Unreasonable?

[mumtobealloveragain]

DP has 50:50 residency if his children and shared residency. We and his ex also alternate their birthdays and Christmas days-which takes priority over the normal pattern, if that makes sense.

This year is our new baby's first birthday. My DP has asked ex to agree to us having an extra day with their children for that day (as with the current pattern they would be with her). We want them here for baby's 1st birthday, family gathering , little tea party etc. She's said no. It's not until the end of the year so not like she already has plans. It's one single day out of the whole year for goodness sake, no big deal for her but it's important to us.

Is this request really that unreasonable? It is normal/ possible for this sort of thing to be written into an Order along with alternate Christmas' etc?

marital status is not particularly relevant here.
OP and her DP are being unreasonable, to put it mildly. if they get married, they'll still be unreasonable.

Oh an to answer the earlier question... It's about £150 a month that CSA have calculated DP must pay his ex. That's including a reduction for 50:50 shared care and a reduction for other children in our household. £150 for what though I don't know. Legally she is entitled to it as she holds DSS' Child Benefit and it's a ridiculous CSA rule that one parent can still claim CM in 50:50, but morally it's shit. I wonder what she'll spend his £150 on each month- perhaps now she'll agree pay half for things like uniform and school trips/activities. The agreement was always to each have one of DSC's CB and no maintenance paid either way, but she found out she could claim money off him and did it. Just as our baby was born. The daft thing is that now DP can claim CM from her via CSA for DSD who he has the Child Benefit for. He'll get lots less though as she only works part time

Oh and Frogs, yes I'm currently at Court with my ex but that's to try and force the sale of a property, it's not about children matters.

If my husband and I were to separate I could not afford to give the children the standard of living that they currently have . Even if we had 50:50 care I know my husband would pay me maintenance to ensure that his children do not have a significantly lower standard of living whilst they were with me. He would certainly not question me on how I spent it and would take a dim view of a woman who entered his life and questioned it.

You seem to judge the mother for working but do not see that if she is to work fewer hours the father of her children would need to contribute to that.

Round of applause for your husband's conduct in a made up scenario. That's all just speculation of course, perhaps if you separated and were a total bitch to him and he didn't think you were putting your children first then he'd keep the money for himself and spend it on the children whilst they are with him.

Why should DP pay his ex, she doesn't incur any costs that he doesn't. We aren't well off, we have 6 kids between us to pay for. It's her choice to work part time. If she can't afford it then she needs to work full time, same as any other parent or adult for that matter. It's irrelevant anyway as CSA rules mean that she legally can apply and receive money from him. They weren't married.

If she can't afford it then she needs to work full time, same as any other parent or adult for that matter

Do you work full time OP?

Round of applause for your husband's conduct in a made up scenario. That's all just speculation of course, perhaps if you separated and were a total bitch to him and he didn't think you were putting your children first then he'd keep the money for himself and spend it on the children whilst they are with him.

Except it isn't a made up scenario because my husband has always paid maintenance to his ex, regardless of how much time DSS spent here. He has never questioned how she spends the money .

I would not call his ex a bitch because that would be disrespectful to the mother of his child. The relationship has been tense at times but that has never stopped DH meeting his financial obligations to his son.

Philoslothy. Well done him, that's up to him if you he afford it then it's a very kind thing to do. DP is not a high earner he earns a normal wage and works damn hard for not a huge amount. We cannot afford to give his ex money, he already pays for more than half of the costs of raising the DSC so he shouldn't have to pay her money too.

Maggiemight - Do I work full time? Well we have 6 children under ten, 5 under 8, 4 under 7, 2 under 5 and one is a 3mth old baby. Hell yes I work full time, I work my arse off every minute of every day!

If your DP is paying £150 pm to the CSA for one DC who lives with you 50% of the time, with 5 other children to take into account/your household claim CB for, then your DP would have to be earning just short of £60k to be deemed liable for £150 pm CSA. I'd call that a high earner OP.

How much less than that does the ex earn?

Maybe you should keep track of all the things you say on here. Misleading people in order to manipulate the responses you get doesn't go down too well.

If your family can't afford to meet what has been deemed his legal responsibility, then maybe you need to get a job op.
The same as any other grown up or parent would, you might say.

it's a ridiculous CSA rule that one parent can still claim CM in 50:50, but morally it's shit

Actually, that depends on the circumstances. My DDs Dad pays me (despite 50:50) because if he didn't, that money would have been assessed in his debt management plan.
I understand that in your case, it results in your DH having to make difficult decisions regarding paying for extras for one of his DCs, but far from being "morally shit" it is a positive thing for some households. Your opinion is just that - not fact.

Your DP has the choice, here - of course it's easier for you to blame his ex or the system- but he is the one with the options.

Oh, and just to be clear - your DPs income is well above average if he's been assessed as paying £150 a month. That's a lot more than my DDs dad pays, he's on a middle managers salary and there are no adjustments for other DCs in his home. I fully understand that it leaves a dent in your household finances - but as its not a new CSA rule, perhaps it would be sensible to have considered it in your financial and family planning.
If one, or both, of your DSC choose to live with their mum when they are older, the amount your DP will be liable for in CM will be significantly more.

