How much does your dh pay for?

[Marne]

I know i will probably get told i ABU (always do on these threads) or told that dh should work more, so will prepare myself for responses.

Dh has 3 children with ex (age 12, 16 and 19), we also have 2 dd's with sn's ane 7 and 5. Dh works part time (between 16 and 20 hrs a week) and works part time from home (own buisness which does not make a lot at the moment), he pays child support for the 2 dc's that are still in education. Ex wife works full time.

At least once a week we get phone calls from at least one of the step dc's asking for money, we often pay for school uniform, shoes, coats and school trips. Money is very tight, both our dd's get dla for their sn's which is money to use for equipment and petrol to get them to verious therapy, at the end of the month theres not much left and we struggle to pay the bills.

DSD has just phoned asking for more money for shoes and trousers, i know we will have to find the money but am i wrong in thinking that enough is enough and her mother should be paying for some of these things? I know they always need things and they are dh's children but we seem to be paying for everything except food (though there has been times were we have helped with this too).

Dh is trying hard to get his small buisness from home up and making money but we are struggling as we have no money to put into it. We have just spent a fortune on the step kids for christmas including a coat that dsd wanted and like most people money is tight.

I know im probably going to get flamed .

I Know how you feel, im the main wage earner in our relationship and earn more than DP ex (she earns more than DP) and he pays her maintance for SD 13yrs and SS 9yrs but still buys all school uniforms and shoes as she tells them to tell him they need them on his weekends it usually means that I end up paying for something else such as food which DP usually pays for and im left with very little disposable income, I dont mind most of the time but some months i really resent the fact that I cant even afford a takeaway and she is going away for weekends and buying SC kindles and laptops!

I have decided enough is enough and have refused to help pay for anything until the SC are able to stay in our home (now ill probably be flamed too so no I dont think YABU

If you don't have the money for something tell them, "sorry we can't afford that right now." Yes they are your DH's children but if you can't afford something they want (assuming they have other clothes/shoes to wear) then don't buy it. Or if it's something they really need tell them you can't pay for all of it but will pay for half so long as it isn't overly expensive.

Money is tight for us right now and we've had similar off DH's ex, even though she knows DH is ill and been signed off work for the forseeable. It was "DSD needs new uniform can you get it?" Answer - "sorry no we've no spare cash right now and DSD doesn't need it her stuff from last term still fits."

I don't think YABU at all - if he's paying the maintanence, then I reckon his ex should be paying for all these sort of things (with help from child benefit and tax credits if she's on a low income). That's how me and my ex have always done it with our DCs. If you're splitting all the costs, then what is the maintenance for?

BUT - in answer to your question - my DP pays for most of these things for his DCs - drama classes, school trips, etc (though not clothes), even though he pays maintanence already. Think it's not something everyone agrees on.

Thank you for being understanding, we would happily pay for everything if we could, we try our best to buy everything they need and ask for , a while ago their mother was not working at all ,had split from her partner and we had to pay for everything including helping with food and even electric, but now she's working she has more money coming in than us but she still expects us to pay for everything and we just can't afford it.

Dh has spoken to dsd on the phone and has agreed to pay for the shoes and trousers (we will have to use the dd's dla money) but he has told her that we can not afford to pay for anything else for a while unless its something she can't do with out. Over the past week (sinse x-mas) she has asked for money for a netbook and a i-pod, we spent £100 on each of the dc's for christmas and i bought her all the things she had asked for. I know teenagers like to push their luck and seem to have no idea where money comes from (maybe the money tree in the garden) but to me it seems ungreatful after what we spent on her for christmas.

We will always do our best to get them what we can but it seems their mother is hardly paying for anything.

From the mothers side.
Xh gives me maintainence ( approx 2/3 of CSA calculation) and I pay for all basic clothes/shoes/ uniforms, clubs, trips, pocket money
Xh pays for some 'fun' clothes, anything that happens on his weekends.

Forgot to add I think YANBU in putting a limit on it.

I agree YANBU, one or the other seems fair and if you have to dip into your dc's dla money then it seems you are already doing more than you can afford to. I totally appreciate you not wanting his kids to go without or looking like you don't care (though do wonder when money became so intrinsicly linked to love). I also appreciate that what you can afford and what the ex thinks you can afford are often 2 very different things.

My DH used to pay for most things apart from food - but he was (is) hopeless with money and wasn't paying any of his own bills and nearly lost his home. When we got together I took on a lot of his debt to keep of roof over all of our heads and showed him how to manage his money better. He doesn't earn much at all and so - even with us splitting all of the bills - the money available to his ex went down. This was difficult for his ex to understand as he didn't properly explain why his costs had suddenly gone up - partly male pride, partly it (righly so) not being her problem.

