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.

And agree that ex w's financial position is NONE of your business. £580 is not a lot of money for 2 children a month. I'd like to see anyone house, feed, clothe and educate 2 on that. As you acknowledge, it's less than your own nursery fees for one baby.

er, we object to 3 pairs of shoes because dh's ex gets £1800/month to pay for exactly that. And my point wa that it wasn't simply an oversight (which happens to everyone, occasionally) but on three separate occasions last year, dss was unable ot physically get his feet into shoes, which he had told his mother, and she had deemd that it was too soon to buy new shoes, as he'd only had them for a couple of months - the poor boy couldn't help growing fast.

We did not objec to dss (would be grossly unfair). we did grumble between ourselves as it was an expense we couldn't afford given the astronomical amount f money we pay to dh's ex.

I thought it was £580 a month? Where does the £1800 come from?

it's been a long thread, I'm not OP...

Ohhhhh, I'm sorry, I got you confused, sf, sc, apologies. I thought the shoes thing was the op, sorry, I was misunderstanding all over the place!

WWW raises an interesting point, and I'd like to hear what the second wives on the thread think about this.

How would you feel if the first wife had another child, with someone else, and renegotiate the maintenance agreement on the basis that her costs had gone up.

Do you feel that this is acceptable?

If you feel that this is NOT acceptable, then why do you think that it is acceptable to go back and renegotiate if YOUR costs have gone up?

KacyB's posts have been both fair and logically consistent on this point.

WWW - she hasn't dealt with all the holidays - they have always had the children for half the holidays each.

I just don't understand how you all think exw's financial situation is irrelevant. DH's income is her business but why isn't her income (salary and otherwise) relevant? She has not had to sacrifice her career at all - quite rightly so.

I think the problem with this thread is we will never agree. If you are a first wife you will always think in one way and a second wife will think differently. I guess really we ought to drop it because nobody going to convince anyone else of their point of view. Thank you all for your comments (opposing mine or not) they are food for thought.

I'd be still interested to hear an answer to the question though, Silk.

The key reason I believe a renegotiation is reasonable is because he has been paying over the odds for years.

She made him pay a huge proportion of his income at a time when he was trying to set up a new home (so his children could see him, as she'd moved away it needed to be overnight access), he was also paying for all the travelling to pick them up (and still does) and he had them half of every school holiday. He was always prepared to look after them after school and if they were off ill. She moved away and prevented the same level of contact (which devastated him) and stopped herself having the same level of support (childcare etc).

She renegotiated more money when she decided to move away to live closer to her boyfriend. Perhaps dh should have told her to piss off then cos it was her decision. ut he didn't he paid up an extra £200 per month for childcare. She took them out of after school club when they were in year 6 and 7 (without discussing it with him) because she wanted to take them skiing instead and the extra money would pay for it. She has never offered to reduce payments when she didn't need this extra cash anymore - so, frankly, sod her Quattro.

She's changed it all to suit her over the years and he has been screwed in every possible way - losing his kids, getting in debt. And she was the one who ended the marriage (through being unfaithful).In what way do you think my dh is irresponsible? Cos I just can't see it. (I know I'm biased).

Like I say, despite all of this, I would never suggest a renegotiation if I felt the children would be disadvantaged in any way. But she can afford to maintain a good lifestyle even with a reduction.

I'm not very good at ending this thread am I?

Silk I am not divorced, I was just trying to present what I thought was the other side of the case.

You asked me "In what way do you think my dh is irresponsible?"

And I haven't reread the thread but I can't imagine that I did say that your DH was irresponsible. And yes I do think it is lovely that he has a chance to be happy.

The only point I have made consistently is that he has a pre-existing financial commitment that he should honour.

I didn't understand many of Jammi's points but she did say that "children have TWO parents, a mother and a father, they are both responsible for bringing them up and paying for them" I agree with that - don't we all?

The thing is, I still don't think it's a lot of money to bring up 2 children. The actual costs are almost certainly more than 2 x £580 a month. So he is paying half or towards half and I can't see how that's unfair.

If dh and I split up and he kept the children I'd have to pay him maintenance for them and I would have absolutely no problem at all with that. Really. So I don't think it's one rule for a woman and another for a man not at all.

my dp was financially drained by his ex every which way she could before i fell pregnant with our ds. There were calls every 4-6 weeks for new school shoes, school trips, school uniform, p.e kit, mobile phone top up etc. Not content with the fact that when she wanted dss to have a mobile phone it was me that bought it not her. We would regularly get calls to say dss had lost his p.e kit, ruined his trainers, worn his school shoes for the entire HALF TERM ffs and now needed new ones. Not content with a decent looking pair of shoes we were held to ransom, clarkes or do wouldn't be able to see dss.

