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!

But either way, even if they do know the numbers etc, then it is just for this one year while OP is not working. They are very lucky to have 3 well-earning adults contributing towards them being able to get luxury stuff. It sounds like they would never have been able to have designer things without OP's contribution until now, if it's unaffordable as soon as she's not working.

Again, they are old enough to choose between things - if they are really disappointed because they want a more expensive coat then they can choose to use last year's school bag to have more for their coat. Or they could wear their expensive coat from last year!?

These kids are not missing out.

@SmileyClare

Standard sm attitude

I sort of understand what was being explained there.

I've no idea if this is relevant to the Op, but it could be that all the cuts in the budget affect the step children.

It would seem unfair if no one else in the family were making any sacrifices; if their father was still driving round in a new Merc, buying himself designer clothes, the baby was treated to the top of the range travel system and baby clothes, parents eating out at nice restaurants.
That would indicate that any cuts would be what was spent on the step children. Their budget is the least important now rather than everyone in the family having less.

Obviously that is all supposition and an extreme example.

I doubt this is the case for OP as she sounds very caring in her post.

BUT for argument's sake, even if this was true, this is because they are temporarily having to live on what their 2 parents can afford. Which is what most children have to accept full time!

@Bananarama21

I think yabu actually the fact your dh doesn't pay maintenance is key here £120per child shouldn't be that much of stretch when it comes to school supply's. It's always better to get better quality stuff that lasts longer rather than replacing further along the line at an additional expense. It's a regular once a year expense uniforms and it should have been budgeted for. 80 each towards uniform wouldnt make much of a dent especially if they go to senior school. Me and dh spend over 300 quid alone on uniform for ds.

How is it fact her DP pays no maintenance relevant? Why should he pay maintenance when they have the children 50/50 and pay half towards maintenance cost such as clothes/hair cuts etc? Your not one of these entitled women are you that things men should pay maintenance regardless? 🙄 An ex of mine had two teenage DC with his ex wife, due to personality clashes/teenage hormones one lived with mum and one lived with dad, yet dad was expected to provide maintenance money for the child living with mum but mum provided nothing for the child living with dad!?? Could never get my head around that one!

BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII

I think so many people are so used to mums receiving CM that it's hard to get their head around any other way.

My DP pays CM to his ex for his 2 kids, and when chatting about a friend of mine who has her son 50/50 with his dad and how she was struggling to afford something, he was like "Doesn't his dad give give her money?" And that's someone who's in the situation himself! It's like people just assume mums need/deserve more money even when they are only doing equal care and all costs are split fairly.

Erm can you be my step mum please? I'm an adult who has never had a coat more expensive than 60 quid.

They're not missing out, they are feeling less benefit from OP's money

OP - £120 OMG in DCS that grow!! But each to their own.

I think someone else has raised it - from the outside looking in, the SDCs are taking all the hits - less monies on school clothes and you also said - "the other examples were in my OP. Not going on holiday this year and not doing much "fun stuff" in the school holidays. "

Am not for one minute saying you had to take them on holiday - but if they are used to it and then it stops and the reason is the baby and you have said the baby- than any bets the SDCS have mentioned it to her and she has borne the brunt of their displeasure.

Totally get that is your perogative as a family but in many step scenarios this is a slippery slope to the other parent being expected to pick up the costs that the other parent now does not want.

I think the issue is using the baby as an excuse.

It also shows you spoilt your eldest child. You don't just give children material things
No idea what you are on about. I would never have spent that much of money on my kids. However, I did ensure that what I did consider acceptable and normality for my eldest was as little impacted as possible by having a normal child and that is normal parenting attitude, and indeed, what I expect most SM do when they go on to have more children.

In any case, why make it all about the money and clothes? It's not about the material things, it's about dad not bothering to explain it to them.

My OH takes me to the very fancy hotel/restaurant where we got married every year for our anniversary. I know it's a treat and I look forward to it every year. If one year he told me weeks in advance that he now has to pay towards his mum nursing care and therefore there isn't much money this year to go, but hopefully we will again next year, I'd be a little bit disappointed, but would totally understand. If however he said nothing, then told me the day before that we just couldn't go and instead he was taking me to a cheaper place, I'd be much more upset, even wore if it was his mum telling me. Not by the outcome, but that he hadn't felt it important enough to tell me in advance knowing I would be disappointed. That' s exactly the same.

