, such as yourself, who seem to be trying to do what's right all round, rather than just financially best for themself.

It's hard isn't it...a never ending question of what's right and wrong...and fair!

I am the same I think. I was more than fair in the divorce, and understand that DH has a new life he must live and finance. It has to be said, because exH's exW has a slightly different view on things it does mean that we as a family seem to do all the more-than-fair-giving and no taking, but I hope that waht we have at the end of the day is a situation where both DH and I can hold our heads up high, and where all our DCs have a decent life.

I think that (in our situation anyway) because we and both our exes have diffrent lifestyles - due not to finances really, but to different priorities - we have to try not to judge what is 'fair' amongst all the DCs, but realise that what one (or two or three) lose in one way, they gain in another.

Your question about whose lifestyle a particular child's should match is really very difficult isn't it?? And I guess it could be argued either way. I've given up on the 'cut and dried' theory anyway!

In response to the OP, if you can afford to pay then do so. If things are tight then explain to her that you cant.

My story is ex h clears about £800 a week, of this I get £80. This is because he uses the CSA rules to his advantage & has extra overnight stays for his own financial benefit rather than actually wanting to spend time with the dc. :( We also now subsidise the fact that he chose to have another child with his new wife. Why on earth that should effect his financial liability to the family he got bored with & binned off is anyone's guess. ONLY I THIS F**D up country!

He has a LOT of disposable income left at the end of the month & goes on expensive holidays with his new family without the girls. He didn't even invite them to his wedding ffs.

When we split we agreed he would pay around £120 a week plus half of any school trips & extras. This has NEVER happened. He defaulted so I was forced to contact the CSA. When he has them he feeds them on cheap noodles & does nothing with them whatsoever. He even is deliberately withholding almost 3k which I am owed as per our agreement on the split. This money was to be used for a trip to Disneyland for the kids as a treat after all the sh!t they put up with. He knows this & withholds it out of spite because his main motivation in life is money, not his dc.

The CSA is very much "one size fits all" & it doesn't seem to fit anyone much. They really should look properly into everyone's income before deciding what is "fair" with regard to the dc. The current system is failing dc miserably.

Of course it shouldn't effect the children he chose to dump on from a great height, when he chooses to impregnate some other poor unfortunate. They have suffered enough as it is imo. Upon choosing to have another child he should (to quote my late mum) "cut his cloth accordingly" as all families should do when choosing to have another child. It's common sense to live within your means & not expect to be supported by your own children, surely?

He is doing very nicely thank you anyway, & the amount is minimal to him, but worth more to us who exist on benefits to top up the pittance he is allowed to get away with paying us. It's purely a spite & control thing with him. He is very motivated by money. Luckily I am not because im not in a position where I am able to work because I have a special needs child that I need to drive to many (expensive) appointments. We manage ok because I am very good at managing money, & in a way I feel sorry for him because he is pathetic. Just for the dc.

?We also now subsidise that fact that he chose to have another child with his new wife?

I agree with Incognito on this point. Surely if a ?together?couple decide to have two/three/four children, it will dilute the amount of money spent on the first child. So if the couple part, any subsequent child they have with new partners, will still have a diluting effect. That?s just basic economics.

Likewise if the man?s income drops, then surely his maintenance payments will drop too? If the couple were still together, then the woman would have to take the rough with the smooth, financially speaking ? why should it be any different if they are apart?

?Should the child?s lifestyle match the fathers or the mothers income?

In reality, I expect the child will have the lifestyle that matches the income of the resident parent, usually the mother. And even if people don?t agree, I don?t know how you?d rectify this. In our situation, SS lives with his mother, and stays with us on alternate weekends. At our house, there are no other children (resident or otherwise), and DH and I both work full time, so obviously there?s more disposable income. The ex has two young children with her new husband, so in that household there are three resident children, and only one salary (the ex?s husband works full time).

So even if we wanted SS to have lifestyle to match our income, how would we do it? Buy a nicer house for the ex, just so that SS can live in a house like ours? Because in that situation, it would be us subsidising that fact that the ex chose to leave my DH, and have two more children with another man.

I realise that many women/children are abandoned by their partners, and then struggle financially. But I think there are an equal amount of women who end their marriages, yet still expect to live in the style they?ve become accustomed too ??..

