thorny financial issue!!!

[silkcushion]

Dh and I have been married 2 years. Dd is 12 weeks old. Dsc are 13 and 12 and live with his exw 80 miles away.

Have just worked out what maintenance should be on csa website - £320. We are paying £580.

Exw has a very small mortgage, she got everything when they divorced 9 years ago. She also has parents who give her a fortune. She moved a new boyfriend in last August (who does not work from what we can see).

The maintenance is just for the children as the exw always worked full time. She, dh and myself all earn about the same amount of money. When we married Dh insisted that we bought a huge house so we could have our own family but also his kids could have room each.

We have a 6 bedroom house and a £215k mortgage. She has a 4 bed house with a £60k mortgage. I have to return to work this week as we can't afford for my salary to drop to SMP. Nursery is going to cost about £650 per month (which we don't really have tbh).

I think dh should negotiate the payments to exw down - maybe to £450 per month (halfway). This would allow us to help with nursery costs and perhaps have a second dc (we both want one but can't afford it).

DH says he can't reduce payments as exw would tell his children he was refusing to pay for them and might stop access. I am very pissed off with this. They have several foreign holidays per year - we have none. dsc are spoilt rotten - playstations, trampolines, sky in their bedrooms. if i felt they needed the money i wouldn't suggest a reduction.

how do i handle this? i feel like dh is putting his stroppy exw before our family.

I think £580 is a lot of money per month for two teenagers considering that a 'normal wage' in this country is only 25,000 per year after tax take home about 1600/1800, if you're looking to pay 580 out to an exwife who earns more than that as a solicitor, plus has a partner sharing her house, leaving you to support your 'newwife' and child on 1020 for a month, yes I do! (if the husbands actual wage was 12,240 a year, based on the lower end of my vague calculations as it is with giving all this money to ex wife, then this puts them in the 'poverty' bracket of Mr Browns nation)
Personally I don't spend more than 150 a month on my kids, who admittedly aren't teenagers, but I don't have the money to either
£580, £290 per child is a lot of money, which the mother should be matching, so they have plenty to survive on.

So £1800 in maintenance per month plus school fees on top. Our school fees are around £1600 per month. Say yours are the same, so your DH is paying around £3400 per month.

That's a lot but you are paying it stoically. I respect that, I really do. Well done for not doing the Goneril and Regan routine

But Frizbe, you have not addressed the basic issue which is that the exH AGREED to pay a certain sum of money, which is not a lot of money really, but that is by the by, and then makes a huge financial commitment and thinks "oops" I know, lets cut the exwife's maintenance.

This is not a reasonable way to behave. It's selfish, And mean, And not just a little bit nasty,

Hi, We are in a reasonably similar position.... My husband pays a fortune to his ex and all he gets for his trouble is a lot of grief.

Anyway, if your assessment is through the CSA, then your new child will alter the arrangements. If you have a CO (as we do) I think you are stuffed. YOu would have to go back to court and the £££ involved would pretty much make that prohibative....

I think, at least, I am not an expert...

I'm with Quattro. You knew what the deal was two years ago. Your dh has both a moral and a legal duty to support his children. You both knew that when you chose to start your own family.

Not after a huge argument Quattro, but her dh hasn't made that much of a 'huge' financial commitment, he's got a house, where all the kids can have a room to themselves, which most ex wives do demand for their kids upon divorce anyway (and this is to be expected when they're opposite sex kids too) things do change, they both agreed to get divorced, he's move on, as has she, and so what if he's had more kids and his new family has to be looked after to? circumstances change, if he's run over by a bus tomorrow, she won't be getting any money for the kids, so surely a re-negotitate now shouldn't be a problem?

"circumstances change, if he's run over by a bus tomorrow, she won't be getting any money for the kids, so surely a re-negotitate now shouldn't be a problem?"

Are you being serious? Oh if I am dead they wouldn't get anything so that makes it just fine to renege upon existing commitments ...

No it doesn't make it just fine. Not at all. Please don't rationalise bad behaviour. I'd prefer it if you were like the pyjama-school-run people - I am a slob and I know I am. I'd prefer you to say honestly - "I want the money and I don't care about exw and stepchildren". That would be honest at least.

can't see how his life changing is bad behaviour that's all??? they both agreed to divorce for whatever reason? ex wives can upon divorce claim on future earnings, it doesn't seem like she did? and looks like she chose to move further away too, not a crime, but surely a re negotiation of monies, now the kids are older, don't need the extra childcare etc isn't out of the question either?

