Husband's ex wife wanting more money

duchy

The OP started by saying the wife wanted the husband to help out with school uniform .....not something unusual-my ex husband always offered -it's one of those grey areas like school trips that lots estranged parents DO share even though there is no obligation. She then however went on to say that the Mother might take access away if he didn't pay despite the fact that the Mother hadn't mentioned it and there was no previous history....and the child is twelve so certainly old enough to have an opinion too . It seems an odd conclusion to make.

She then went on to claim how her husband had given her the house ....or part of it ...sounds more like she bought him out of his portion however as she has a mortgage....and of course she would have already owned half as a marital asset. Not quite "giving her a whole house"

It would appear the OP is paying the CSA minimum (figures fit for mid level IT as she described) not out of the goodness of his heart but because that is the minimum he is allowed to by law .....so hardly anything extraordinary..

I do agree it was out of the blue (we are told ) if it was then either she's inconsiderate, or has miscalculated how much DS has grown - My brother once grew 2 inches over one summer holiday-it happens...or with the extra expenses of the summer holidays she miscalculated. People do sometimes overspend-after all if they didn't MSE wouldn't exist ! Or another option she had discussed it with the father who forget/didn't want to discuss it with his wife .

To me saying she doesn't see why her husband should support the child as she has the house DOES sound to me that it is the CS she resents too though-we obviously interpreted that bit differently.

As for the wench title (and ignoring the holiday part-assuming the OP *does* go along on the other family trips cos that is what families do) I never said SHE was a wench - but I was very clear I do regard step mothers who resent their partners kids and don't treat them equally with their own ..as wenches
Either the cap fits ...... or it doesn't

julie2710

Melaniep101 wrote: »

Husband is taking him to Cornwall for a week tomorrow, they are having a boys camping holiday.

Before you infer something sinister is going on, I can't go as I can't get the week off work (last week of the month, I work in IT sales). We have had to arrange the holiday around his mum, so no choice on when we could go.

And there is the point some are trying to make! Surely if your husband were still married to his ex then he wouldn't have to be hailed a hero for taking HIS son, the one I assume that he and his ex decided jointly to parent, on holiday for a week! Why just because you are now his wife should time spent with his son have to be considered an act of generosity and kindness?

Why on earth would something think there was something sinister going on? Possibly your thoughts that you need to defend yourself? At the end of the day the aim of parents who split for any reason and have children should be to ensure that the child has as close as damn it as good a quality of life as they would of had should their parents had stayed together. This is the responsibility of both parents regardless of whether they remarry or take on other people's children. The welfare of their own shouldn't be compromised!

Oh and for those questioning the cost of school uniform, blazers for my two are £95, polo shirts (branded as are most of the uniform) £10, jumpers £20, sports top £20, backpack (yes branded!) £15, sports shorts £10, swimming kit (branded trunks) £8.50, rugby top £27, track suit £50 and all that is before I even start on shoes and trainers (they have to have indoor and outdoor ones!) and show me a child who doesn't want a new pencil case after their summer holiday, I know it was the thing I always looked forward to as a child!

I appreciate that you may feel that your lifestyle is being compromised and that the exs's isn't but think back to when you were a single parent yourself and tell me your lifestyle wasn't lower than it would have been with two incomes. Yes you didn't expect your lifestyle to be supported but surely your daughters should have been? Yes you probably did a great job doing it all but that doesn't mean that is the way it should have been. To be honest you were entitled to a life too as I imagine it was a joint decision to have your daughter. As single mothers (or Dads who have custody) we are very good at putting the needs of our children above our own, which we should do but that doesn't mean the absent parent shouldn't be doing the same, which unfortunately is rarely the case as they are better able to focus on a new life as their time isn't impacted the way that the parent taking on the majority of the care is.

Unfortunately it is going to be a knock on effect that if the present parent's lifestyle is good that will be to the benefit of the child. I find it frustrating that people begrudge that of others which in turn sounds as though they are begrudging of the child.

