Maintenance and school fees

[Bamboo4321]

Hi, I'd really appreciate some advice. My DH pays his ex wife 15% of salary plus also agreed to pay the school fees for my DSD who is now 9 yrs when they split a few yrs ago (DSD lives with her mother and stays with us every other w/e). We are now married and have a baby. DH is constantly complaining that he doesn't have any money and, even though I lost my job whilst pregnant, I have continued to support myself and pay half of all household expenses from my savings whilst looking after our baby.

I am getting very frustrated that, along with supporting myself, I have also ended up shouldering a number of larger costs (holidays, wedding etc) in the last few years and I am now getting concerned about child care costs and school fees for my child in due course. DH told me recently I needed to get back to work and we couldn't have more children as he couldn't afford it.

His ex lost her job 2 yrs ago and, to our knowledge, has not bothered looking for a new job since and has no intention of doing so until next year (!). She got a lump sum from the divorce plus DH pays maintenance & school fees so she is pretty comfortable (2 big holidays this summer!). I have asked DH to tell his ex that she needs to contribute to school fees when DSD goes to next school in 2 yes and the fees jump significantly as I don't want to end up subsidising his other family and don't want my own child to suffer. DH agreed with me at first but has now backed out as he says it was what he agreed in court and it can't be changed.

It frustrates me greatly that he is tip toeing around the ex and it has a detrimental impact on our family. Is it unreasonable to give her plenty of notice now that she will need to contribute to her child's education and therefore think about getting back to work. Does anyone know whether court orders can be varied now that we also have a baby? I expect that the maintenance cost is fixed but surely school fees are a luxury on top of this and she needs to take some responsibility for her own child if her education is that important. Thanks

[elastamum]

If there is a court order in place it can be varied, but you have to show a change in financial circumstances that could not have been foreseen when the order was made and full financial disclosure to show that he cant afford for the order to be maintained.

Child support can be varied after a year to take into account you have a child of your own but the fees will likely be subject to a separate clause.

He needs to consult a solicitor, who can give him an indication if he is likely to be successful.

Presumably he told you about his on going financial commitment before you got married?

[purpleroses]

Does he pay maintanence via the CSA, or as ordered in a court order made when he divorced? If it's via the CSA then he can have a deduction made from the 15% he pays her as a result of having a new child in his family. If it's via a court agreement he'd need to go back to court to achieve the same result.

If a court order also stipulates that he should pay half the school fees, then again he'd need to go back to court to overturn this.

But a better option might be to have a calm conversation with his ex about funding DSD's education post 11 (or possibly from 10, as moving into the last year of a state primary can be quite a good way of getting into the secondary of your choice, and making a few friends before the transfer). If the ex has no job and is funding an extravagant lifestyle out of savings, that isn't going to be sustainable is it? So she can't afford her half of the fees long term, and your DH can't afford his either, so DSD can't go to private school, unless there are bursaries available.

Your DH should be careful to frame discussions with his ex around what he can and can't afford, rather than telling her what she should be doing. And he should probably be apologetic if he's telling her that he now can't afford the commitments he made previously as a result of decisions he's taken since. She'll see her having lost her job as bad luck, but his having decided to have another child as a decision she got no say in, and which he shouldn't - in her eyes - have made if he can't afford his existing commitments. She's might be a bit more sympathetic about you having lost your job, so he could mention that.

But your current situation isn't fair at all. If you're the full time carer for your baby your DH should be supporting you, not your savings. Or he should at least be trying.

[WakeyCakey45]

If the court order was made while your DHs exW was working, then the fact that she has lost her job since is irrelevant; the court ruled how much he should pay her irrespective of her income. It's possible that had she not been working then they would have awarded more.

Your DH is right - he can't afford any more DCs. And it's likely that the standard of living that your own DC enjoys will be far lower than your DHs older DCs.
You may have to accept that your DC won't have the opportunity to attend fee-paying school, and may not have the 'luxury' of a SAHM because you and your DH have joint financial commitments that he cannot meet alone.

[outer]

Does your DH want his DD to stop attending the private school?

You have written about how you feel but not about how he feels. Maybe he is happy for his DD to keep attending the school, and therefore he pays the fees?

Whether the ex works or not isn't really any of your business.

[fedupbutfine]

it can be changed in court but there is a risk if your DH takes the issue back to court that he 'loses' and his ex is awarded costs. I would particularly be concerned if his ex has lost her job since the divorce because a judge may well decide that your DH has to up his contribution as a result. Presumably, if your DH agreed to all this in court (or it was court ordered), it was considered he could afford it. I am not aware of judges being particularly sympathetic to maintenance payers taking on new financial commitments and expecting to reduce their commitment to their existing children as a result. The CSA, of course, sees it differently but as it's all court ordered, presumably we're talking bigger than average money which is why it was settled through the courts.