BUt Quattro, it's not about not caring. It really isn't. As I stated earlier, our circumstances have changed. Dh is literally earning 1/3 of what he used to. But his ex has consistently refused to take that into account when billing him for extras. she also ignored it when choosing schools for dsd and dss (only dss still at school now, but his fees alone are considerably more than £1600/month). She wanted her children to go to XXXX school, and the court order said dh should pay (not something he's ever disputed, and actually we ended up in court arguing to pay for dsd to go private as her state school was failing her, but ex-wife insisted she stay at state for a while longer), and she does not care that dh can not afford the schools she chose.

we have had to re-finance with dss's school, and will be paying for years after he leaves, but again, this is not something she cares about, as she has a piece of paper which states that dh should pay. It was, in hindsight, sill of him to not have it written in black and white that he should also be allowed a choice in what the money is spent on (in relation to school fees, NOT general maintenance), as he was not consulted at all, just told the choice.

We do continue to pay the frankly ridiculous amounts of money to dh's ex (why on earth would she need £900/month for a child who is a full time boarder?) despite not being able to afford it.

dd1 is disabled, and arguably needs a lot more in terms of therapies than we can give her at this time due to these high costs, but this is not ex-wife's fault. I would expect any reasonable person to care just a little though, and she could make our lives a lot easie if she didn't carry on with ridiculous demands (ie extra school trips for dss etc)

I seem to have sparked a debate. Quattro you are absolutely right that I don't care about his ex wife - why should I? But I do care about his children.

They will not be disadvantaged by this new arrangement. They are spoilt rotten and have far more than they need financially.

As for what would happen in the event of his death - we pay a considerable sum into monthly policies which will pay out maintenance monthly until they were 21 if he dies. Also another policy which will pay them a lump sum - as the house would come to me so I have a roof over my daughters head. I hardly think these are things we would have arranged if we didn't give a toss about his children.

Circumstances changing do matter. What if he lost his job? (unlikely) or became too ill to work? Or she remarried? Or she won the lottery?

I still don't know what your opinion of his remarrying is. I guess you think he shouldn't have the chance to be happy again because his first marriage ended. Fwiw his son told me at xmas that he was happy dad had a chance to have a second family, particularly now as he (dss) was doing more at weekends and visiting less. Interestingly her new bf has split from his wife and is a builder - officially he is not earning. Kids tell us it's so difficult for mum's bf as he has to support hs exw and kids . Men that work cash in hand to avoid paying maintenance are awful imo.

I can't believe how much some people are paying for their children. I guess it depends on affordability. When I met dh he was living in a rundown bungalow (which was barely fit for habitation), Dsc had to share a room. He was struggling to meet payments and had got into debt to do it. My income meant we could extend the house used my savings) and add a third bedroom. I did this so his children could have separate rooms (they were 9 and 10). We put in a new bathroom - no one would have been happy letting their children use the old one.

So I do resent the insinuation that I am trying to get him to screw over his children. I presume Quattro that you have no idea what it is like to take on stepchildren and the constant sacrifices you have to make along the way. And, yes, I knew he had kids when I met him but that doesn't prepare you for what will be involved. The role of step mother is a thankless one!

"I want the money" no - We need the money -dd's nursery is £650 per month - alternatively I don't work and we sell the house. On dh's wages, paying that level of maintenance we could afford a 2/3 bed house so dsc would be sleeping on camp beds! ExW would not be happy.

Just a point: In the event of death of a parent, any ex spouse or child has the right to challenge the will and / or estate if they are not left a sum of money equal or greater to the amount they would have received had that parent lived.

Therefore, my husband's will includes provision for his ex-wife and his children.

I do, however, have a lot of sympathy with silkcushion... Second familes have to pay a lot in child support / maintenence / school fees / private healthcare / pension etc., but still get all the hassles of extras / requiring bedrooms etc. (Both of step daughters have their own rooms in our house)

In our case, his ex wife did not work before the kids went to school and had an au pair. Now she only works part time.

I, on the other hand, will need to work full time from day 1.

But, the other side of the story is, for all her money and material possessions, she's still not happy!

I don't see a problem with re-negotiating maintenance payments when circumstances change. The CSA and the courts both recognise it.