@bogoffmda

OP - £120 OMG in DCS that grow!! But each to their own.

I think someone else has raised it - from the outside looking in, the SDCs are taking all the hits - less monies on school clothes and you also said - "the other examples were in my OP. Not going on holiday this year and not doing much "fun stuff" in the school holidays. "

Am not for one minute saying you had to take them on holiday - but if they are used to it and then it stops and the reason is the baby and you have said the baby- than any bets the SDCS have mentioned it to her and she has borne the brunt of their displeasure.

Totally get that is your perogative as a family but in many step scenarios this is a slippery slope to the other parent being expected to pick up the costs that the other parent now does not want.

I think the issue is using the baby as an excuse.

But the whole family is not going on holiday and not doing as much fun stuff (guessing this is days out, theme parks etc) through the summer holidays?

It's not like OP and DH and baby have been on holiday separately. Nobody has been. So I don't see how the SCs are taking all the hits more so than anyone else?

My OH takes me to the very fancy hotel/restaurant where we got married every year for our anniversary. I know it's a treat and I look forward to it every year. If one year he told me weeks in advance that he now has to pay towards his mum nursing care and therefore there isn't much money this year to go, but hopefully we will again next year, I'd be a little bit disappointed, but would totally understand. If however he said nothing, then told me the day before that we just couldn't go and instead he was taking me to a cheaper place, I'd be much more upset, even wore if it was his mum telling me. Not by the outcome, but that he hadn't felt it important enough to tell me in advance knowing I would be disappointed. That' s exactly the same.

It's not exactly the same?

You're talking about a yearly treat that you really look forward to and get excited about.

OP is talking about buying coats and lunchboxes for school?! Children don't massively look forward or excited about that.

The equivalent of what you're saying would be getting them one crap Christmas gift instead of anything that they wanted.

@vivainsomnia

It also shows you spoilt your eldest child. You don't just give children material things No idea what you are on about. I would never have spent that much of money on my kids. However, I did ensure that what I did consider acceptable and normality for my eldest was as little impacted as possible by having a normal child and that is normal parenting attitude, and indeed, what I expect most SM do when they go on to have more children.

In any case, why make it all about the money and clothes? It's not about the material things, it's about dad not bothering to explain it to them.

My OH takes me to the very fancy hotel/restaurant where we got married every year for our anniversary. I know it's a treat and I look forward to it every year. If one year he told me weeks in advance that he now has to pay towards his mum nursing care and therefore there isn't much money this year to go, but hopefully we will again next year, I'd be a little bit disappointed, but would totally understand. If however he said nothing, then told me the day before that we just couldn't go and instead he was taking me to a cheaper place, I'd be much more upset, even wore if it was his mum telling me. Not by the outcome, but that he hadn't felt it important enough to tell me in advance knowing I would be disappointed. That' s exactly the same.

It's not the same. It's more like instead of DH taking you to a fancy restaurant every year he has to take you to a less fancy restaurant (but still not a fast food place or nowhere). And he would expect you to understand if he said sorry I had to pay mum's nursing home fees but I've still picked a nice place.

And if you knew his mum was going into a nursing home you would be aware circumstances are changing so if the money changes too it shouldn't be that much of a shock.

@bogoffmda

OP - £120 OMG in DCS that grow!! But each to their own.

I think someone else has raised it - from the outside looking in, the SDCs are taking all the hits - less monies on school clothes and you also said - "the other examples were in my OP. Not going on holiday this year and not doing much "fun stuff" in the school holidays. "

Am not for one minute saying you had to take them on holiday - but if they are used to it and then it stops and the reason is the baby and you have said the baby- than any bets the SDCS have mentioned it to her and she has borne the brunt of their displeasure.

Totally get that is your perogative as a family but in many step scenarios this is a slippery slope to the other parent being expected to pick up the costs that the other parent now does not want.

I think the issue is using the baby as an excuse.

But the baby is also "taking a hit" as the parents have less to spend on the baby than they would if they didn't have the DSC.