I don't think you can know whether his ex has looked for work or not and regardless of how comfortable she may or may not be, that's really none of your business. She may well have tried very hard to find work but has been unlucky or decided that she would prefer to spend some time with her family and that is her choice to make. You make no mention of her demanding extra money as a result so it really isn't up to you, your DH or anyone else.

she needs to take some responsibility for her own child if her education is that important
'her own child' is also your DH's child. Your comment that school fees are a luxury for someone else's child and sarcasm around how important it is whilst at the same time you expect your own child to go into private education is particularly telling. Do you expect your DH to see one child come out of private education whilst the other goes in? (And of course, you will need to ask him if he expects both his children to be privately educated and how that is going to be funded).

I think you really need to sit down with your DH and work out just how much childcare and school fees are going to cost in the coming years and work out how it is going to be paid for. It is not unreasonable to expect his ex to make a contribution but if the court order says differently, you may well find you are stuck with it. Neither is it unreasonable that your DH makes a contribution towards your joint household and childcare costs - but you say he is paying half. I'm not sure what else you expect him to do? Do you think you shouldn't have used your savings when you're on maternity leave?

[Bamboo4321]

Thank you all for your advice, it's good to get some different perspectives.

We do know that his ex hasn't been looking for work as she told my DH as much earlier in the summer. But you are right, that isn't really my business. I don't particularly mind supporting myself from my savings for the time being and intend to find another job soon as I've always worked hard and saved money so that I'm not dependent on others. My concern is that the school fees will increase quite significantly soon and I think this will put a bigger strain on our finances. I'm happy to contribute my share to our child's child care/school fees and our general expenses etc but I don't want to end up shouldering the bulk of the costs while his ex makes no contribution to schooling for DSD. Even when she was working and earning good money and my OH got made redundant from his job a while ago and was really struggling she refused to help out when he asked, just left the bill unpaid until he finally had to deal with it.

Anyway, your comments are helpful. Thx

[fedupbutfine]

how long was he redundant for? it is when there is a change of circumstances - such as redundancy - that it is probably the most appropriate time to ask for a variation to existing orders through the courts.

Unfortunately, you may need to accept that the court order is what it is and you may well need to be shouldering the costs of your own child into the future as a result. I would suggest that you perhaps push your DH into looking at getting legal advice on what the success of a variation might be but as long as the ex isn't working, I'm not sure you'll get the result you want.

[Boomeranggirl]

I think you'd be surprised regarding a variation. You can clearly demonstrate a change in circumstances within your family unit that has altered your DHs financial position. You will need to take legal advice on this but my Dh was given advice by his solicitor to the effect that as long as you can demonstrate a significant change then the court is fairly reasonable and understand that situations evolve. It's highly likely the judge will ask the exW to outline her plan regarding working to consider what the long term financial picture will look like. It's possible your ex may need to meet half the costs of private schooling and the ex the other half so that it becomes a joint financial burden, the same as it will be with you and your DH.

The judge in my husbands case was very unsympathetic with the ex not looking for work. She apparently stated that she was unimpressed with this as the ex also had a financial responsibility towards the children as well as DH.

[FeeAmarylis]

I don't really understand some of the comments on here. No matter what happens, the Ex and first child come first, and second wife gets the leftovers? Really???
Your DH (and you) are perfectly entitled to have another child, and treatment needs to be equal. So- if you're expected to work, so should the Ex.If second child can't have private education, neither can first- or, if second child has private education, so has first.
You have to adapt to circumstances. Your savings won't last forever, he needs to apply for a variation of court order. ( NB I had to take my DD out of private prep due to circumstances halfway through year 5- it wasn't what I wanted, but neither did it cause education failure or nervous breakdown)

[Viviennemary]

I'd feel quite resentful in your position. And wouldn't feel I had to continue to subsidise household expenses because of your DH's commitment to child school fees. I think both children should be treated the same. That is private school for one equals private school for other. And you shouldn't be denied another child because your DP has to pay school fees. It's an outrage!

[fedupbutfine]

had to continue to subsidise household expenses

the OP has made it clear that her husband is paying half of their household expenses at the current time.

[Missunreasonable]

When your DSD goes up to senior school will she be entitled to a bursary due to her mum having a low income (I'm presuming it is low as she is not working)?

It's a tricky situation because your DSD should not be entitled to less financial support from her dad just because he has remarried and has another child but your own child should also have the same opportunities as DSD.
If you and your DH separated whilst your DD is at school would you expect him to contribute towards the fees regardless of changes in his circumstances?
DSD mum should be looking for work and contributing towards fees but do you know if there is any reason she is not able to look for work...health etc?