So whilst we can?t bridge the gap between our lifestyle and that of the ex, when SS is with us, he doesn?t go short. We take him on nice holidays, we buy him nice things, and we can give him extra pocket money. We will happily support him financially when he goes to Uni. The flipside to this, is that the ex frequently takes advantage. She often sends him to us for the weekend without a change of clothes. Although at age 17, I concede SS should realise he needs to pack a bag. However this has been going on for years. Despite DH never missing a maintenance payment, SS often comes to us wearing worn-out shoes and trousers that are too short. I?m sure the ex knows darn fine we?ll remedy this, and it?s just her way of having to spend less on her son. I?m convinced that even if we doubled our maintenance payments, none of it would get to the ?target.?

Good post incognito.

I do agree that the CSA is failing on all levels, they are a joke.

You missed the "cut your cloth accordingly" comment PegsOnTheLine. Which everyone should do upon choosing to have another child (regardless of the situation) surely? If I chose to have another child in my current situation it would be hugely irresponsible & unfair on the current dc. It works both ways. We all make our own decisions in life. When you have dc you are supposed to put them first, not push them aside to move onto the next. :(

?We also now subsidise that fact that he chose to have another child with his new wife?

I also agree with other posters. This is a ridiculous statemen/view. Not only does it mean that if a couple stay together, they should never have more than one child because the first may suffer financially, but also that NEITHER one of a seperated couple - exH OR exW should be so unreasonable as to go on and provide siblings for the first child.

I am NOT in any way condoning NRPs who don't properly support their DCs. This behaviour disgusts me. However IMO there are too many 'first wives' who think their exH owes them something forever. This also disgusts me. I even saw someone write on MN a few years ago with regard to this type of situation: 'I was here first' WTF?

SparklePrincess, it sounds like your exH is apying you correctly at 10% of his net income. Are you really, really complaining about getting £347 a month in maintenance????

'When you have dc you are supposed to put them first, not push them aside to move onto the next.'

Whereas this statement is undoubtedly true.

However, an exW's perception that this is what has happened is sometimes a little skewed by many factors, including but not only, the desire for more financial support, bitterness towards ex, jealousy of exH's new DW,lonliness, the desire to feel that their DC is the one and only. Not saying that about anyone in particular so please don't take offence. Just saying that it is often a fact. Objectivity can sometimes be hard to muster when you mix all those other emotions into the equation.

but sparkleprincess -
ok, any time a parent has another child (in the original relationship or outsie of it), thje parent should first be sure that they have the means to provide for it and for the existing children. Fair enough.

However, there is a big difference between having another child that one cannot support, and adjusting the maintenence of earlier children to accomodate the needs of another child.

What is the tipping pont? I don't know...I suppose if DH and I had only one child between us, my oldest DSD, she'd get a lot more...perhaps nicer food, more holidays, a bigger room...we'd have a different lifestyle as a family, I suppose. But we have two other kids. So our lifestyle is simpler. I don't think that is "unfair" to DSD - it just is. i don't think it means I was irresponsible in having my baby DD, either - we made a decision that we'd change our lifestyle to accomodate a third child. DSD and DS are impacted by that decision, naturally. But they are still cared for; they have enough to eat, clothes to wear, they go to school, they have a roof over their heads...

I can't of course comment on your individual situation (and wouldn't!), but I would submit that the idea of 'putting children first' must include all the children. And it seems quite reasonable that, as family circumstances change, support changes - as Petal says, what if the ex loses a job or otherwise has a change in income? If the father were still in the relationship when that happened, the children would be affected.

?There is a big difference between having another child that one cannot support, and adjusting the maintenance of earlier children to accommodate the needs of another child?

Excellent point. What is the tipping point? I don?t know either. I expect 10 different people would have 10 different views. But surely if the ?earlier? children still have the ?normal stuff? (decent food, decent clothes and an acceptable standard of living) then if they occasionally don?t get the latest trainers or a new iphone, then is it the end of the world ?? ?? Should a divorced man really desist from starting a family with his new partner on those grounds?? Should the ex-wife really hold him by the (ahem) short and curlies forever ??? Too often we hear of ?second family? children who go without all manner of pretty basic things, just to ensure the earlier children are kept in the manner the ex deems appropriate.

And as Fourkids commented, objectivity can be hard to muster when anger, hurt and bitterness cloud the situation. Also, I agree totally that many ?first wives? believe their ex-husbands owe them something forever.

Bravo Petal on this post and the one earlier. I couldnt agree more and this has been our situation too. With one change in that one of my DH's sons came to live with us but ex STILL thinks we should pay her the maitenance money for him because "that's what was agreed in court"....
wtf

brdgrl & petal my thoughts exactly.