Having been a single parent I know it can be hard financially BUT i lived a life within my means, i didn't rely on anyone else to support me. DS1's sperm donor has never given me a penny towards him....actually thats a lie he once gave me £2 towards a pair of shoes. It is only the last couple of yrs I went to the csa and gave Sperm donors details, the result? he gave up his job so still pays nothing. Yet still my ds1 is not suffering because of this.

I guess i wouldn't have had such a problem with the monies given to dp's ex IF she had not been paying for holidays or off on holiday coincidently 2 or 3 days before these shoes etc were needed, a bit too close for comfort as far as i was concerned.

However now we have ds2 dp pays £100 a month to the ex and she is happy with that if she isn't then tough, we have 2 other children to consider.

The feeling I find a bit worrying about this whole thread is that those who are opposed to renegotiating maintenance under any circumstances seem to think that the chilren from the first marriage have a "better" claim on any finances than the children from the second (or subsequent) marriage.

I have already said that I think fathers have a duty to keep up maintenance payments, as agreed at an appropriate level. FWIW, ex-wives also have a duty to state their costs at an appropriate level too, and I would also go as far as to say that they have a duty to spend it in the children's best interests (re: our shoe saga last year, not the only time similar has happened)

We could afford our children when we had them. Our situation has now changed - in more than one way - dh's job has changed and we have nowhere near as much money coming in, dh's ex has upped the costs by choosing one of the most expensive schools on the country for dss (a situation very possibly linked to knowledge of job change), and dd1 is needing more and more expensive treatments (and this does affect dsd and dss, as they want the best for their sister too, I suspect if we asked them whether they would prefer to go skiing 3 times this year or only go twice and give dd1 a chance to talk, they would choose the speech therapy option. But it is not a question we would ask)

Dh now has 4 children. Fact. All 4 of those children were born at a time when they could be afforded, and they would all have had an equal share of finances (ie we had as much money to spend as we are currenlty paying to dh's ex)if the situation had not changed. all 4 of those children are still entitled to an equal share of whatever finances are going. Dsd and dss are not entitled to a larger share because they were born into a first marriage. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to renegotiate maintenance now.

In fact, were we to go back to court to change the order, we would most likely win. It is not worth the ill will from dh's ex, though, or the confusion and upset that it would create for dsd and dss, and so we continue in a situation that is not satisfactory.

No one is completley happy.

Dh's ex isn't happy, as she still thinks that dh has not "paid" enough for leaving (he did not, by the way, leave her for me, or in fact, for anyone, the marriage just slowly broke down).

Dh is not happy as he cannot afford to maintain a lifestyle that his children are comfortable to bring their friends into. It cannot be nice to be continually faced with the fact that your children think your house and lifestyle are shabby, or that they choose not to come on holiday with you because the holiday is not interesting enough.

Dsd and dss are not entirely happy because, although they have everyhting they could wish for in monetary terms, they do not feel able to fully share their lives with dh. they comparmentalise everything, because there is no way that dss would bring his friends form school to our lowly 4 bed semi, with a bathroom from circa 1970 and kitchen to match. It is sad that he is ashamed of us, but he is.

To answer your question Quattro, yes we would pay for more things for dsd if her mum's circumstances changed, and have done. She's had one child since dsd and is currently pregnant. Her household income is complicated in that there should be 5 fathers (inc new baby's dad) paying into it (and I suspect that dh is the only one who does), so what we do is make sure dsd has everything she needs, on the basis that whatever we would do within our budget for dd we will do for dsd.

The way I'm reading it Silk's situation is that silk's dh's x's circumstances did change when she chose to move away and lost her free childcare from silk and her dh (not that being with one's parent is childcare). At that stage he upped his payments. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so now his circumstances has changed the payments should be reviewed. It wasn't him who reneged on the agreement.

What I think is despicable is the way some women hold their children to ransom, and fathers can only see them if they play ball and do everything the mother says.

And what I find really sad, silk, is that you would love another child and can't at the moment, and that must be really hard for you [hug].

I don't feel that children from early relationships have a "better" claim on their fathers' money but, surely, having had those children, their fathers have to take supporting them financially into account when deciding to have subsequent children. It's no use saying, "But I'd really like more kids" when they have responsibilities that they can barely afford to meet to their original children and hoping that their exes will understand. (And no, I am not divorced nor do I or dh have any children apart from those we have had together.)

Silk, I too find it sad that you would love another child and can't. We are in a similar position because of the financial and time constraints that we have.

