Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Having to pay for everything

68 replies

PurpleHouse12 · 25/04/2022 20:04

Does anyone else find this?

My husband has older DC with his ex and we have one child together. I've found that basically I pay for everything for our child so that he can pay for everything for his older DC.

He pays half of the childcare for our child but that's literally it. Never paid anything toward clothes, groups, treats, nothing. If I ever ask he says things like 'well I have X many DC'.

Whenever DSC mum asks for anything though he pays it right away (we have 50:50 so no maintenance). She asks for half of everything (rightly so!!!) Hair cuts, clothes, school stuff, hobbies etc. and he pays it.

It's almost like I feel he'd actually contribute more toward our DC if we were separated! Like he thinks because we live in the same home that it's "our" money paying for everything to do with our child so it doesn't matter.

FWIW, I don't really pay toward anything for DSC. I pay half of all bills and food so I guess I contribute in that way but we have mainly separate finances and I don't ever send him any of "my" money for things to do with DSC.

Even at Christmas and birthdays, DCs presents will ALL be bought by me. I put some toward DSCs presents (although not a huge amount) but he'll go absolutely stupid spending money on getting them heaps of stuff and then if I ask him to contribute toward our DCs presents he says he can't because he's got no money left after buying DSCs stuff.

Our child never goes without because I make sure they don't, so they are none the wiser but it pisses me off.

It makes me resentful now whenever he buys DSC anything like a treat. He bought them quite an expensive treat the other day and it's really got under my skin. He can treat his children of course but when he won't even give me £20 toward some clothes for our son because I sort it it's a slap in the face.

I get he has more children to pay for and therefore needs to stretch more but that's not mine or my son's fault?

In his mind this is how all DC get X amount of money spent on them. In my mind, it's just a dad contributing fuck all to only one of his children.

OP posts:

Eggshelly · 27/04/2022 13:46

So much hypocrisy here it's only hypocrisy if it's the same person saying both things. And I know I haven't.

Isonthecase · 27/04/2022 13:57

I'd figure it out as you pay for you and half your child (1.5 people). He pays for him and for half your child and for his kids who will average out at a person as there 50:50 (2.5 people). So you're liable for 3/8 of the bills and he's liable for 5/8. I'd split mortgage as the house ownership is 50:50. Then all costs for you he pays for, all costs for him and his kids he pays, and all costs for your child are split 50:50. Anything else is absolutely not fair on you, and results in his kids having 2 people contributing to them whilst yours only has one.

Obviously this will end up with you having more disposable income than him, as anyone with 1 child has more than someone with 3. I suggest you put most of the extra in to nice things for you and savings for your child as your savings would be half his in a divorce.

funinthesun19 · 27/04/2022 14:30

So much hypocrisy here. Many move in with single mums (or more likely them moving with him) and have no choice but to support her and her children if they were on benefits, or working very PT.

There is a massive difference between moving in with an RP and moving in with an NRP. The rp will be the one receiving any child related benefits which will be affected by a partner moving in. The RP’s earnings are affected by potentially working part time/not working due to caring for children whereas the NRP has more freedom to work whenever they want. The rp’s partner should be expected to provide more towards the household if they want to move in and working full time. They should be prepared to make up for money lost in benefits that an rp might have been receiving as a single parent.

There really is nothing for the NRP’s partner to make up for financially in relation to the children or lessen the strain for the parent by them moving in. Apart from if the NRP was maybe not working and then their partner moved in. But to be honest, I can’t think why anyone would want to move in with an NRP who doesn’t work (through choice).

There’s no hypocrisy because the two situations are very different.

GlitteryGreen · 27/04/2022 14:44

So much hypocrisy here. Many move in with single mums (or more likely them moving with him) and have no choice but to support her and her children if they were on benefits, or working very PT.

The majority of mums earn less than their partner, but according to this thread, it would be ok if he earns £100k to expect his new wife earning £20k to pay half, and for him to treat his kids to luxury holidays, expensive gadgets etc...even to the children they might have in common whilst her kids get nothing because she has nothing left after she's paid her half of all the bills?

How is this comparable in any way though - in OP's scenario, her husband is the one treating one set of children better than the other, and they are all his?

I don't think it's about making sure everyone has the same amount left, but more that this father isn't contributing anything AT ALL to his youngest child and just leaving it to his partner - it's just not right.

It is not OK that OP is living like a single parent when she isn't, while his ex gets to split everything 50/50. He needs to contribute to all of his children.

SpaceshiptoMars · 27/04/2022 14:53

There’s no hypocrisy because the two situations are very different.

I'd guess that a man would move in at a later stage in the relationship with a RP mother, because of the benefits implications. That and Mums being more concerned about potential predators than perhaps the nrp Dads are.

The longer the relationship, the more reasonable it becomes to pay each others bills in sickness, unemployment, care of other relatives etc. So whereas I wouldn't be comfortable with a man paying my way in the earlier stages of a relationship, I'd be more inclined to accept some help after a long period of building mutual trust.

@vivainsomnia as this is the Step-Parenting forum on MN , the bias here is that the SMs are the higher earners. So it won't necessarily marry up with what you are seeing in day to day life.

GlitteryGreen · 27/04/2022 15:05

I just don't get how it's relevant to be discussing finances in a blended family where both people are bringing their own children though? That isn't the case here - OP's child is her husband's child?

The only circumstances where it's acceptable for someone not to pay towards their own child is where they have no choice because they are out of work or similar. It is never OK for someone to just pick and choose which of their children they want to contribute for.

I'd hope that despite this being an SM forum, there are very few people here who would say it would be fine for their partner not to contribute towards his older children and just contribute towards the one(s) they have together - and it should work the same the other way round.

