Husbands ExPartner and mother of his kids

sonsbear

These aren't blanket decisions about what you would or wouldn't take if your partner set up home with someone else leaving you and his children in the sh*t. We all come to this from different perspectives.

I bet when push comes to shove that wouldn't be true anyway. Most of us believe we would be more reasonable than the rest of the population - until it happens to us and then it might just happen in such a way that you decide to fight. And why should the children lose out? Or the ex partner? You might be happy to live like that and you seem to take pride in it but why should your children and why should I?

Working 3 jobs, getting by, knackering your body and spirit and neglecting your children, possibly producing damaged children might sound romantic to some but not to me. And I accept that isn't true of all families in this position I want my kids to grow up to be whole people, contributing in all ways to society - financially, socially, etc so I and my husband of 18 years made the choices we believed to be right at the time.

Circumstances vary from family to family and therefore things have to be divided fairly into each family taking account of everything. Circumstances doesn't just mean financial it can mean practical eg my neighbour has to travel several miles by car each day to pick up her child from school. That severely restricts the jobs she can take - most of which are low paying anyway because although she has a degree she is:

a) 49
b) her child has mild educational needs and therefore needs extra help
c) she has been out of the workforce for 14 years
d) the kind of hours she can work are severely restricted due to her circumstances.

Very often two people agree that one person will stay at home looking after the children (because they both believe that is best for their children's welfare or to save the huge expenses of childcare or both. The both must know and accept that the homemaker (male or female) will be severely disadvantaged if they later split up. It is completely unrealistic for both parties not to be fully aware of this.

What no one plans for (including me or my ex) is that you will break up. In my case my ex cajoled me into giving up work so we'd have 'quality time' and he didn't want to pay childcare, home help, etc. I didn't need to work, etc. His pension he said was so good I didn't even need to worry about that. Added to which he was a born again christian. So peeps don't make the mistake of believing they have strong moral or religious beliefs. Mine discovered !!!!!! and tarts when he hit middle age. Other blokes get motorbikes.

Just because one partner works everyone wonders why s/he should give up a large proportion of their money. The other partner has worked blooming hard unpaid looking after the worker, the children and making the house a home. That takes a great deal of time and effort and if you have to pay someone to look after your home and your children and you it would cost you a fortune. One partner does it for nothing in order to make sure the family has a good start and everyone is well looked after and it was a joint decision. Very often the working partner is the one who suggests it.

My employment was terminated in a 30 second conversation for a tart he'd known 8 weeks. I had no notice, no redundancy pay and no pension. So, yes, I'm mad.

The left behind homemaker then has to do all the work around the house, look after the children, work and they have to manage often on very tiny budgets. Obviously an adjustment must be accepted but why is that right just because a relationship has ended one partner is virtually reduced to poverty? They kept their side of the bargain.

Meanwhile, the ex partner has a career, has a partner with a job (so two incomes), a pension and goes on holiday, has none of the work after work and none of the stress that children inevitably bring apart from a few hours at the weekend. S/he can choose what they do with their spare time after work and has a better standard of living. Probably has new partner doing all the housework as well.

My husband and his partner live pretty well - have had a holiday and several weekend breaks, both spotted having massages last week, spent a lot on socialising but would begrudge me the cost of a cinema ticket, have nice things in their house, nice clothes to wear and moans (as does the woman he left me for) that they don't have enough money! They both have an income so can afford to. I now have a low paid, boring, part time job which has meant I have to pay for childcare, etc. Not what I believe was best for our children and nor did he. The school uniform has nearly crippled me.

I feel very strongly that I'm left to do all the work, I'm financially in a tight position. We had plans for our future up until last year and I feel I have worked extremely hard for that future and now someone else has walked off with it. I am facing a very poor retirement if any. Why is that right? All this aside from the emotional aspects of it all.

My husband has a very good job and he has that job because he was able to travel and work all the hours he needed to because I was bringing up the rear. If I had been working and we had agreed that childcare was the right thing for our children, etc he would not be in the position he is in now. Most nurserys shut at 6pm and he would have had to take his turn picking the kids up, taking sick days, attending doctors, hospital, dentists appointments, cooking from scratch all those meals he so wanted, doing the garden so he could relax in it with his glass of wine, running the taxi for himself as well as the children, the list is endless. And none of which he did.

Children are not cheap to bring up or easy and it normally falls on only one person's shoulders when two people were involved in the decision making. One walks away from the agreement and the vast majority of the work.

Fine if you want to live apart but make sure the money is fair not just to get by on or that the ex has a bleak future having based his or her choices on a joint agreement. Split the work too. Although I can't see my ex doing some chores either for me or the new partner. Above all it should be fair in all aspects.

