Accused of not caring as much now we have "our" baby

[Pictur3Perfect]

By DHs ex 🙄

We have an arrangement re back to school buying where DHs ex buys shoes and stationary (pencil cases etc..) and we buy coats, bag and lunch boxes/bottles. Rest of uniform is split 50:50.

Some years if either of us are out shopping, the other will just send us the money they were going to spend on their stuff and we'll get it whilst out and send whatever we don't spend back.

Usually we'd spend about £120 on each of my DSC for the coats, bag and lunch boxes but we have never minded that they have chosen more expensive-ish ones.

This year DHs ex asked us if we wanted her to grab them as she was going out. We agreed but said we were on a tighter budget this year so were only planning on spending around £80 max per DC. This is perfectly doable, I have seen a few things whilst out and about but just not the more expensive stuff of previous years.

There are also a few other things like we haven't been away this year and we haven't really had the funds to do as much fun stuff in the holidays either.

The reason for this is me and DH have recently had a DD, I am on maternity leave so on stat mat pay at the moment so things are just a bit tighter that normal but are manageable and we are fine, just can't splash much at the moment!

Anyway, DHs ex has made a few comments now that we don't seem to care as much or are treating DSC differently now because we've had DD, all relating to money things.

We have DSC with us 50:50 there has never been any maintenance paid, that's the way its been since they split up so nothing to do with DD, he has never cancelled contact, never missed paying for anything like activities, still paying half the uniform as normal, school trips, hair cuts, clothes, anything they need we have continued to pay for. But our home is just on a little bit more of a stricter budget at the moment. Imo this is just one of those things that lots of families go through from time to time and is absolutely nothing to do with treating anyone differently or not caring. The kids are still getting everything they need, they might just have to have coats and bags from somewhere a bit cheaper this year and not have a holiday with us one year, hardly terrible stuff. It sounds like such a first world problem to me and I think ex is being really quite dramatic!

£80 is plenty; coat £50 max, bag £20, lunchbox a fiver and you’d still have £5 left over!

@toomuchlaundry

Do they need new stuff, just because it is September?

Hah! Funny you say this. Dsd broke up from school on the Friday and DPs ex demanded uniform money on the Sunday stating that's when she was going shopping. Couldn't understand our logic to wait until nearer the end. We said no. She went shopping any way and the school shoes she bought don't fit two weeks in. We've replaced them and got landed with a ridiculous £80 Smiggle(sp?) invoice

@PinkGinny

So, factually your DP has decided to add to his responsibilities and he has chosen to now spend less on the children he already had.

You & he feel that's okay as he needs to spend more to support his new child / make up the difference in his household income.

His older children's mother thinks he is being a dick as previously he spent £120 and due to his choice to expand his responsibilities, he needs to spend less. Now £80 is all he can spend. So a reduction of a third.

Due to a decision neither his ex nor his children, quite rightly, had a say or choice in this change impacts both. So regardless of whether you or other posters think £80 is enough / ridiculous / obscene the facts are, he's chosen to have another child and very quickly afterwards his other/first children have to accept 'less'.

The ex would have known when they split up that half siblings would be a possibility. The decision doesn't affect the ex as it is the supplies DH usually buys that are being downgraded. The children themselves will not suffer having less spent on a bag or coat.

We've replaced them and got landed with a ridiculous £80 Smiggle(sp?) invoice did she send you the invoice or did you buy it yourselves? If she sent it to you then I'd say next year to let you know what stationary they need and you'll pick up half.

Sorry, DP, not you.

@AbsolutelyCrackin

I cannot eye roll hard enough at the poster above me.

Oh no the children will need to survive off an £80 bag and coat instead of a £120 one THE HORRORS.

Yes sounds like it's a good lesson for them to learn they can't have top of the range everything.

I've spent less than £100 on back to school costs this year... I must really hate my 2 kids. They didn't even get new coats bags and lunchboxes...