We put money aside each month for any requests for the kids but soon his ex got tired having to ask when sometimes the answer would be no and an argument would ensue. She decided she wanted a weekly amount instead. He wasn't too keen on the arragement being changed but I could see how she needed more stability and didn't think she was being unreasonable at all. We checked the CSA amount (which was pittiful) and agreed to give the money we had been putting aside (which was more). We did continue to get requests for school uniform etc but DH explained that the money he used to save for that now went to her and we didn't have any more to give. We are lucky though that we can all talk this stuff through and his ex is great in that she gets that we do what we can and that if we do have any extra money that we will help out more.

I appreciate that your situation might not be as easily resolved as ours so practically there are 2 things you could try as a compromise; 1) agree to still pay for somethings - maybe half of school trips and uniform - then 2) put a little bit away each week / month towards that. Hopefully it will be easier if you can plan for the expenditure and a compromise might be easier for the ex to swallow. I don't think you can go on as you are though and be wary that, in some cases, saying yes to every request will only increase the number of things you are aksed to pay for!

Agree that there should be a limit. But why doesn't your DP work full time?

civil, dh used to work full time and i used to work part time, dh had to give up his job due to mental health issues and then i worked full time, i then had dd1 and dh stayed at home whilst i worked, when dd2 was born dh managed to get a part time job (at the time it was all he could manage due to mental health issues) and i worked part time, then both girls were diagnosed with Autism, i was forced to give up work and become dd2's carer as i could not fit my job around both dd's appointments. Dh loves his job and he is hoping that one day there will be more hours but in the meen time he's trying to get a small buisness up and running from home, so he does work full time if you include the hours he puts in at home but at the moment it does not pay as well as a full time job would.

My exp pays £25 a week through Csa for our ds and that is all I get...end of!!! I have never asked for extra for all the clubs etc that ds used to do as I would be told 'I pay maintenance'....

Makes sense. Guess you need to extremely explicit about your financial limits in advance and your dscs/his exp need to learn to live within their means. Doesn't seem like just because he is a separated parent they should have a blank cheque.

My DH pays maintenance to the ex, but doesn't contribute beyond that. However DSS does get lots of 'extras' when he stays with us, and obviously we meet any expenses during his stays. That's the only way we can ensure the money gets spent on DSS.

The trouble is I should imagine most people with 5 children can't afford not to work full time and I think having to go into DLA should be a big no no.
Does she actually need new shoes and trousers? We both work full time but this doesnt mean ds (15) gets new clothes whenever he asks. We buy him what he needs and use ebay if he wants designer but he has no more than what he actually needs.

Marne what would happen if he and his ex were still together? Presumably he still would be able to afford to buy themstuff.. so by asking him for all this stuff they are taking advantage of the fact that you are in the picture.

How often are the kids with you?

If dh was still with her things would be a lot different and they would both be working so would have more money coming in. So they would be paying half each for everything.

DSD does need new shoes but not sure if she really needs trousers, we bought her all her uniform in september when she started high school including shoes and scool skirts, she doesn't really look after anything, shoes get chucked around and lost (their house is a tip).

We see the children when ever they want to come over, we used too see them every weekend but now they are older they often chose to do other things so they just come and go as they please (they live in the same village), dh talks to them almost every day over the phone as we often have to phone to wake dss for school (as there mum leaves early for work).

Surely in "together" households there must be times when there isn't enough money to buy everything - and this is generally accepted as being part life. But the same doesn't seem to apply when the parents are separated; suddenly the NRP (usually the father) is expected to cover any shortfall.and sadly this is often to the detriment if his 'second' family . There seems to be some weird expectation that the 'first' family has a greater entitlement to funds than the 'second' family.

There was never any maintenance in our arrangement, the equity in the house was divided and custody was 50:50, plus DP's ex wife earns more than the two of us put together! But we pay equally on things like the kids bus passes, school trips, other costs like passports - generally we've always provided clothes at our house, but to be fair his ex has probably spent much more on things like shoes and coats. She also gives them an allowance and we don't give them any money...but will usually provide what they need and are not mean if they want anything.

There seems to be some weird expectation that the 'first' family has a greater entitlement to funds than the 'second' family

That scenario has two sides to it though Petal, often the 'first' family end up going without because NRP has the 'second' family to support.

Ideally all DCs whenever they came about should be supported equally, its not always the case though.

I know that lots of families scrimp due to the dad having a previous family to support, of course its right that he should, but I can appreciate the struggle.

The 'weird expectation' you mention, I think comes from the idea that if you cant afford to support the children you have then maybe you shouldnt have more ? or at least if having more means you will struggle to support the ones you have then maybe you shouldnt or at least dont plead poverty when it is of your own making and your own choice to be in that position.

When your exDH/P decides to have another child, its like you get the financial impact without the cute baby! surely anyone can see why it feels a tad unfair?

Yet Amberleaf when a PWC has more children with a new children, it will equally be the case that less goes to the children from the 'first' family. In many cases, the PWC will for example give up work, and maintenance for the 'first' children will be spent on the PWC's entire brood. Not fair on the NRP. Effectively paying for the "cute baby".

For some reason, it's seen as acceptable for a PWC to give up work due to new children, but not an NRP.

Not really, as if a PWC has another child she will not be doing it alone will she? she will have a new husband or partner who will support his child and contribute to the household in general.