FBaby

And OP I'm sorry if it upsets you to be considered predictable or a cliche .....but as I observed there is a pattern with posts on here ......and a time frame ....and you have fit it very neatly - sorry if you thought you were been more original but you aren't

It is a cliche and a very bad one too. I am sick of pwcs who use their single parent status as one of victim, even more annoying when they have chosen that status themselves. I can have some sympathy towards one who is left or cheated on/abused etc.... and has 3 or 4 small children, but this pwc has ONE teenage child. So why can't SHE work full-time to contribute to the level she expects her son to receive?
The fact that the child had a certain lifestyle that he is entitled to before is debatable in any way, but even if that is an argument, why is it left to the nrp only to provide this lifestyle. If the pwc decide to assume that marrying that man meant that she would be looked after by him all her life, then it was her getting the wrong end of the stick. She is clearly receiving for her child probable double in between tax payers and her ex than what she contributed towards him, so surely, if ONE has to provide more, it should be her first?

Of course, we can consider that maybe she is a poor pwc, who needs to pay childcare for her son (which really would be mainly paid for by tax payers), who had a bad summer and unforseen expenses etc... How is that the responsibility of the nrp? We all have to budget with what we receive, end of it. Who gets to go and cry to their boss for an extra £150 for their children uniforms?

I'm not a second wife, I'm a hard working pwc who gets no maintenance from her ex, whose money goes towards his new family. I should resent second wives. The people I resent are those who think they have a right to work limited hours AND expect everyone else to fund the lifestyle they want for their children and/or themselves.

Saying all that OP, I would strongly advise to stay out of it. It is not for you to decide what your husband should do. It is ok to discuss it, but don't pressure on him as in the end, it is his decision. My partner thinks I am way to soft with my ex and that I should take him to the csa. I understand how he feels because I know for a fact that if he was in my ex shoes, he would without a doubt contribute towards his kids. However, he hasn't gone through the stressful hell I had gone through with him to get even a penny and how much it affects me. He also doesn't understand the system well enough to know that as my ex works cash in hand, one job to another, the csa would end up with a zero assessment that would only make him gloat. Thankfully, my OH isn't pressuring me, even though he is paying more towards the bills than I am because of me spending a lot on the kids.

If your husband is under pressure to spend the £150 extra, why not suggest that he tells her that he will go and buy/order it all himself?

peachyprice

Oh my, there are some very bitter posters on this thread.

supersaver2

Oh dear OP poor you! Just read through this entire thread and as a married man with 1 child and no personal experience of your situation I just wanted to offer my support. I don't think you sound like a wicked stepmother or wench and some of the replies you have received are clearly from posters with massive axes to grind. it is often the case with benefits that people on low incomes bank the same amount amount as people on middle incomes after they have received their top ups. Maybe if she is struggling she could look for a full time position the same as any of us would have to do if we were struggling financially. I think the suggestion of buying the lads shoes is reasonable and could be a compromise.

supersaver2

peachyprice wrote: »

Oh my, there are some very bitter posters on this thread.

My thoughts exactly, was quite shocked at the venom showed towards the op to be honest! Some posters are coming across in a terrible light and it ain't the op.

Skinto_7

duchy wrote: »

Bless your heart but I don't drink

Interesting how people here always assure if someone disagrees with them they must be drunk ......perhaps that is how it works in the "house that you live in"

If its not the drink, it must just be that you are pretty bitter and twisted then.

OP your posts have shown you in nothing but a good light, unfortuently some others on here cant claim the same.

paulineb_2

duchy wrote: »

The OP started by saying the wife wanted the husband to help out with school uniform .....not something unusual-my ex husband always offered -it's one of those grey areas like school trips that lots estranged parents DO share even though there is no obligation. She then however went on to say that the Mother might take access away if he didn't pay despite the fact that the Mother hadn't mentioned it and there was no previous history....and the child is twelve so certainly old enough to have an opinion too . It seems an odd conclusion to make.

She then went on to claim how her husband had given her the house ....or part of it ...sounds more like she bought him out of his portion however as she has a mortgage....and of course she would have already owned half as a marital asset. Not quite "giving her a whole house"

It would appear the OP is paying the CSA minimum (figures fit for mid level IT as she described) not out of the goodness of his heart but because that is the minimum he is allowed to by law .....so hardly anything extraordinary..

I do agree it was out of the blue (we are told ) if it was then either she's inconsiderate, or has miscalculated how much DS has grown - My brother once grew 2 inches over one summer holiday-it happens...or with the extra expenses of the summer holidays she miscalculated. People do sometimes overspend-after all if they didn't MSE wouldn't exist ! Or another option she had discussed it with the father who forget/didn't want to discuss it with his wife .

To me saying she doesn't see why her husband should support the child as she has the house DOES sound to me that it is the CS she resents too though-we obviously interpreted that bit differently.