I'm sure if the Ex was to have a third child her budget for the elder two would also decrease, especially while on Mat leave.

@PinkGinny are you actually for real????
Separated/divorced people are entitled to to what more children! Your life doesn't end when you divorce!
In this instance it's quite obvious op's dp can actually afford more children given the sums op mentions & his dc are hardly going without!
Cutbacks with the arrival of a new baby (who let's not forget will also be financially 'limited' due to having older siblings!) are par for the course in intact families & this is no different.

We buy coats, bags, lunchboxes

Perhaps she's also a bit miffed that you've left it quite late to get theses items and she's had to offer to take the dc herself to choose them?

If she's single, then despite being in a well paid job, money may be tight with (3?) children and living costs. It's possible she was keeping some of the money back and hoped to this year.

There was no need to share your budget with her. What other examples did she give where you're spending much less on the children?

I find spending £120 on these three items bonkers. I certainly never did and never would. The issue though is that he has set precedence by doing so for a few years, and this precedence is broken because of a new baby, which does give a message that they are expected to have less because he and OP have chosen to have a new baby.

Saying that, do the kids even know/care? How old are they? Most primary/early secondary wouldn't even be able to differentiate or care, unless they are indeed very money oriented, which really is not doing them any favour.

She didn't have to offer, we always do it the weekend before they go back (next week). She was going to get her stuff so asked if we wanted her to pick stuff up as we have done the other way round in years passed.

She has a partner although what he contributes I don't know, it's not our place to ask.

The other examples were in my OP. Not going on holiday this year and not doing much "fun stuff" in the school holidays. She's taken the kids abroad this year and done quite a bit with them from what they tell us which is great but also doesn't really fit with the picture of "single mum to 2 who can't afford anything". I'm not suggesting that she shouldn't do this or that she should pay for everything because she can, just that it doesn't seem like she's struggling but I can only tell as far as anyone else can of course.

Perhaps she's also a bit miffed that you've left it quite late to get theses items and she's had to offer to take the dc herself to choose them?
I agree that this might be factor in how she feels, especially since she is then left to be the one to explain why they can't buy what they want and normally would.

Why didn't your OH take them shopping himself sooner?

Sorry double posting. Considering the situation, it would have been nice to let her know before that the budget would be reduced, or tell her not to bother and that your OH would be taking them this weekend, as planned.

I think YABU in the first place to spend £120 on a coat, bag and lunch box for young children. If you're setting this precedent from now, you better start saving for when they are teens. They'll not be content with a coat and school bag from Asda then!

I guess we just, perhaps naively, thought that considering its still a healthy budget for a bag and coat that it wouldn't be a big deal

@PinkGinny 🙄 at your comment.

Ok imagery world time : OPs husband and the ex had another baby the ex wife was on mat leave after having a baby and money was tight ? They would have cut their cloth accordingly. They wouldn't be like oh this means your dad loves you less, weird flex anyone would do this to their children.

If my kids complained about this I would explain that money doesn't grow on trees and we should be try to be kind to people who are struggling. The amount of entitlement a child has is very much dependent on how you treat them.

You don't have to apologise for breathing or having a baby OP let alone not having enough cash. The kids aren't going without 😵‍💫 mind boggling anyone would hint otherwise.

@kinzarose

I think YABU in the first place to spend £120 on a coat, bag and lunch box for young children. If you're setting this precedent from now, you better start saving for when they are teens. They'll not be content with a coat and school bag from Asda then!

I do agree. I've said the same to DH in the past. They are quite brand focused (he can be as well). It's not really my thing but I don't mind as much when we can afford it. I'm certainly not stretching ourselves when we can't though.

They are both in secondary btw. One starting Y9 the other just starting Y7.

@Pictur3Perfect

I guess we just, perhaps naively, thought that considering its still a healthy budget for a bag and coat that it wouldn't be a big deal

You weren't naive at all OP. There's a couple of people on here as bonkers as your SCs mum, the rest of us can see that it is not a big deal at all.

