Should I help my OH subsidise his nasty ex so the kids can see their Mum?

FBaby

sharrison778 wrote: »

Being the new partner isnt easy. My partner is currently going through a final financial break with his wife and it annoys me that the Courts count my income in that - in that they consider that I can help support him and therefore his wife will get a bigger slice of the pie. How is that fair?

The system is unfair to step-parents, but more to the pwcp. My partner and I will lose CB next year because of HIS income. He already contributes more towards my children then their own dads, but whereas he and his partner will keep CB for her children and the one they have together, we will lose it for my two children.

The thing is, if you focus on that aspect, you are bound to grow very resentful, and even if it is directed at the ex rather than the children, inevitably, it will affect the children. I often read step-parents saying that do not badmouth the kids mum in front of the kids, but having experienced it myself as a kid, it is a fact that kids pick up on it very easily. The conversation adults think they are having secretly whilst the kids are quietly listening on the stairs, but most importantly, all the non verbal communication that takes place that says so much.

I do agree that being a step-parent is very very tough, and many undermine the fact that they are likely to give more than they will get back when it comes to the kids, but that is often short-term. I've lived with my partner for over 18 months (been together almost 4 years) and I can really see a strong relationship building between my kids and him, one that is not forced but developping naturally. It is totally different to the one they have with their dad, but one that make him a significant part of their lives. I expect this will continue to grow and one day, I really hope that my partner feels that all the sacrifices he is making is worth it, not just in terms of our relationship between him and I (and doing all he does for my happiness), but also the relationship between him and the kids.

I don't like my ex's new partner, but she is good to the kids, and she too is developing a relationship with them that is growing naturally. I totally accept that, the same that my ex accepts perfectly the relationship developing between my partner and the kids.

couponqueen123

ITS SIMPLE
she gets housing benifit so she dont need to pay rent her jsa culd feed her and 2 kids for 3 nite and put gas and eletric in her flat they might not be able to go on big days out (but the park walks sea side are all free) you and yr oh need to explain to her that you are builing a life for your slefs shes still welcome to have kids as usual but theres no more payments its ludicrus madness just stop and think your giving anothe person money to look after there kids also whats here jsa go on??

delain

You can't feed children for half the week on jsa, no chance. That barely pays the bills.

I think this should go to court tbh.

I was in a shared residency situation once, several years ago, but I had a job which I did on the days where the children were with their dad. It can be done.

There was alcohol abuse in my family growing up and we saw very little of any money coming in most of the time, mums bf at the time would 'borrow' birthday money to take down the pub and we never saw it again.

I see lottie's point completely!

19lottie82

delain wrote: »

You can't feed children for half the week on jsa, no chance.

I think this should go to court tbh.

I wouldn't expect her to feed the kids on her JSA money.

I don't think it would get very far in court if my OH said he was willing to cover the childrens expenses to make sure they can visit their mother in comfort (as suggested by CKhalvashi), just not HER personal expenses (thats what her JSA is for).

She says she is looking for work but is hunting for positions circa 20k (after being unemployed for 4 years). Her local Tesco are recrutiting. My OH suggested that she apply as the hours would be flexible, and she told him to "get real".

delain

Lottie my jsa comment was directed at the poster above mine not at you! I think its admirable what you're doing, you just shouldn't have to do it.

19lottie82

delain wrote: »

Lottie my jsa comment was directed at the poster above mine not at you! I think its admirable what you're doing, you just shouldn't have to do it.

Thanks delain, I didn realise that , was just agreeing with you

FatVonD

couponqueen123 wrote: »

ITS SIMPLE
she gets housing benifit so she dont need to pay rent her jsa culd feed her and 2 kids for 3 nite and put gas and eletric in her flat they might not be able to go on big days out (but the park walks sea side are all free) you and yr oh need to explain to her that you are builing a life for your slefs shes still welcome to have kids as usual but theres no more payments its ludicrus madness just stop and think your giving anothe person money to look after there kids also whats here jsa go on??

Her JSA goes on feeding herself and paying her own bills. When the benefits office decide the bare minimum a single person needs to live on it is just that, they don't throw in a bit extra in case that person needs to feed 2 other mouths for nearly half of the week.

Luckily the OP's partner sounds like a decent man and regardless of what some of the ignorant people on here think I believe he'll continue to provide, whether she knows about it or not.

FatVonD

19lottie82 wrote: »

She says she is looking for work but is hunting for positions circa 20k (after being unemployed for 4 years).

Heavens above, that's not unrealistic, from your previous posts I assumed she was looking for at least £40k??

19lottie82

FatVonD wrote: »

Heavens above, that's not unrealistic, from your previous posts I assumed she was looking for at least £40k??

How would you describe un realistic?

Do you think all job seekers should be allowed to set a £20k minimum for jobs that they will apply for regardless of their circumstances?

If someone has been out fo work for a number of years and has recently been applying for jobs at >£x pa, and after 6 months, hasn't had any luck. I'd say that they are being un realistic and should lower their salary expectations.

The job centre will expect all job seekers to apply for NMW jobs after they have been out of work for a certain period of time. Surely that's better for the person in question than living on benefits?

RosaBernicia

Six months may not be all that long depending on the field. Of course her chances also depend on how big the field is, previous experience, whether she's up to date, and in this case the potential difficulty of explaining the gap.

Nothing to stop her taking a stop-gap job and keeping on looking though.


Rosa xx