If you marry or form a relationship with someone with family think twice before you do it because you must surely know that it will affect you and your finances. And think twice before you start a second family because I for one do not see why the first family should lose out to the second one or the second partner. You chose to have a relationship (and possibly start a family) with someone who already had commitments. It is therefore up to you to accept a lower standard of living and stop moaning about it.

It was your choice so if you want sympathy from me about the ex-family you're sadly mistaken. You should have had more sense.

I have made some large generalisations here because I can't cover every circumstance. I know there are good reasons for some marriages breaking up and I know too that there are some absolute money grabbing ex partners of both sexes. There are just as many extremely selfish and money grabbing second wives too.

I'm putting a specific case because a lot of second wives (not all) seem to think that they should come first. In my opinion, no you shouldn't and you should have applied a bit of common sense before you got involved with a man who had a family. I'm not suggesting you broke his family up either. But, he should look after his commitments first and you second.

You want to think carefully too about what will happen to you and your children should you split up because you could be in my shoes soon. You might not like them.

Dancing_Shoes

I can see that it is all still very raw for you. I can completely sympathise where you are coming from and you are right that no-one can truly know how they would react in that situation until they are in it.

I am not always on the side of the nrp, far from it I believe it should be fair on ALL parties involved.
I do not agree that if you marry someone that already has children you should accept that your family comes second...what a ridiculous sweeping statement to make:rolleyes:

If we all had to stay in marriages that were unhappy/violent etc because we made that committment then there would be alot more unhappy people in this world.

My dh didn't earn a decent living prior to our relationship, I put him in touch with the right people (my contacts!) and he is earning a much better salary as a result....therefore why should his ex wife benefit from MY hard work???
If i had that attitude then wouldn't the children be the only ones to miss out?
I don't begrudge her money to help to raise the children but I do think she is a sponger as she has told us on several occassions that she can't be bothered to work...good role model????
At the end of the day for us we just want to pay what is due and then delight in the very last payment as she has made our lives a living hell. I have even be told several times by solicitors that I am extremely tolerant of her behaviour and we could have slapped her with an injuction many times over (yes the police have been involved) so please forgive me if I don't see things from her point of view:mad:

However I do agree that every father should pay towards the cost of the childrens upbringing and if possible then also be in their lives for it aswell. I don't agree that a second wife should be second best and it certainly isn't that way in our house. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes that is afterall what makes us human...but yes they should have consequences for those mistakes and from what I can see that is what the CSA is?

You are right ever situation is different that is why I never comment on pwc's in general only our pwc (or blip as she is affectionatly known:rotfl:). I think it is wrong of you to comment on second familys in general aswell.

sonsbear

I may well be wrong but that is how I see it. Although I see too there are a number of things we can agree.

I probably wasn't quite right in saying that second families are second best. That wasn't well put and I don't mean it badly. It isn't always easy to express things in so short a space and time.

I am saying though that first families aren't second best either and there seems to be an attitude that whilst you can't discard that family our one is the most important one now. That isn't the case in my view so why should we be treated as such?

I am sure there are plenty who want to criticise me as a 'meal ticket' for life. That isn't true and it is a cheap, easy and unpleasant insult for people in my situation.

I'm a bit unclear about one issue though. Your partner earns better now but his family shouldn't benefit? Ok I get the idea about his ex being a sponger and haven't a particular problem with your view as long as that is really the case that she is. I completely take the role model point and I would hate to see children following that example.

I suppose I tend to see that a lot of second wives think the first one is a sponger and I have tried to put the other side to that.

They are your contacts and you are lucky to have them (but is that your hard work or is that plain luck on your part?). And should you know someone who can increase my wages I'd be grateful too! I do not want to be dependant on my ex but there is no choice due to circumstances previously outlined. I do not see why my family should suffer because my husband has a new life. I too would like a new life having fun and dropping my responsibilities but that isn't going to happen.

For many people work wise it is a case of 'meeting' the right people but should you split up he might well say that his increased income was down to the fact of his hard work and the fact that you knew someone only. He might further his contacts through yours but the new contacts would be his. Do you follow me? The argument may then be used against you by a future partner. Your personal circumstances might well be that it causes you no problem. Mine are that it would.

I still think his family should benefit from his increased wages and to some degree that includes an ex wife who is likely to be disadvantaged or does not have the 'contacts'. In your situation she sounds like she is sponging and I realise in your shoes I would find that galling too. Given what you say about her behaviour I can understand where you are coming from.

However, I would point out that my husband's new partner does not like me and would say she has reason to. I called her a !!!!! and sent her an email that pointed out a few 'facts' about his marriage which I said I could (and can) prove. Apparently she was upset and he had a face like thunder for weeks. As she's still there I presume she's forgiven him!