If you dh were to have stayed married to his ex and has another 2 children with her, the first 2 children would not have had as much. There is a pot of money and that has to be shared, regardless of whether they're still together or not

He has a responsibility to provide for all of his children and I don't think its selfish for him to look at reducing the payments to his ex (provided he is still paying a reasonable amount in comparison to his earnings; which he clearly is if he is still paying more than the CSA calculate)

"I guess you think he shouldn't have the chance to be happy again because his first marriage ended."

No not at all, it sounds lovely that he has an opportunity to be happy. I do think however that our obligations to our children transcend all others really. I hate the thought that these can be shuffled off.

Frankly if second marriages suffer financially because there is a first family to maintain, that is regrettable but the first family has the prior claim, does it not? No-one has to have more children. To stop paying for (or cut down payments to) the first lot merely because you've had a second lot is not a reasonable approach IMO.

I absolutely agree that first families need to be 'maintained' - And, to be fair, Silk Cushion has never said otherwise.

It's the level of maintenence that's been discussed.

Does the 'first family' have the right to money which is simply not available? What would happen if he simply earned less?

personally, nothing would make me reduce payments to DH's ex. The cost would be prohibative (financially and emotionally) but what gets my back up is everytime WE have more money, she's right there with her hand out... Can't have it both ways, love!

And, I'm afraid my DH's XW absolutely certainly and without doubt does not expect or want him to be happy.

I agree with Tilly and Kacy. What right does an ex-wife have to demand money that is simply not there?

In our case, dh has started to earn less (this happened after we had dd1, so we could "afford" her when we planned her), but his ex has refused to take a penny less for anything, and has in fact asked for more. In her view, her 2 children should not have to make any sacrifices (not that I see having "only" 3 hlidays a year rather than 4 a sacrifice anyway, which is the kind of thing that would happen) but dd1 obviously should. She has also consistently told her 2 that dh pays a whole lot more for our dds than he does for them (I wish...)

We are unable to do anything about reducing payments, as cannot afford the court case, and also do not want the reduced contact with dsd and dss that would result.

I also do not see why it is seen as "suffering" to have a renegotiation of funds so that everyone benefits. My step children ahve not suffered because dh and I have had 2 more children. They have gained two lovely siblings, and yes, they ve lsot the ability to hve a holiday with their father as we cannot afford one (as we pay for their 4 holidays with their mother each year) but I'm not sure that that can be classed as suffering.

Nor do I see how they would actually be suffering if dh reduced maintenance payments down to CSA rate for eg. They have a wonderful home (handed over, quite rightly, mortgage free by dh upon divorce), and have had fees to some of the best schools in the country also paid. To achieve this, however, we now live in a house to which dss is ashamed to bring his friends, as it is too small and shabby. That I do class as suffering - his relationship with his father is suffering as he does not feel able to share large parts of hi life.

Money is not always the solution (a point I wish dh's ex would realise). she is doing more harm to her children by demanding more money from dh than he can afford than would be done to them by dh paying a bit less each month and allowing them to have a holiday with their father, for example.

The first family does have a prior claim but it isn't necessarily a more important claim ... I don't see why the second family should have to suffer and make sacrifices because the first family won't. There is a finite amount of money that has to be shared as equally as possible..

The ex wife would presumably want to take advantage of any change in circumstances which would result in her getting more maintenance (and rightly so) so why should a change in circumstances the other way not be considered ..?

OP - I hope the response to DH's letter is positive

have just found this discussion and thought i'd share our experience - going back to the original post where there was a worry that reducing payments could mean exw denying access.

DSD is 11, and DH went through a long period of not being allowed access, because he refused to pay the ridiculous sums of money demanded by his ex - 3x as much as he now actually pays via the CSA.

this was obviously an extremely painful situation, but IMHO better than being held to ransom. DSD demanded to see him in the end, and DH and his ex settled via the CSA. Children of the age you mention should be able to express their opinion and desire to see their father - the only reason our situation was drawn out is because DSD was still very young and couldn't make her feelings known.

in any case, the result is that the ex knows she can't ever have a financial hold over him, and our "second" family also has enough to get by on.

I therefore think the suggestion of meeting halfway is extremely reasonable. I'm sure suggesting the CSA route as an alternative would get you agreement to this

I've been thinking about this....