The issue though is that he has set precedence by doing so for a few years, and this precedence is broken because of a new baby, which does give a message that they are expected to have less because he and OP have chosen to have a new baby

When the ex chose to have the second child did they worry about the first child having less, breaking precedence on what they spent for the first child etc?

Funny how if it’s a resident parent choosing to have another child this is never factored in, but the minute an NRP does everyone behaves as if he’s stolen from the poor to give to the rich.

Shit happens. People lose jobs, earn less, need new cars/boilers/washing machines, need to cut their spending for millions of reasons, a new baby being only one. It’s £40, the kids are hardly going to live in poverty.

@PinkGinny

So, factually your DP has decided to add to his responsibilities and he has chosen to now spend less on the children he already had.

You & he feel that's okay as he needs to spend more to support his new child / make up the difference in his household income.

His older children's mother thinks he is being a dick as previously he spent £120 and due to his choice to expand his responsibilities, he needs to spend less. Now £80 is all he can spend. So a reduction of a third.

Due to a decision neither his ex nor his children, quite rightly, had a say or choice in this change impacts both. So regardless of whether you or other posters think £80 is enough / ridiculous / obscene the facts are, he's chosen to have another child and very quickly afterwards his other/first children have to accept 'less'.

Surely the birth of the second step child had a negative financial impact on the first stepchild ( a decision the child had not input on). Or is it ok to have other children only in a nuclear family. So where is the line that having subsequent children is unacceptable? Is it OK for a mother to have subsequent children after divorce? Or is the issue only if the father dares to. By the way in this case due to 50 50 your not even talking about resident and non resident parents your just talking about parents.

OP there is nothing wrong with what your doing. They dont need the top of the line everything, money doent equal love.

The issue though is that he has set precedence by doing so for a few years, and this precedence is broken because of a new baby, which does give a message that they are expected to have less because he and OP have chosen to have a new baby.

This isn't an issue or a slight, though. It's perfectly normal and something theh will have to get used to. They are expected to have less. That is perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

Also nobody factors in that if the o/p wasn’t around the dp would likely have less cash flow as he’d be supporting himself and his children on one wage, paying all bills etc.

With the o/p they are a dual income family, and I’m willing to bet her wage far outstrips the cost of a new baby. Overall the stepchildren are probably far better off financially long term with new baby and step mum that if dad was single and supporting them on one wage.

Temporary mat leave where they live on one wage vs permanently living on that one wage?

These threads always bring out the bitterness in people don't they?
Tough. Your budget is tighter this year she needs to chill out. It's not like the new baby is being swaddled in Chanel whilst they have cardboard in their shoes 🙄

@PinkGinny

So, factually your DP has decided to add to his responsibilities and he has chosen to now spend less on the children he already had.

You & he feel that's okay as he needs to spend more to support his new child / make up the difference in his household income.

His older children's mother thinks he is being a dick as previously he spent £120 and due to his choice to expand his responsibilities, he needs to spend less. Now £80 is all he can spend. So a reduction of a third.

Due to a decision neither his ex nor his children, quite rightly, had a say or choice in this change impacts both. So regardless of whether you or other posters think £80 is enough / ridiculous / obscene the facts are, he's chosen to have another child and very quickly afterwards his other/first children have to accept 'less'.

Yes you've correctly summed up the situation here, what you haven't done is listed anything that is unacceptable or worthy of complaint.

£80 per child for jackets and bags is MORE than enough. My twins dad contributes £100 for ALL school stuff and thats a struggle to get out of him. I guess you are rich

I think the issue is not what's been done, but the way it's been done. Suggesting it's because of the new baby could make the children feel that the baby is the cause of them missing out, whether or not that is the reason. If they don't need the new lunchbox etc could all the money go towards the coats? It's difficult at secondary because the brand etc often matters a lot to them and their friendship groups (not that it should, but it often does). Either way no one should be being nasty about this, it's a shame that such a bad example has been set by the children's mum.