For some reason, it's seen as acceptable for a PWC to give up work due to new children, but not an NRP

How many parents does a new baby need to give up work and look after it? presumably a new mum will be at home with the baby for a period of time, would her partner do the same? on the whole I think not.

Totally agree with your previous post Amber.

Your dh is using your dds dla to pay for stuff for his dc .

Fuck that's just wrong.

Tell the ex there is no more money . Dla is for the autistic Dds not the nt step kids. What happens if the Dds need some disability aids , and there is no money because it's all been spent on the nts ? .

Dla is to help Sn extra costs , not to provide ex-w with a piss taking attitude. I don't blame the teens , but come on , time to draw a line in the sand here.

The issue is that if most families can't afford to spend 15% of a dad's income on one child. It simply isn't realistic or feasible for most hardworking families. If you have 3 children that's 45% of income before you consider mortgage, ctax, utilities, food etc.

In most separated families the PWC has received the major share of the household equity so household costs are reduced.This isn't the same for the NRP, who typically has to start again

The other issue is that the NRP pays anywhere between 15%-25% of income and HAS to manage on the remaining amount - irrespective of the actual amount. There are no state top-ups available for NRPs or benefits EVEN if that amount falls below the minimum subsistence levels, unlike the PWC. The PWC can earn just below the subsidence level and get 15-25% of income plus top ups.

Amber, not sure what your situation is but I have been married, I have been a lone parent and I am currently part of a step family. I can tell you categorically that I was better off as a lone parent in receipt of CSA then a step parent. Some families struggle, some step families struggle and some lone families struggle...Society does not tell lone parent you shouldn't have had children so you can't tell step families not to have children.

My DH is a very responsible dad, his ex had affairs, has since had multiple children with other dads - all the dads pay for the children, she is the one with the new car and latest gadgets, NOT the dads.
I would much prefer to be the PWC - I would be better off. You can't apply the rule that all lone parents are poor and all NRP's are well off..it's an naive and simplistic idea. Lots of families struggle..if a step family say they can't afford it, it's likely to be true!

Amber, not sure what your situation is but I have been married, I have been a lone parent and I am currently part of a step family. I can tell you categorically that I was better off as a lone parent in receipt of CSA then a step parent. Some families struggle, some step families struggle and some lone families struggle...Society does not tell lone parent you shouldn't have had children so you can't tell step families not to have children

The difference between a lone parent family and a potential step family, is in the lone parent family the children already exist! they didnt set out as a lone parent family did they? the potential step family start out knowing there are already children that need financial [and other] support. it is a choice, being a lone parent on the whole isnt you cant compare the two.

I am seperated, I dont get any money from my EX for our children[nothing to give apparently], yet he manages to support [to what level I dont know] his 2 subsequent children.

I am certainly not better off financially in my current position.

EXes partner has previous children and gets CSA from her EX and is supported by my EX, I get nothing, in this case the step family is quids in not me im sure im not the only PWC in this position.

Ive never posted this sort of info on here before for privacy reasons, so I will probably have this post deleted tomorrow.

I can and will compare being an LP and an SP as i am another one who has been previously married, was a single parent and was also better of as an LP than as a SP.

We had second children we couldn't afford - but do you know what I wanted another child, so badly, I was prepared to end our relationship over it.

DH isn't an NRP through choice - he didn't want to leave and he tolerated more shite than anyone should have to tolerate - precisely because he DIDN'T want to leave his children - but frankly his life was so intolerable be had no fucking choice.

Apparently then, he should be forced to live apart from the children he loved - be denied access to them and spend thousands battling through the courts to see the youngest - while being RP to the middle - he should be denied a second chance at a happy life????????

If he had done what he could afford - there would be no DSD in his life - because he would never have seen her again once he left - because didn't have a spare 12k for solicitors.

There would be NO DD and no DS2, there would be no happy family.

I am SICKENED by the suggestion that mine or anyone elses DCs should not have been concieved or born.

This is a support board for Step Parents - that means ALL of the regular posters here are married to men who either are heavily involved in their childrens lives or want to be and are being prevented from having Healthy relationships with their children.

How DARE anyone suggest that we should not have our children, that as step mothers, our hopes and dreams, should be sacrificed on some altar.

People all over Mumsnet have children they can't afford - and no one tells them their children shouldn't have been though off.

How about popping over to the SN section and telling the posters there who may be struggling financially or emotionally they shouldnt have more children - no you wouldn't would you - because it would be an absolutely disgusting thing to say - and it's just as disgusting here.

Our children have every much as right to a life as anyone elses a you are posting about our childrens existence.

And also I would like to say - my DCs and the DSCs love each other very, very, very much, DSS and DSD adore their little brother and sister.

Having brothers and sisters brings a lot of benefits - when a healthy relationship is encouraged - in terms that can't be quantified with money.

We may not have loads of money - but we do our best by all of them. Yes they would have more "money" and "things" if we didn't have ds2 and DD - would they prefer it?? I don't think so.