I can tell from his emails which are his 'thoughts' and which are her's! Some of hers are born of the fact that she has no children, has not given up a career and genuinely does not and cannot understand the difficulties I am in. She clearly thinks I can feed and clothe my family on a few pounds, have no need of a social life, that my children need to be more independent, can work full time, etc. Sounds easy doesn't it? She runs the house for the two of them and works full time. The fact is her work and her house work are never going to be on a par with what I do. There was a time I worked full time and ran a house. That was easy. What I do now is not. She may well find out in time herself. Wouldn't that be revenge?

It is difficult because I can't fully know the people involved in your situation and if I did I might well agree with your views on your situation.

I can only be general and I can only tell you how I see it given my situation and that is bound to cause some offense. I do know women who are second wives and some I see their point and would agree and others we have to agree to disagree. I know one second wife who hated the first and now is in the same position as the first has quite remarkably 'understood'. She has also turned in to the ex from hell! So wife no 3 will get hubby's 'version' and no doubt thinks he has been unlucky! Not so.

I would not advocate a miserable or violent marriage. I would advocate fairness to each party's circumstances and I don't see that often. One person usually the mother is split into lots of pieces trying to do everything. I do think it is easy to walk away and say 'my marriage was unhappy' when actually there is a bit more to it than that especially when you have a family or you have relied in good faith and kept your part of the deal. And I mean both men and women in this. Some people have a mid life crisis which isn't to my mind a good enough reason to leave someone else holding the baby. I knew a woman who did this as it happens and, no, I have no sympathy.

However, I do stand by the opinion that if you involve yourself with someone who has these commitments then you can't turn round and complain about it and it seems to me that people do. Those commitments are prior commitments. If you want to start a relationship or family with someone in that situation then I believe you have to accept that or find someone who is free.

If I knew then what I know now ...

In time I might well find myself wanting to start a relationship with someone who has commitments and given my age it is unlikely they will be young free and single. I won't have an excuse for not knowing what I'm letting myself in for though will I?

I really do appreciate much of what you've said and I can see why you feel the ex is extracting the pee. I would too. And I'm sure there are many women in your situation. Just as there are many in mine.

I'm simply saying that there are many second wives who have no real understanding or who simply don't care and quite happy to let the first family struggle. They should be poor but happy.

Second families that split up find themselves in worse situations,

SandC

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It looks like the ex has been paying all the mortgage payments then, from the maintenance money your husband should have been paying for his children. Or he has been severely underpaying for his childrens maintenenace. I assume his ex hasn't taken legal advice.

When dividing their assets, surely his pension is part of their assets too and not just the house? Or has that law changed now?

She gave up her career to care for their children so doesn't that mean she gets to keep a larger % of their assets? Or has that been replaced so that she can have part of his pension for life? I know they weren't married, but a 20 year relationship is longer than a lot of marriages last and shows that they had a big commitment to each other.

They were never married and therefore the ex has no claim on his pension.

sonsbear

Which in my view is wrong. She's done her bit.

Dancing_Shoes

I think we will agree to disagree on some of the points raised;)

Just because you have children does not mean they owe you for eternity. At the end of the day I would say to the OP just get it all dealt with so that you and the ex can move on. Child maintenance is only payable whilst children are in full time education then after that it can be voluntary payments to the children to support further education.

MissMoneypenny

SandC wrote: »

They were never married and therefore the ex has no claim on his pension.

Before the law came in about claims on pension, you use to be able to put the value of the pension as an asset and add this to the equity in the house, to work out a fair divide of assets in court. Often one kept the house and the other the pension. Can this still be done?

MissMoneypenny

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Child maintenance is only payable whilst children are in full time education then after that it can be voluntary payments to the children to support further education.

I thought I read on these forums that the child can take their NRP to court for maintenance while they are at university, if one parent is unwilling to support their child during education?

Under a court order, the NRP had to continue to pay until their child finished university. The courts also had more powers against non paying NRPs such as Registration (the NRP pays the maintenance payments to the local magistrates court and the court has the power to send in the baliffs if they get behind on payments).

zzzLazyDaisy

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I thought I read on these forums that the child can take their NRP to court for maintenance while they are at university, if one parent is unwilling to support their child during education?.

That is true, but very few children do this because they are worried about the reaction from the NRP.

My cousin is working all hours God sends to help her two children who are at Uni, and provide a home for them during the vacations. The kids get no help whatsoever from their father, who earns almost 10x their mother's salary and lives with someone who also earns more than their mum does. He lent the boy £500 recently, and is charging him interest on the money until it is repaid.

My cousin's solicitor told her when she was going through the divorce that the children could take ex-oh to court for maintenance while they were at Uni, but both refused as they were afraid that it would affect their relationship with their father (not that he sees much of them anyway).

Dancing_Shoes

Not according to 3 solicitors and the CSA. It is only enforceable whilst they are in non advancing education.

There are lots of parents who live with their children who don't support them through university as they are unable to afford it and they have to take out student loans etc.

I however think that you should support them (if you can) through university.