It's ironic that my DH and I would both love more but there is a cost implication that would have an adverse impact on our DCs lifestyle so we have decided not to.

Silver I am so sorry about your stepchildren being ashamed of your house. I do think that education should be something that both parents agree on. It's an awful situation for you all.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that "FWIW, ex-wives also have a duty to state their costs at an appropriate level too, and I would also go as far as to say that they have a duty to spend it in the children's best interests".

Acutally I've just realised that I too would have had another child if dh hadn't already had dsd. But I wouldn't want to be without dsd, and she's a lovely step-daughter and a fantastic sister to dd.

Obviously this is a very emotive issue but, as an exw myself, it is interesting to note that the exw is being vilified in the same way that someone early on mentioned stepmums are too (generally wicked, offering poisoned fruit etc...). There really does seem to be an us and them culture (possibly because all of the stepfamilies and ex's who get on don't need to post on here?!!) I just wonder how productive this is at the end of the day as it may be that a simple grown up discussion between dh here and exw may result in amicable resolution? I think that sometimes the problems begin when the exw believes she is being "told" what will happen, rather than being included in the discussion - she may be reasonable (she might not!!).

In my situation, my ex pays over the CSA calc until our ds starts school, at which point I will retrain and maintenance reduces to CSA figure. My ex has moved on and had a new baby. He has not attempted to reduce my payments in light of this, and my feeling is that both he and his gf were aware of his existing financial commitments when they chose to buy a house and have a baby together. Whether it is convenient or not, he did commit to a marriage to me and to having our son first. Whilst I appreciate that things change, our son's need for clothing and food will not alter. Having said that, the terms of our CO are that if I live with a new partner for 6 months then my ex will get his % of the house, which I think is fair...(am not quite sure why OP's exw's does not have to contribute in all of this??-May have missed that bit!).

Anyway, observation over (fully expect to get shot down in flames...!!)

I think in this case Fluffy, there was a set amount of maintenance agreed.

Dad was the carer for them after school.

ExW moves, children need to go into childcare after school as she's now too far away from Dad for him to have them.

Dad increases the maintenance payments so that they can go to after school club.

Mum takes them out of after school club and they go home themselves, so no childcare needs to be paid for.

Dad doesn't decrease the payments.

However, now silkcushion would love another child but can only do so if the payments are reduced back to what they were agreed at.

They're afraid to broach the subject because if they do the ExW will stop them children seeing their Dad.

It's not a case of him moving on and having a second family and taking money away from the first family. It's a case of wanting to go back to the original agreement as the additional amount he agreed to pay is no longer required.

I hope I got that right .

You're quite right what should happen is that the two parties should be able to sit down and discuss and agree things between them. But the reality is that in many cases it doesn't work like that. If it did it the Family Courts wouldn't be so busy.

I do think that the children from the first marriage do have a primary claim as they are an existing commitment.

My ex has always fiddled his maintence but he used to pay £470 a month for dd. It then reduced to about £270 when he decided to make life changes without thinking if that would affect dd.

He now has a new partner and a child and one on the way , he pays £10 a week which I don't take from him for a variety of reasons. In my opinion as he could not afford to support the child he had he should not have had another, simple really. When my ex's partner met ex she should have accpeted that until his finances sorted themselves out there would be mp children. Just as my dp who has no natural children of his own has accepted that he is very unlikely to have children of his own and one of the reasons for that is I cannot afford to stop working.

M

I am not speaking as a bitter ex wife either just stating the facts.

I have accepted the new children are there, infact we have just given my ex a car to make his life easier and help out with clothes and toys as well as taking sole responsibility for clearing a debt from ourt marraige as I know my ex can't pay it.

I am in the situation where my ex and his wife have just had a baby and know that they will have been on the phone quicker than lightening to the CSA. Whilst I know that all the children have to be taken into consideration I'm going to find it very difficult having a sudden drop in my payments. Ultimately my Dc's will suffer because I am not going to be able to afford to pay for some things ie after school clubs, swimming lessons etc.

hi, i am also a first wife and a second wife, so i can see both sides. However, my xh pays me £40 per week for four children, cant afford to buy them birthday and christmas presents etc. However, he buys his new wifes three children and grand child what ever they like, and can afford to take them abroad every year.

My now husband pays his xp £100 per wk yet she is on phone every other day, i need this for our daughter i need that.

The way i see it, my children are onto a looser. I agree my h should pay for his daughter, but, my x should also share amongst his children/step children equally. He just happened not to remember to tell his own kids he was going away. It slipped his mind apparently.