IMO, I actually don't think DH XW should take a cut in her money because we have a child. However, the fact that DH and I work hard and cut back on many other things should have NOTHING to do with her. She gets her money end of.

But what invariably happens is everytime she wants something, or sees that we have something, she's on the phone demanding.

She's quite happy that we should go without because she has to be 'maintained' but she's not at all happy if she thinks, even for a moment, we might have something that isn't currently covered in her 'maintenence'...

"The first family does have a prior claim but it isn't necessarily a more important claim ... I don't see why the second family should have to suffer and make sacrifices because the first family won't. There is a finite amount of money that has to be shared as equally as possible.."

I don't actually agree with that comment. Surely if you have an agreed settlement, then you should stick to it. It's like taking out a mortgage and then saying to the bank, oh well I fancy spending some more in a different area of my life so you'll have to accept less money.

It is hard on second wives to accept that there is a huge and practically unending financial commitment that will erode their own financial wellbeing, but essentially that is their choice, is it not?

It is not the first lot of children's fault that their father or mother have decided to have a second family - why should their quality of life be eroded?

Silver, your heartfelt posts are touching. A reduced income should surely be a reason for adjusting a divorce settlement. I don't think a second family should be. I believe that fathers (and over 90% of the time it is the fathers) should continue to be emotionally and financially responsible for their children.

Of course I agree with KacyB that EWs should not have a claim on subsequent good fortune either.

"It is hard on second wives to accept that there is a huge and practically unending financial commitment that will erode their own financial wellbeing, but essentially that is their choice, is it not?

It is not the first lot of children's fault that their father or mother have decided to have a second family - why should their quality of life be eroded?"

i have to disagree with this - the absent parent inevitably draws the short straw, losing their children AND a chunk of their wages - only to have someone "maintaining" a life they couldn't afford were it not for someone else's generosity

maintenance is about NEED not GREED - that is food, shelter and clothing. If enough is paid for a lifestyle beyond this, the other party should be grateful. If the parent with the children wants a private education, holidays abroad etc etc and it is not covered by 15% maintenance calculated by the CSA then they should pay for them out of their own pocket. These things are not god given rights and not agreeing to pay for them does not = not taking responsibility

this was exactly the issue we had with DH's ex - she wanted huge sums for school fees. Well, we don't believe in private education for our kids, so if she wants this she has to fund it herself.

people are entitled to move on and change their finances accordingly. The amount stipulated by the CSA is what's fair and square in the eyes of the law, and anyone receiving above this should be very happy

plus, it's not like the cost of DSCs is limited to this monthly payment - we for one spend a small fortune on my DSD when she stays with us and we take her on holidays etc too

It is NOT generosity to maintain your children.

It is an OBLIGATION.

In my view, a primary obligation.

There is a finite amount of money that has to be shared as equally as possible

How can you not agree with that comment? Of course the father should contribute to his first family (although mine never did), however circumstances change, at no point did the OP say that they was going to stop paying his ex, just that they needed to reduce payments. The ew upped the original agreement to suit her needs (after school childcare) but then forgot to mention when that extra money was no longer needed so has had more that was agreed on for quite a while now.

I don't think it should be shared as equally as possible, no.

I happen to earn more than my DH. Let's hypothesise, and say the marriage breaks down, I leave him with custody of the DCs, and agree to pay maintenance of £3k per month, entirely hypothetically.

Let's say I meet someone else, we are happy, and I want to set up home with him. A big expense. Let's say I want to have more children. Another big expense.

Would I be justified in cutting the maintenance payment to my DCs just because I had taken on additional responsibilities that I couldn't really afford?

I don't think so.

So if I can't afford more than 1 DC with my new husband, then that's the way it should stay, no?

I really don't see why the second wives should bring the standard of living of the first wives into it. I understand the envy and even the bitterness, but surely that's the deal?

yes, it is an obligation to maintain your children - and the amount the CSA calculate covers this obligation. I'm all for taking responsibility, as I said in my post above

anything beyond the basic CSA payment is generosity/kind heartedness/decency - whatever you want to call it, but it is NOT obligatory

therefore reducing excessive payments because they are no longer affordable is perfectly fair enough. Any decent ex partner would agree with this and be amicable about it.

money should be shared round equally - not dished out in favour of a first family and a load of grief at the expense of a new family, which has the potential for a happy future