Don't know how much she earns, she has a good good too so it won't be a low wage, but she only works 2 days a week so her income is significantly less than DP's. Her choice though isn't it. DP earns less than 60k but I don't call that a high earner. We live in a fairly expensive part of the Uk, rents are high and we have 6 kids and debts. Do you think you're being clever tension? I wasn't hiding anything and I too know how to work the CSA calculator! We don't get maintenance from my ex as I have shared residency with him. Why should I be entitled to some of his money when he pays his fair share towards our children and gives them a home and everything too. Or should he be expected to pay me money because I don't work?

We cannot afford to give his ex money

OP, you said earlier up thread that your DCs aren't missing out because if your DPs choice to continue paying for trips/uniform - now you are saying you're household can't afford the CSA payments.
Which is it?

And you DP is a fool if he's not questioned the CSA calculation despite knowing its wrong - especially if your family is missing out.

Clever? I'm taking the information you are posting here and highlighting your discrepancies. Your DP needs to earn £59800 per year to be deemed liable for £150 pm in maintenance. That's a high rate tax payer. A high earner. What happens to all the CB you claim then? Seeing as your household is above the threshold?

OP you are misleading people to try and paint the ex is unreasonable, when practically everyone who has posted here can see just how unreasonable you and you DP are. You keep digging that big hole you are in by coming back and posting more and more about your situation. You want people to believe the ex is money grabbing from a poor struggling family, yet your numbers don't quite stack up to support that.

Hang on, that home your ex gives your DC? Would that be the home you are currently trying to eject him/them from?

Hang on, your ex gives you no maintenance. So presumably, because you don't work your DP has to support your DCs 50% of the time. Yet you are complaining about him supporting his OWN children within CSA guidelines?

Separated Dads are often criticised for having DCs with their DPs when it leads to the financial hardship of older DCs from a previous relationship.
Generally, I'm not in agreement - but in this case, it seems that a sixth child has increased the financial burden to an unmanageable level - although that is only because the DCs Dad refuses to make choices about how he supports them.

Jeez! Yes my ex lives in a property we jointly own. Yes I'm trying to kick him out. He is financially controlling and is trying to ruin me and DP. The mortgage isn't being paid in full and he's running up debts that we are both liable for. He works and can afford to rent elsewhere there is no reason for me to be out at risk financially so he can live in the property. He's an absolute arse about money. I don't expect him to pay me though as he pays his share of child related costs (mostly).

DP pays around £150 a month maintenance I don't know exactly how much as it's still be calculated and recalculated. That's not incorrect by CSA rules, that's after they have corrected it. Yes DP's money supports me and my children but it also supports our joint child and I look after his children whilst he works. How we manage our family finances and how he spends his money is his choice. He is not a NRP after refusing to pay maintenance but keeping some else's kids

DP doesn't earn a huge wage. We aren't well off, we have lots of pay out and our rent is high due to the area of the UK we live in. When I say we can't "afford" to pay his ex I mean we don't have lots of spare cash, we will notice and miss that £150 a month. However the children aren't going to go without, or miss out because of it. Not being able to afford something is an ambiguous term I guess. Kids won't starve but we will notice we don't have it.

I'm glad at least one person (frogs) appears to agree with me that morally in 50:50 situations no maintenance should be paid or claimed when both parents share costs equally already.

Frogs yes we do need to sit down and decide what we now can and can't "afford" to pay for. Neither of us wants the DSC to miss out so where possible we will continue to pay for "extras" if we can jiggle things so we can manage it ok.

Let's get this right - ex chooses to work part time so should suffer the consequences... But you choose to have a sixth child and should be supported? For your husband to father six children on a salary of 58k is a choice you made, which most of us wouldn't because of the financial implications. Like frog says, I don't agree with the popular opinion that first children should come before subsequent children in a financial sense, but this is not good.
As for wondering what someone who works two days a week would do with a whopping £150 a month - phew, champagne and caviar I should imagine

On the subject if legally stepmum or not, as step parents have no legal status it seems petty and picky to insist on not referring to someone as a stepparent if not married, no? What I would say is that with 50/50 and being a stay at home mum, op "earns" her stripes as stepmum more so than someone who came on the scene and married dad having nought to do with the kids

Why did she drop to 2 days a week work?

But Russian DP supports his children, all of them. DSC have two parents both equally capable of working full time and earning a decent wage. DSC mum chooses not to, so why should DP be liable to pay her money too? This is not a NRP refusing to pay towards the upkeep of his kids, he does that already. If that were the case then quite rightly he shouldn't question what it is spent on! He just disagrees with paying his ex money when they are both RP. £150 to a single parent isn't much towards the upkeep of two children BUT that's not all he's paying is it- we have 50:50 residency, so pay for everything here too. I have no idea what she will spend the £150 on- sure as hell it won't be the kids.

Who knows Russian, but the days she dropped are days the kids aren't with her, so she didn't do it to see them more. It's not a problem for us, she is entitled to work, not work, work part time, claim benefits whatever, but she is responsible for her own finances, as we are ours. If she decided to give up work entirely then she'd earn even less- perhaps DP could pay her more so she doesn't have to work (sarcastic time).

Equally if she earns more than DP would you be saying she should pay him money? Despite 50:50 residency?