Money

[mycatdoesntlovemeanymore]

Just wondering what others think is reasonable in this situation.

Dh is paying maintenance to his ex gf for 200 per month for 2dc. He also pays half of school trips, and purchases monthly phone line rental and new phones/pads for kids when needed or as requested by ex p, as well as paying pocket money to kids and doing several clothes trips a year, and buying school clothes as needed.

He works a full time job in an retail job and doesn't get paid a lot. His maintenance is above the CSA calculator recommendation but clearly isn't half of what it costs to raise kids so ex p is not happy, understandably. It has been suggested by her/ others that I should be contributing / enabling him to pay more money towards his kids. I earn more money than dh and do contribute financially in some ways, e.g. Making the larger purchases on his behalf like clothes etc, and also so that we can have holidays that he couldn't afford otherwise.

I'm asking this question now as following requesting a holiday date for next year, now ex p is saying dh is not allowed to take them on holiday until he pays more money as is not fair to treat kids when his money doesn't cover the bare essentials. (it is probably fair to be annoyed about this so we won't ask to take the kids on holiday again until they are old enough to decide for themselves.)

If we were to increase money to ex p, what do you think is a reasonable maintenance figure that we should aim for? Should he be paying half of the actual costs of raising kids (she has previously quoted as 800pm), or what we can afford? what is fair?

@swingofthings I think his money was probably about the same, but he was on better money then, this suited them as dh was the sahp whilst working part time which meant he did all the household stuff and childcare etc. he did earn good money part time but has since been made redundant and there is limited chance of getting back into that field again.

Dh and ex p considered that all money was family money (rightly so) so his income, let say for example it was £1k per month, went totally into household pot, and I know that he rarely spends money on himself. So I think personally that is what she finds hard. Her adapting to being full time care giver, and not having that second income.

@Floralnomad dh has previously offered 50/50 and would like this (not related to financial reasons) as he used to be their full time care giver whilst ex p was the full time worker, but this wouldn't be possible now due to the extremely poor relationship they have with each other. Sadly, it does need to be one or the other so they have minimal reason to be be in contact. Also it would be disruptive on the kids now.

The teenagers are old enough to implement a 50/50 residency with their dad if they want to - and to speak for themselves in family court if needs be.
They are also old enough to check their dates and tell their dad if they want/are free to go on holiday with him.

If ex wants to use the dc to emotionally blackmail your dh into funding her.....then perhaps your dh should take the 50/50 proposition down the legal route?

The ex needs to get a job to fund her own lifestyle....has your dh actually told her this?

You sound a fair person OP and your money should not be relevant

However if your money would have been used to take the DC on holiday you would be contributing but on your own terms

So in ex-p's eyes you are choosing to contribute. In her shoes I too would prefer it if I had the choice of how to spend additional funds rather than a holiday

Teenagers are expensive and the £100 your DP pays would not even pay for school dinners let alone a fair share of food at home bus travel clothes entertainment phones accommodation.

I think in her position I might feel the same

the £100 your DP pays would not even pay for school dinners let alone a fair share of food at home bus travel clothes entertainment phones accommodation.

In the OP she says on top of the £200 he pays for phones and clothes. As well as half of school trips, pocket money etc.

@HeebieJeebies456 we have asked dsc if they want to come over more often and they are happy with the current arrangement

Dh had many disagreements about the working situation. We think that if you have a job that actually makes losses instead of profit, it is actually a hobby and not a job. Exp says that she works all hours to provide for her kids, and they see her working her butt off (they don't say that tho).

@HeebieJeebies456 dh doesn't have that conversation anymore though, it's her choice to work, not work, or work for free, and as long as we don't hear any complaints about money then it doesn't affect us.

@Ilovetolurk what sweetbitter said.

@Ilovetolurk so do you think that I shouldn't contribute to holidays / days out / whatever and give her the money instead? Curious as to why you think she should have the choice about money to spent on the kids by others, hypothetically would this be applicable with anyone else or just me?

Sorry I missed the bit about the phone contract I was on my smartphone so hard to scroll up and down

Am now on a PC so hopefully will be more eloquent

My view on this is that maintenance of £100 per child per month is nowhere near enough. In itself it is almost derisory based on how much teenagers cost to "run". My DS 13 adds quite a bit more than £100 a month to my food bill alone let alone all his other costs.

If your partner can afford to pay extra as evidenced by shopping trips phone contract etc that he pays for why can he not pay more maintenance so that the ex-p has certainty over costs and is not relying on his goodwill to ensure the children have sufficient clothes etc etc

This is not a pop at you in any way I think you are already over and beyond in paying towards his DC's clothes etc.

Posters saying why not 50:50 are missing the point entirely it is a funding dilemma not an access one

How much does he actually bring home a month?

Part of the problem is that it simply costs more in total to raise children across two homes than it does to raise them in one home.

The biggest cost that is being duplicated is accomodation: both parents need separate accomodation for themselves inevitably costing more in total than their previous single home together, and both parents need to provide room/s for the children at their home pushing the overall cost up further. The rent/mortgage doesn't conveniently decrease the days the child is with the other parent and their bedroom/s aren't being used. So even though £200 per month isn't a lot, bear in mind it's on top of the money he's paying to house the children and pay for their costs at his place.

Pretty much the only costs that do decrease proportionately when children with other parent are food and (to a lesser extent) utilities. That I can think of, anyway.

Fixed costs that are specific to the child and not the household like school trips, mobile phone, pocket money, school meals, clubs etc it makes sense to me to split in two easy to split between the parents, as long as there's a basic level of trust and cooperation there.

OP this sounds totally unfair to me.

Your OH is not responsible for covering all costs for the kids, he's responsible for half, and their mum should be covering half too. He can only pay what he can afford, and if he's already paying over and above what he officially needs to plus extras on top then he's already doing what he can for his kids.

No way should their mum be dictating that you can't take them on holiday if you don't give her more money! You should definitely take them, she has no right to dictate what you and your OH do during your time with the kids.