[WakeyCakey45]

No matter what happens, the Ex and first child come first, and second wife gets the leftovers? Really???

As a general rule, I think you're right, it isn't acceptable for a "first family" to be maintained at an inflated standard of living at the expense of a second family.

However, in the OPs case, the level of financial support is court ordered, therefore independently assessed as "fair". And the OP, and her DH, knew his financial commitments before they chose to expand their family.

[purpleroses]

But if her DH is working whilist she stays at home to care for their joint DC, then surely the DH should be supporting her too shouldn't he? Do people really think it's normal for a SAHM to have to support herself through savings, whilst doing all the childcare, whilst her DH considers he's only liable for half the household expenses?

[WakeyCakey45]

purple im assuming that's a discussion that the OP and her DH had before deciding to have a DC and the OP became a SAHM?

The court ordered maintenance is as binding as a mortgage or other household bill - and therefore regardless of where it is being paid to, the OPs household are bound to honor it.

[Missunreasonable]

Do people really think it's normal for a SAHM to have to support herself through savings, whilst doing all the childcare, whilst her DH considers he's only liable for half the household expenses?

No, it isn't normal. However, the OP has allowed this, not the ex partner or the DSD. If he has an agreement to pay school fees and maintenance then he has to pay it. The OP and her DH knew about his commitments way before they got married and had a child.
His payment of school fees and maintenance to his ex is a separate issue from how the OP and her DH split their own expenses and childcare.

[purpleroses]

Doesn't look to me as if either child can afford to be sent to private school unless their respective mothers can find jobs. Basic living expenses (including childcare for under 5s or a contribution towards the upkeep of a stay at home partner) ought to come before school fees in order of household priorities. I see what you're saying about a court order being legally binding, but they can and do get changed when household expenses change. The DSD wouldn't be the first child to move to a state school because her parents have realised they can't afford to keep her at private now that they have more children, or because they've lost their job.

As to treating them both fairly - the two children do have different mothers - If the ex were to get a job but the OP doesn't then it is possible that DSD may go private, whilst the OP's child cannot - but that's not because the father is treating his two children unfairly, it's because the first child has a mum who is able to support her finanically to a greater degree. Or vice versa if the OP gets a job but the ex doesn't.

[Viviennemary]

I agree that it doesn't seem feasible for both children to go to private school unless contributions are made by all the parents involved. I think the father should be treating both of his children in a fair way. And that is if one goes to private school then the other one should. Unless one of the other parents is paying the entire school fees and even then I think there would be issues of fairness. I think the big question to be answered is this. Is an agreement to pay school fees legally binding. And if so for how long.

[WakeyCakey45]

I see what you're saying about a court order being legally binding, but they can and do get changed when household expenses change.

I agree, and do think that the OP has reason to feel aggrieved if her DH refused to apply for a variation when he was made redundant, so her own family struggled in order to maintain payments at a level agreed when the OPsDH was working.
If that was a joint decision, though, then the impact on their household is an equal responsibility.

[Petal02]

The ex also has a responsibility towards her child, not just her DH

That about sums up the whole situation – too often we hear of women who seem to think their ex-husband should be a meal ticket for the rest of their lives, and conveniently forget their own responsibilities.

[Tovi]

If the husband isn't willing to put in for a variation because of his change of circumstances because he "promised", even it's affecting his other child - it shows how different he treats both children and who is where on the pecking order. He's willing for one to go without while the other's life continues as it always has.

I'd be having serious words with my own DH if I were in your position. It's up to both parents to provide for their children - not one. Maybe the ex should shoulder some financial responsibility for her own child too.

Everyone's circumstances change. Court orders are often varied - especially as children get older to accommodate the now and not then. For example: What was applicable in a court order for a 3 year-old say 8 years ago wouldn't be applicable for an eleven-year-old.

[fedupbutfine]

but they can and do get changed when household expenses change

except maintenance is calculated on the OP's DH's income only, not on household income or household changes. I would presume that his ability to pay maintenance was calculated way before he re-married or committed to the OP. What I also think may have happened here is that the DH has over-committed himself during divorce proceedings because, as a single man with no other commitments, he had 'enough' money to get by on himself. This has changed now he has re-married and had another child.

However, a good solicitor would argue that 'you knew what your commitments were when you had another child and your income hasn't changed'. I personally think it would be dangerous to put this in front of a judge wrapped up as it currently is which is 'my ex isn't working/won't work and my new wife wants our child to have the same so I need to reduce my commitments to my 'first' child and my ex needs to get a job when my new wife isn't working'.

I could be very wrong which is why it's important to seek legal advice from a local solicitor who knows local conditions. Different judges come to different conclusions - a local solicitor will know what the likelihood of success is.