You could easily get the things you need for TWO children for £80! Also, can't they use the same boxes and bottles as last year?

This is the baby's normal - it knows no different!

Everyone is cutting their cloth in the family but if you look at it from a pre teen mentality ( not saying it is right) - Dad used to do this with us, spend this, let us have brands , take us on holiday - now the baby is here then we don;'t do/get any of this anymore.

So to them life is carrying on as normal in that house for the parents and new baby- whilst they get to sit around/ be bored! It is a big age gap. Am sure Mum has heard all the whinges.

Will depend on what their DF prepared them for with the new baby.

Am not critcising the OP - this is their DF and expectation management and communications with their DM.

I think criticism of the DM is a bit harsh - they obviously co parent well, in that she had no issues with getting the stuff and kind to offer. Obviously an arrangement that has occurred before - so she knows the usual budget and along with her DCs moaning - the budget has been cut. She has then bought brand( as the DCS are used to) because that is the usual practice . Was she told not to buy brand? Bit ripe to criticise her if she was not told that.

Bit of a fuss over nothing, she can make comments perfectly entitled to. Personally would ignore it and carry on with what was previously a good co parenting relationship and get the DF to do some comms with his kids.

@bogoffmda

OP - £120 OMG in DCS that grow!! But each to their own.

I think someone else has raised it - from the outside looking in, the SDCs are taking all the hits - less monies on school clothes and you also said - "the other examples were in my OP. Not going on holiday this year and not doing much "fun stuff" in the school holidays. "

Am not for one minute saying you had to take them on holiday - but if they are used to it and then it stops and the reason is the baby and you have said the baby- than any bets the SDCS have mentioned it to her and she has borne the brunt of their displeasure.

Totally get that is your perogative as a family but in many step scenarios this is a slippery slope to the other parent being expected to pick up the costs that the other parent now does not want.

I think the issue is using the baby as an excuse.

It makes sense that the SCs might whinge about it, but what doesn't make sense is an adult woman complaining about it. She should be perfectly able to grasp that it's normal for there to be less money and less fun outings with a newborn, and she should also recognise that her children are still being more than provided for, as £80 is still a massive budget for what they're getting. I wouldn't go beyond £30 for that.

Unfortunately, this forum can attest that there are lots of parents who are not able to grasp all of that, and go absolutely insane about these perfectly natural changes happening in the other household. Giving this one the benefit of the doubt, she doesn't sound that bad. But she should still have known that text wasn't necessary.

Obviously an arrangement that has occurred before - so she knows the usual budget and along with her DCs moaning - the budget has been cut. She has then bought brand( as the DCS are used to) because that is the usual practice . Was she told not to buy brand? Bit ripe to criticise her if she was not told that.

She hadn't bought it yet, OP & DH were going to buy it all this weekend and she offered to get it instead as she was going out shopping. They replied letting her know the new budget at this point, so she is not out of pocket. She could just as easily have said "ah ok, I'll let you take the DCs out at the weekend as planned so you can explain to them about the new budget", if that was necessary and she thought they'd be disappointed.

Dad used to do this with us, spend this, let us have brands , take us on holiday - now the baby is here then we don;'t do/get any of this anymore.

So to them life is carrying on as normal in that house for the parents and new baby- whilst they get to sit around/ be bored! It is a big age gap. Am sure Mum has heard all the whinges.

I do agree that dad should have explained why this year might be a bit different since OP is not working at the moment, but he may have had that convo relating to the summer holiday activities anyway. I am sure he must have explained why there was no holiday this year already.

Why would they think their dad and SM's life is continuing as normal and it's only them being short-changed? They can see their dad is also not going on holiday or going on fun days out.

Ultimately, I would bet these comments from mum are a reflection of her own fears and upset over the new baby's arrival, rather than a genuine concern that her children are being treated poorly due to this temporary change in circumstances. Not saying it's not natural of her to worry about the impact it will have on her children, but she knows very well OP is on maternity leave and there is less money at the moment. Her criticism is unfair.

It makes sense that the SCs might whinge about it, but what doesn't make sense is an adult woman complaining about it. She should be perfectly able to grasp that it's normal for there to be less money and less fun outings with a newborn, and she should also recognise that her children are still being more than provided for, as £80 is still a massive budget for what they're getting.

