DP suddenly broke - can I grumble?

[Stepmumptsd]

My DP, formerly a somewhat high-earning professional who one would generously consider middle aged, is broke.

This is 100% self-inflicted.

He has started an MBA ( 20 years older than most on the course) and cut his work to one day consulting a week.

And now we cannot go out for dinner anymore.

DP is in finance (like me) and beyond the age where extra letters after his name would propel him towards the C-suite. He will most likely enjoy his course then return to his former director level job or similar with impressive new Powerpoint skills.

But I thought his career break was a nice idea, until he told me that he is broke.

I was not sure this was true, so we looked at his budget. He's broke.

He has enough savings to fund his course, pay his mortgage, pay his nanny, buy food for himself and the kids and run the car. And also to keep paying his non-mortgaged ex wife her court-ordered absolutely flabbergasting monthly maintenance as well as the substantial list of extras the exw, I just learned, is billing DP for monthly.

These comprise: children's clothes, clubs, extra curricular sports, holiday camps, school uniforms, tuition, therapists, school dinners, mobile phone, pocket money, horse riding, birthday parties, football shoes and LEGO.

They have the children 50-50. The exw works part time but does not need to and does not pay for childcare because of generous parents. The 50-50 was agreed by exw after fantabulous maintenance was secured. Lol.

I don't live with DP so am not directly affected by his brokeness exactly.

But we do share a life and a lifestyle. And pre-brokeness it was a nice one. Dinners out a couple of times a month. A foreign holiday together once a year. Taking both sets of kids to plays and musicals at weekends. We always went Dutch. I always knew the exw was richer than me because she worked very hard in court for several months to prove her womb was golden and I worked in offices for 25 years so as not to rely on an ex husband, but I didn't mind as my lifestyle was the same as before I met DP.

But now DP is broke it is going to cost me.

When I fancy sharing a bottle of plonk and fish and chips at home, I will have to buy it.

When we have mutual friends over for a meal, I will have to buy the food.

When my child is in a play and wants DP and his kids to come, I will be buying all five tickets.

This is probably an AIBU but I put it on step parents because I am a step parent in all but living arrangement - DP and I shift nomadically between our two homes depending on which kids we have when.

And yet when it comes to having a say on finances, I am feeling nothing like a partner and very like a girlfriend who may have just sleepwalked into buying meals for a geriatric student who is paying for his exw to summer in Tuscany.

I am asking myself whether:

I should've been consulted ahead of the MBA decision with fully discussing the finances?

I should have realised he was paying over the odds for child stuff?

I should ask DP to review this now or to vary his maintenance order in court? (He will say the exw will respond by pulling the kids out of activities and not buying them shoes.)

I should resign as quasi step parent on the basis I should not have responsibility for DP's kids when I have such little agency over how we live our joint lives?

I should merrily commit all my disposable income to myself and get a season ticket to Champneys, leaving DP at home to eat Pot Noodle?

I should join his student lifestyle, learn to love Pot Noodle again and clear my mortgage early? (Quite like thiis idea actually, lemons into lemonade.)

Someone obviously touched a nerve! I guess you're a dependent who refuses to work? Was acceptable in the 1970s, not so much now.

@ShinyShona ahem, I work thank you.

Assumptions much?

Since you clearly don’t like him very much op, just dump him.

@ShinyShona but I think different families and couple work out what is best for them. Regardless of what is deemed acceptable in 1970s or now.

So it's often case by case and different strokes for different folks abd to be disparaging and actually downright nasty about what couples agree to is obnoxious.

He could apply to the court to vary the maintenance based on his change in income. He also doesn't have any legal obligation to pay bills his ex sends each month.

My ex just stopped paying the court agreed maintenance after a year. I looked into it and decided the best way to get any maintenance from him was to apply to the CMS.

It is his choice to do an MBA. Couldn't you live a bit more simply for a year and save some money or pay some of your mortgage off? It's not forever.

My new DH and I lived separately for 5 years. I was working part-time and also did an MSC part-time as a single parent and didn't have much money. He enjoyed our simple lifestyle and got himself into a good position financially in those 5 years.

It used to be acceptable to allow the weaker financial party to get away with this because most of the judges were men with wives at home who had done all the childcare during their successful legal careers. Suffice to say, they were utterly clueless of the work involved and wouldn't dare order a housewife to work!

Nowadays, it's much more likely the judge is from a household where both parents work and use childcare. They normally have a much better idea of how much work is involved with children (0-5 lots; 5-11 quite a bit; 11-18 doable around a full time job) and settlements have become more realistic as a result.

You still get weaker parties trying it on because they think divorce still works like it did 20 years ago or they think it works like it does in the USA. Sometimes - as in your case - the ex capitulates to silly demands. Normally though, the only thing greedy exes get is a fat legal bill and a telling off from the judge!

Well, it seemed a fair assumption as you seem a rather keen advocate of the workshy?

Now, when you say you work, do you mean as in making an effort to maximise your earning capacity or as in working the bare minimum in order to still get pocket money from an ex?

@shinyshona Workshy? Gosh you do make assumptions about a whole lot of people being "workshy".

Stop being ridiculous.

I don't agree. What couples agreed when they were married should become irrelevant when they divorce. Except in clear cases for compensation (where a spouse can prove that they have given up a lucrative career) then maintenance should be limited to a reasonable timeframe to get them back to a position they would have been in had they not married minus any assets that they have been awarded over and above what they could reasonably have accumulated themselves.