He has the means to contribute and therefore he should.

DolphinaPD · 27/04/2022 15:23

If he continued with this attitude I'd stop contributing equally, pay a proportion relative to you and ds.

SpaceshiptoMars · 27/04/2022 15:24

It is never OK for someone to just pick and choose which of their children they want to contribute for.

Agreed. Although if DH was temporarily unemployed/student/underemployed for health reasons etc - I could understand shouldering the costs of ones joint children for the duration. What would be more than tricky is the prospect of those underfunded DC saying to Dad later - why did you never buy me a birthday present? And then 'I'll be the one choosing your nursing home, you know....'.

DolphinaPD · 27/04/2022 16:13

Blendiful · 27/04/2022 13:44

The point in this situation is that he has 3 children. OP has one.

She contributes towards his other 2 DC by going halves on everything in the house they live in which is 50% their home as they spend the other 50% with their mum.

Their mum is requesting half of all costs for them (rightly so in a 50:50 set up) and he pays it no issues.

But their joint DC is getting everything bar half the house and childcare paid for by OP. So OP is significantly worse off by paying half the house for all of them then 100% of costs for their DC (bar childcare).

It sounds as though he is paying half of other DC costs no matter what, no questions asked so those DC doing 50/50 are getting much more treats and luxuries (unless OP chooses to pay for these thing for their DC)

He is taking advantage of that fact they live together and he knows OP won't let DC go without . But it is not right. He should be contributing towards all these things for his joint DC same as he does with his others.

I wonder whether the exw pays 50% of the costs for the sdc at op's house.

candlesandpitchforks · 27/04/2022 16:33

So much hypocrisy here. Many move in with single mums (or more likely them moving with him) and have no choice but to support her and her children if they were on benefits, or working very PT.

Any SM I know actually I end up early equivalent or more than their DH. I'm am a v high earner and in my house my pay way outstrips my DH. Many men seem to actively chose this as a preference, probably my jaded part of me thinks because they realise they can't financially subsides to two women on low incomes and afford to live. The second wife has to taken on more of the financial weight than the first.

Magda72 · 27/04/2022 18:13

Many men seem to actively chose this as a preference, probably my jaded part of me thinks because they realise they can't financially subsides to two women on low incomes and afford to live. The second wife has to taken on more of the financial weight than the first.
I would totally agree with this @candlesandpitchforks
Exdp told me one of the things he liked about me was my financial independence. Initially I took this as a complement. However over time I realised that all it really meant was that my independence meant all his money could go to an ex who flatly refused to get a job.
Despite him having a decent income most of it went on the exw & dc & he had very little for himself & I got to a point if I requested a gift (think birthday, Christmas) beyond anything bar a small token I felt chronically guilty.

candlesandpitchforks · 27/04/2022 19:26

Magda72 · 27/04/2022 18:13

It's depressing isn't it.

Oh the disappoint when some of these blokes realise that no you won't be a joint effort subsiding another house.

ChocBloc · 27/04/2022 20:18

Step-parents are not a bank. They are not there to subsidise any other children you may have. What's he like when all the kids are around does he leave you with your shared one to look after his others?

Magda72 · 27/04/2022 21:21

Oh the disappoint when some of these blokes realise that no you won't be a joint effort subsiding another house.
You see that's it isn't it?
Exdp's argument was that I'd be spending/doing x,y,z for my dc anyway. And he did contribute (to groceries) while living in my home. But he couldn't grasp the fact that my spending/doing anyway in my home benefitted him hugely by giving him more time & more cash to put into another household (as opposed to spending it on, or saving for, us).
He just couldn't get the principle of the whole thing because in his eyes (no matter how much he denied it) I was not his family & therefore not his responsibility.
I should add I never wanted to be his financial responsibility but it irritated me beyond belief that his dc were driving around in cars fully funded by him when he had no disposable income to invest in our lives or future.
In effect I was funding his dc's & ex's extras.

SpaceshiptoMars · 27/04/2022 22:23

I should add I never wanted to be his financial responsibility but it irritated me beyond belief that his dc were driving around in cars fully funded by him when he had no disposable income to invest in our lives or future.
In effect I was funding his dc's & ex's extras.

How are they managing now without the bank of Magda?

Magda72 · 27/04/2022 23:19

How are they managing now without the bank of Magda?
@SpaceshiptoMars from what I can gather a man has been let go from exdp's business & so exdp has chosen to take on even more work to keep the funding going

SandyY2K · 30/04/2022 15:24

Really? Does this apply to single parents who move with their new partner who doesn't have children themselves too? Would it be right for them to say that bills are paid 50/50 and he gets to go on nice holidays with his bodies whilst she can't afford to take her kids away because he has a right to more disposable income since he chose not to have children?

He would be called an ahole but the other way around, that's ok of course!

I agree with this. It happens so much more, that a man gets with a single mum and subsidises her lifestyle.

He would be called some unpleasant names in the circumstances you describe.

SoggyPaper · 30/04/2022 17:53

candlesandpitchforks · 27/04/2022 16:33

So much hypocrisy here. Many move in with single mums (or more likely them moving with him) and have no choice but to support her and her children if they were on benefits, or working very PT.

I have never in my life expected a partner to subsidise me and my children. Even with my husband, who earns more than double what I do, I contributed just as much to the household as he did after he’d paid enormous sums of child maintenance to his ex (and I received a far smaller sum). And he benefitted from my equity to buy a house (having given up all of his in his divorce).

I just don’t think it’s justifiable to work ‘very PT’ and expect someone else to pay for you and your children. If they’re his children too, then that’s up to him if he wants to have an adult dependent too. But as a single mum, I’d be horrified to be expecting a man to pay for me and my children.

Flip

1 2 3