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.)

Judges are a lot more reluctant to order spousal maintenance now but when they do they are still too lenient on the recipient. No one needs more than a year to get a job, so that should be the maximum term for spousal maintenance except where there is a case for compensation in my opinion. If someone has never had a career and they still can't be bothered to get oen then I don't see why it should be their ex's problem if they face undue hardship.

What if the earning partner had been abusive? Controlling? Squandered all the family money? The partner who didn't work wasn't allowed to work or all her / his money was taken?

There are so many variable to consider in each case. It's hardly ever straightforward.

If the partner wasn't allowed to work then it would be a compensation case. Anything else would be a criminal rather than civil matter.

If one partner made all the money because the other refused to work and then squandered it during divorce, I think that's just hard luck really.

How many actually refuse to work? Do you know?

I would certainly say there are more SAHPs insisting they cannot work than there are SAHPs mutually agreeing with a partner that it is what they both want. As for those forced not to work, compared to the other two groups I would guess it barely registers statistically.

Perhaps a fair way going forward would be that the presumption should be that it was not a mutual decision unless there is a pre-nup evidencing it?

How would you come to that conclusion then? About how many? Just your feeling?

Absolutely this.

Once your kids are past needing direct supervision type care (basically primary) then calling yourself a "sahm" is pretty laughable. In fact once they are at school, implying you're at home all day because you're a mum is lame.

Housewife at best. Unemployed is more accurate.

I didn't work with DTwins from the moment I found out I was expecting, they started school recently and I got a little part time job. We've already decided it's just nicer for both of us when I don't work. But that's what I'll be going back to when I hand my notice in, not working. I'm not doing childcare, let's not dress it up because I prefer being unemployed. DH is high earner so it's not really worth me doing my job for the money, and I'm just finding less time to make nice meals from scratch, run the household for all of us, so I'll be unemployed as of next year.

If we divorced, what the actual fuck is pretending I'm a sahm and trying to get him to pay for it? Solely to get a pay out. All our kids are at school. What's he paying me to sit round the house for? Doesn't benefit them, or him. Just me trying it on being bone idle under the facade of "ohhhh it's better for the children".

@LePetitMaman I agree. I think at the very least people should realise when they divorce and they are on their own, they become the breadwinner for their household. Winning that bread by demanding handouts from an ex when there is plenty of time for them to work in the day is just not on. What happened when a couple was together is over and running two households costs more than one.

Forcing a couple to remain tied financially because one doesn't feel like working in this day and age is ridiculous. Don't feel like working? Then learn to go without. That's where divorce law should head.

I don't know why you're sealioning me about numbers. It's not like you are any better placed to put a number on it. In fact, you're the one making bogus theories about people not being able to work or needing handouts, so why don't you put a number on it?

You’re all arguing among yourselves. The op won’t be back because a she’s embarrassed b she’s shocked at how bad her writing style came across c she’s not real. So cool your beans people.

@ShinyShona I haven't made any 'bogus' theories about anything.

All I have said is

1. It's nobody's business what divorce settlements are made. It's between individuals who have made those decisions and

1. There are more complexities as to why people don't work full or part time rather than they just can't be arsed to.

It's you who claims sweeping generalizations about why people do or don't work.

I was merely questioning the authenticity of your claims. Which you don't like. Because it's based on your feelings. Or the sheer number of divorces you've witnessed that you've "lost count" where one partner cannot be arsed to work. Whatever. 🙄

If you can't back up what you're saying with facts then maybe don't say anything?

Rather there can be more complexities as to why people work or work part time.

You're projecting now dearie. You are the one who is getting aggressive when challenged. It is evident that you really don't like people questioning you.

Not aggressive in the least.

Merely flagging up no sense when I see it.

All the best

OP, you sound like a great woman whom has worked very hard.

Do not be derailed by this man.
He is a financial disaster and honestly do not allow yourself to be his pension plan.

My friend in her 50's was seeing a man with two children late teens for 3 years, living separately.

When the youngest turned 18 he signed the family home, morgage free, over to his ex wife unbeknown to her.

It was none of her business until it came out that now his youngest was off to university he thought it would be a perfect time to move in with her.

Thats when it came out that he thought it made sense he give up his rental and move in with her.
Big mistake.
When she heard his "plan" she was incensed that she was now his housing plan going forward.

He was genuinely stunned when she shut him down that it wasn't happening and a couple of days later having thought about it more, finished completely with him.

She had zero intention of being conveniently used, her, or her home.

You would be absolutely mad to be subbing him and his lifestyle because he has changed his priorities.

Do not be used.
You deserve better.

Whatever you say. I mean, who am I to dare to disagree with you?

@Sunnings good for her. Cheeky twat.

Child maintenance is only legal for 1 year, in the consent order, and then CMS recalculate based on nights and income. It can remain forever if nobody speaks to CMS for recalculation, it's shitty as the standard of life is going to dramatically change, and ex will gripe and likely weaponise with children, but he also has no obligation to pay for any of those extras if he doesn't have the funds to (morally is another thing) but he can't give what he can't have.

Spousal maintenance or global maintenance (mixed spousal and child maintenance) will need an application to family court to vary.

Just to add, it is generally advisable these days to refuse to agree to spousal or global maintenance. It is very unlikely to be awarded by a court nowadays for various reasons.

If a judge orders it, doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. And however unlikely it is to be ordered, it is not an impossibility with high earners and an ex who will struggle to work - think caring responsibilities as a starting point.

A judge will be very reluctant to order it in a "normal" divorce without either an extremely high earner, a disabled child or a couple very close to retirement.

In other cases, at the very least, by refusing right up to a final hearing the payer can at least be satisfied that the recipient will have spent more in legal fees than they are likely to get in SM. I think that can be psychologically important where the recipient doesn't really deserve maintenance.

I think he should run run run. You do not express any joy or love for him or his children. Were you the reason he left his wife?

Agreed!

It sounds like you are in way over your head with someone who expects to prioritise his money as he sees fit and have you pick up the slack.
If he wants his children to have all these activities then he needs to work to pay for them- just like any parent.
For him that probably means sacking the MBA for now, or cutting back his maintenance which I can guarantee should be a lot less than he is paying given he has the kids 50/50.

It’s time for you to set some boundaries and expectations OP.

But one day consulting does cover his financial responsibilities... He pays his mortgage, bills and provides for his children
What it doesn't cover is the extras that OP wants to do, and if he's willing to give up Nandos and the cinema for a year to fund his MBA then that's up to him, it's his money. I don't see anywhere that he has asked OP to fund anything for him