would you be mad at this?

[mummatotwo]

DH and I agreed an amount of what we could afford in a change to his maintenance due to change of job and much lower income. He is dire with money BTW and for years I've bailed him out several times,but never learns I've even taken his bank card off him so he doesn't go over his overdraft

Not a great relationship with dss always texting and asking for money and he obliges. He never discusses it with me and everything is sneeky and behind my back. Our wages and money are our household income and we should discuss and agree these things I think.

We are going on on Hols soon we agree for me to pay hol and for him to provide the spending money, he's very OD at the bank again so now I've got to use my wages for spending money, which is going to leave us very tight for the next couple of months also I worked loads last month extra as we have lots if bills coming up to pay

I've just found out again by accident he's given hundred pounds out to the dss, I'm gobsmacked

I agree to a point, although just as most of us have the children that you can afford within a nuclear family , th same should apply across a step family. So if a man or woman already has children with a previous partner they should not be having more children if that means a significant reduction in support for the existing children.

As I said earlier when my husband and I married we wanted children quickly but DH was adamant that our having more children should not affect the agreement he had with the mother of his son. Hence me gong back to work earlier than was ideal.

So if a man or woman already has children with a previous partner they should not be having more children if that means a significant reduction in support for the existing children.
Baloney. If a parent decides to have another child, they are not bound to consider whether that will affect the money available to the older children, so long as they can reasonably anticipate being able to provide for the needs of all their children.

Any time a parent decides to have an additional child, there will be fewer resources available for the older child(ren). That's accepted within any family with more than one child, frankly.

If my parents had chosen to have one child rather than five, perhaps my oldest sibling would have had more luxuries. My parents believed they could provide for the needs of five children.

Of course, even within 'traditional' families, unexpected things happen. Perhaps a couple has two children, believing that they will be able to earn and provide for those children. One has an accident or illness and can no longer work...or is laid off through no fault of their own...things can happen so that even the needs of children can not be met, and that happens in every kind of family.

My DH and I provide for all the needs of the three children in our lives. But if he thought that his first children were still entitled to maintain a more privileged lifestyle, whilst I struggled to put food in my DD's mouth or buy her a new toy once every six months - well. LTB indeed. If one of our children goes without, so should they all, that is what a family is - we share in the good and the bad.

Aris, I think the flip side to that argument, is that no one questions there being "less to go round" if new babies arrive in an intact family. But yet in a step situation, it seems that nothing can ever be diluted if there's a new arrival.

Brdgrl, I posted before I'd seen your latest post - which is excellent.

Thanks, petal - you said it more succinctly!

Excellent post brdgrl.

brdgrl that is why I said a significant reduction. If having more children meant a significant change for the existing children it is not fair, unless it has been agreed by all parties. Within a nuclear family you would not have another child without discussing the implications with your partner. It should be the same with any parents, even if they are no longer together. When you have a child with someone it is a decision to co parent for life.

But can you imagine if a man said to his ex-wife "me and my new wife wish to have a baby, but will only go ahead if you agree to accepting a slight reduction in maintenance payments."

In theory it's nice if all parties could discuss any changes that may effect them, but in reality the conversation suggested above is highly unlikely to take place, you could argue whether it should actually take place or not, and even if it did, can you imagine the response from the majority of exes?

We have had exactly those kind of discussions.

'Discussing the implications' with the ex partner is fine, but the idea that the ex-partner has any actual input into the decision is ridiculous.

Yes Brdgrl! Letting the ex decide whether or not DH and I have a baby or not ....... What a thought!!!!!

If my OH and I go on to have our own kids we will do what every other family does and make do. His maintenance is state mandated and comes out if his salary automatically. So whatever is left is our family money. My dsd won't have reduced payments unless he loses his job. If I earn more or he earns more then our pot increases and we will all benefit. But my own salary is dedicated to improving my own family life first.

And that's ridiculous to allow his ex wife to dictate whether we have a child or not!!!! Can we dictate the same thing to her?

Discussing the implications could take the form of: "SecondWife and I are expecting a child. Let's talk about how our own children will be impacted by that."

A "significant change" doesn't mean not providing for children's needs. If kids were accustomed to expensive holidays, loads of extra-curricular activities, top-shelf food and toiletries, and a holiday home - and another child means some of those things come to an end, that seems completely rational and natural. People's fortunes change for a variety of reasons, but the choice to have a child belongs to the two people involved in its conception, and no one else.

I think it is also worth remembering that in this case (the OP, I mean), the issue is not maintenance, but direct cash gifts to the child.

It isn't about dictating it is about acting like reponsible adults who are all raising a family together and want the best for them.

Whoever you make a decision that impacts on your children you discuss that with the involved adults.

We have not asked my husband's ex if we can have more children but we have discussed with her how best we can meet the needs of all of our children , including stepson. For example our stepson's mother agreed to look for part time work when DSS was settled in school so that we could afford more children . But we didn't go to her and say we want more children so you are to work. We sat down and said that we would like more children but we don't want this to affect DSS standard of living, what can we all do as a family unit.

Well, of course it is your choice to conduct your own life as you see fit and to engage in a discussion of your reproductive choices with another party, but I shan't be doing so.

That doesn't make me irresponsible.

I am curious, though - If your partner's ex had refused to look for part-time work, would you then have decided not to have a child? Do you think that is a reasonable model for others?

Aris - the situation you describe is unusual.

I was going to ask the same as brdgrl. My OH ex wife doesn't work. She chooses not to. Therefore she cannot complain when me and my OH can afford nice things and holidays (that we include dsd in much of the time but sometimes we have a weekend away alone too). By choosing not to work she is limiting their lifestyle and I won't subsidize it for her so it matches ours.

Brdgrl she had previously refused to look for work, not in an unreasonable way but it was important to her to be a SAHM. So we had waited and I had needed to increase my hours at work and or go back to work earlier than I had wanted.

But wrinkly if they had agreed when originally having the children that being a SAHP was important the mother is not being unreasonable. I would not want our stepson to have a different standard of living than my biological children and DH certainly wouldn't stand for it, even though his ex has either not worked or worked part time and we have had well paid careers.

If my partner's (hypothetical) ex thinks it is important to be a stay at home mum, that has nothing to do with me!

Neither would I expect her to subsidize my choice to stay at home with DH and I's child now.

Arisbottle, I mean it when I say that I respect your decision to involve your partner's ex in your lives to this degree - it is your choice - but it is certainly not anything like a moral or ethical requirement for others, and it is downright unworkable for many.

Wrinkly, I think you must be my twin, your circumstances sound identical to mine!

Aris, if the bio parents originally agreed that the mother would be a SAHM, I assume that decision was based on them staying together? The landscape has now changed, and we often have to adapt to changing circumstances.

If the ex hadn't agreed to take in some pt hours - would you have accepted her decision and cancelled your baby plans?

I don't mean to sound critical but there's a hint of "surrendered wife" about your posts.

I am about as far removed from a surrendered wife as you can get, that will amuse DH when he gets home.

If she had refused to take in part time work we would have been able to have our children, we would just not have the lifestyle we have now and maybe we would have waited. Maybe I would not have taken the paycut needed to become a teacher which enabled me to carry on working and have the children.

I don't think we are unusual, we are just parents who want the best for our children - don't most of us - trying to make a difficult situation work. It is also not a one way street, my stepson's mother has helped us out with childcare in the past, she is a fantastic mother , much more natural than me and was a great help when I had my children.