To use an extreme example, a shelf stacker at Tesco who marries a banker on £500k a year, gives up work then divorces should only be awarded maintenance until they can resume their job as a shelf stacker. And if that shelf stacker walks away with a lot of assets, say £1m, that maintenance should not happen on the grounds that they are already a lot better off than they would have been from their own efforts. In contrast, where there are two bankers earning £500k a piece and one gives up work, there should be a much stronger case for spousal maintenance.

In reality, the former is much more common than the latter, which I think is wrong.

Sorry, where I'm from, people who refuse to work are called workshy. What are they called in your neck of the woods?

@ShinyShona 😂 I'm not disputing the definition of workshy.

Dearie me.

Who knows if the ex wife in this case is workshy or not. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. Nobody else's business though, is it? It's between her and her ex husband and what they have agreed.

Regardless of what you personally think divorce settlements should look like. And regardless of what the op thinks either.

Of course it is other people's business. For many years, settlements that were unfair to the higher earner were the order of the day. People were being locked into jobs they no longer wanted to do in order to fund an ex who refused to work. Society has an interest in being vigilant and preventing a return to those kind of settlements.

Also, if someone enters a relationship with someone, they are well within their rights to be annoyed if the person they are in a relationship with is being taken advantage of by someone who is behaving like a kidult dependent. If I entered into a relationship with someone being abused like that (because, in my opinion, refusing to work and collecting maintenance ought to be an acknowledged form of economic abuse) I would want to help them cut the ties with the abuser.

A divorced SAHM is no more work shy than a married one.

If the higher earner perceives an intrinsic value of a SAHP, that value to their children still exists after divorce. If the financial position allows for it, there is no reason for this situation to change as long as both parties agree.

It seems the DP grumbles about the situation as we all grumble about our bills. But he isn’t so unhappy with the situation that he wants to change it.

He is an intelligent man who knows what his legal obligations and options are. The only reason he hasn’t varied the arrangement is because deep down he is comfortable with the situation. Providing for his children - and his ex by extension - is his priority over a social life.

I get that OP is pissed that her life has been curtailed by his reduced income. But I think the real issue that he is showing clearly that his priority and loyalty aren’t with the new relationship and this has OP questioning their future and her importance in his life.

OP is a classic gold digger once the money has dried up so has the 'love'. Calling him a 'geriatric student' 😳 O please!

You are clearly jealous of his ex, and just because you didn't get maintainence from the father of your children does not mean that all men should give the minimum to their own children in favour of treating the latest shag

You don't love this man and was just hoping to enjoy some of the money you saw him lavishing on his family

Deep down he realised this about you hence spending wisely on himself and children rather than someone whose passions are fleeting depending on whether he can pay for evenings out etc

The ex wife probably loved him at a point, seemingly supported him to get to where he is career wise and the smart woman was sensible in ensuring that she got a decent settlement as part of her divorce rather than allowing the 'vultures' to pick at everything they built together

Ladies learn from the ex!

@unmp I agree that it is inanity for women to tear other women down because they got a good deal from their wealthy ex. Surely every mum should be aiming for stability and continuity and financial security for their children?

Exactly!

Something you might want to consider is how guaranteed DP is of employment after he finishes his MBA or has he taken a sabbatical? This scenario may not be as short lived as he thinks if getting another job doesn't happen and that is in no way guaranteed. I would think about your position on all this over a much longer period than just the MBA duration. DP has taken decisions without considering the impact on you and you are equally able to do the same. It's more fundamental than nice meals out and holidays.

@ShinyShona you have an extremely simplistic view.

This x100.

It seems to be working for them. You are the odd one out. I'd find someone whose lifestyle aligned with mine.

Now, when you say you work, do you mean as in making an effort to maximise your earning capacity or as in working the bare minimum in order to still get pocket money from an ex?

what does that even mean? there is no legal precedent on 'men must give their ex's money if they work for a few hours a week', is there?

If a judge has ordered spousal maintenance to be paid, there is a reason for that. Child maintenance relates to the children of a former partnership. Ex partner's don't give pocket money.

The OP is being a tad disingenuous here. The nanny was her suggestion* *as per previous posts... she's also not exactly getting zero out of the relationship. She herself admits that that "He does all my DIY and buys wonderful gifts."- surely its worth supporting him for a year in return for all he has done to try and make her happy?

Relationships are give and take. From the OPs previous threads she has introduced a host of conditions, compromises and and changes to help her adjust to the blended family dynamic, which her DP has agreed to, now he wants some support for only a year and she's declaring him broke (he isn't) and resents any compromise to help him to do what he wants.

Between her demands, and keeping his ex and children happy, there seems to be very little time or thought given to his wellbeing. Him wanting to go back to university (or 'hayooniversity' as the OP so dismissively and condescendingly referred to it) could be a manifestation of him wanting a simpler life and less stress for a year. Surely in a supportive relationship with no huge financial issues this could be facilitated without so much nastiness and resentment.

The OP’s username tells you all our need to know about how she feels about his kids and ex: @Stepmumptsd

The reduced income is just the last straw for her resentment.

So do you. What's your point?

You keep saying that but this theory that higher earners are actually happy about their partner staying at home is bogus. Look at the ages of the children when couples like this get divorced; I have lost count of the number of divorces I have seen when the main earner initiates it because they get fed up of their partner pushing out the date they will go back to work further and further.

Yes they should. By setting a good example and getting a job!