Exactly, PLUS the shortfall in money is coming from OP being on maternity leave, not because they are just spending every last penny on the new baby instead now.

A 12yo and 14yo are very able to understand that while one person is not getting paid, there is less money until they go back. And mum can certainly explain that to them as well, instead of texting complaints to her ex if they are whinging. I'm sure she remembers money is tight on maternity leave.

Personally, I think she is really cheeky to send this message to her ex considering she knows it is his wife who is the one off work currently, not him. It is OP's money that is missing from the equation here, and the ex is essentially saying it's not fair that OP's not paying for luxury stuff for her kids at the moment. Both she and OP's DH are very lucky that OP has ever been generous enough to do that.

OP is talking about buying coats and lunchboxes for school?! Children don't massively look forward or excited about that
Really? My kids were always excited to go back to school shopping, and so were my sister and I when we were younger. Very excited. If the kids are into brand names, I would think they are too.

It's not the same. It's more like instead of DH taking you to a fancy restaurant every year he has to take you to a less fancy restaurant (but still not a fast food place or nowhere). And he would expect you to understand if he said sorry I had to pay mum's nursing home fees but I've still picked a nice place
You mean exactly what I said!! Read again. I said that it's not the less fancy meal that would be disappointing, but that he didn't bother to tell my in advance so that I was left to be excited as usual to then be disappointed.

It makes sense that the SCs might whinge about it, but what doesn't make sense is an adult woman complaining about it. She should be perfectly able to grasp that it's normal for there to be less money and less fun outings with a newborn, and she should also recognise that her children are still being more than provided for, as £80 is still a massive budget for what they're getting. I wouldn't go beyond £30 for that
And maybe, again, she is annoyed that OP's OH left it at the last minute and expect her to tell the kids that they won't get the stuff they were maybe hoping for, maybe even already researched.

How many Dsc do you have? £240 is a mad amount of money to spend on 2 coats, bags and lunchboxes.

You should easily be able to pick up decent above items for £50 per DC.

Also why is DH discussing how much is spent on these items with the EXW? Surely the agreement with her is that you purchase these items, not that there’s an agreement of price tag?!?

It’s none of her business what they cost and tbh, unless you’re asking for half back, I don’t see why you’d need to pass on that information.

And maybe, again, she is annoyed that OP's OH left it at the last minute and expect her to tell the kids that they won't get the stuff they were maybe hoping for, maybe even already researched.

But she never needed to be involved in it at all.

OP has said they always go back-to-school shopping on the last weekend before school, so she knows the routine. They have not left it any later than usual.

OP & DH get coats, lunchboxes and bags, and were going to get these this weekend. The ex offered to pick them up because she was going out anyway. That's when she found out the budget.

They were not expecting her to tell the kids they won't get the stuff they were hoping for, they would have done that themselves! She could easily have said "Ok, I'll let you take the kids shopping as planned then".

Nobody expected her to do anything expect what she was already down to do (shoes, stationary etc).

She's got the hump because she's probably paranoid the new baby will push her kids out.

It's understandable form her POV, but her criticism is not justified. There is still a very healthy budget for everything the children need.

She has no right to insist X amount is what is always spent on these things for them and that if that doesn't happen OP and her DH don't care as much about them anymore.

"Dear ex, as you know we love DSC to pieces but there's less money in our household atm and it has to go three ways now".

That should cover it.

And as per usual on this forum - a small niggle has turned into an absolute SM not in the wrong and EXW has to be!

And before anyone says it - I am an SM to 3.

I would never spend £120 on coats and lunchboxes - so would never gt into this position

@bogoffmda

And as per usual on this forum - a small niggle has turned into an absolute SM not in the wrong and EXW has to be!

And before anyone says it - I am an SM to 3.

I would never spend £120 on coats and lunchboxes - so would never gt into this position

Eh? The SM clearly hasn't done anything wrong in this case. Would you like us to make up some flaw?

The mum isn't villain of the century but yes, she is mildly in the wrong here.

I think rather than giving less money, your DH should have taken the kids to go shopping and buy the required items with the reduced budget himself.

That would have saved any comments from her and the view that , her kids are getting less quality items because of the new addition