As for the wench title (and ignoring the holiday part-assuming the OP *does* go along on the other family trips cos that is what families do) I never said SHE was a wench - but I was very clear I do regard step mothers who resent their partners kids and don't treat them equally with their own ..as wenches
Either the cap fits ...... or it doesn't

She may have owned half as a marital asset, but he may have paid for most of it.

The ex wife didnt buy him out of his portion, he paid for the bulk of it and she had to get a 30k mortgage to pay the rest off. Its worth 300k, I think on face value she got a very good deal.

The OP is fed up because shes been hit with an unexpected bill, one to the tune of 150 quid. Which will dent their joint household income, not just his.

She also posted that when the kid comes to their house he comes in clothes that dont fit and school shoes, they have kitted him out in clothes that actually fit him better. She has concerns where the money this woman has is being spent, because it doesnt look as if a lot is being spent on this kids clothes.

They have a large mortgage, because she said they could only get a 19 year mortgage, they may have good jobs but they have a lot of outgoings, the mortgage being the main one

So people might think that 450 pounds a month isnt much, but perhaps after everything is paid thats all he has spare and another 150 quid at v short notice might cause them financial issues?

She said that the dad is concerned that the mum might withdraw access if he doesnt hand over the money.

Just because the kid is 12 and able to make up his own mind, will that matter if the mum picks up the phone one day and says, no you arent having him?

If someone wants to deny access they can and then the OPs husband would need to take legal steps to get access to him.

I read that they feel she has them over a barrel, probably not a very nice place to be in right now.

paulineb_2

He paid for the house/mortgage while they were together, the OP says this in her first post.

Im also from a family whose dad paid the absolute legal bare minimum to me when I was growing up, it was something like £2 a week in those days and that money was grudged, my brothers father didnt pay a single penny his entire life. He had no contact with my brother his whole life and emigrated when he was small, remarried so there was no chance of him paying anything, he didnt want to and he didnt. There were no working tax credits or child tax credits in those days either, just child benefit and believe me we were far from rich, but we managed. Im very aware that WTC and CTC exists to help people out of poverty, but these days, some women and men get a lot more financial help from the state than they ever did 20 or 30 years ago.

I dont think its wrong where people are split and one person can and does make contributions, but having grown up in a home where my mum paid for 99 per cent of everything, because she went out and worked full time, I really struggle to get my head around how one parent is in the wrong when they already pay £450 a month, plus buy clothes, plus take the kid away on holiday, plus paid for the mortgage when the ex wife was living in the house and paid most of it off, leaving her with a small mortgage to pay

It sounds absolutely like the ex wife got the better deal and he did this because he didnt want to uproot his son from the family home

Id say thats extremely generous and its left him and his new wife struggling because yes they may earn good money but she said that they have a large mortgage because they could only get a 19 year mortgage.

What if that £150 was set aside for an unexpected bill and the ex wife has her hand out saying give me?

If the ex wife looked as if she were on her uppers then yes Id say its wrong to be questioning her request/demand. But it doesnt look like she is.

And yes childcare is expensive, but this child is 12 years of age so unless this woman works all sorts of shifts, its very likely that when hes at school, shes at work.

She'll get child tax credits and child benefit, its not unrealistic to think that some of the school uniform money could be paid for from that.

And its certainly not unrealistic that they could pay for uniform between them if thats what was decided or that a list of clothing could be written up and the ex husband could be asked, could you pay for this?

Hes not there to be used as a cash dispenser when she runs out of money, theres a massive difference between someone paying for their child and someone being used at short notice to hand money over, when they might not have it spare to hand

If she is really skint and struggling, then a bit of notice about the uniform would have helped, because you cant assume that just because you dont have it, someone else automatically will.

clearingout

supersaver2 wrote: »

Oh dear OP poor you! Just read through this entire thread and as a married man with 1 child and no personal experience of your situation I just wanted to offer my support. I don't think you sound like a wicked stepmother or wench and some of the replies you have received are clearly from posters with massive axes to grind. it is often the case with benefits that people on low incomes bank the same amount amount as people on middle incomes after they have received their top ups. Maybe if she is struggling she could look for a full time position the same as any of us would have to do if we were struggling financially. I think the suggestion of buying the lads shoes is reasonable and could be a compromise.

speaking as a contributor with an 'axe to grind', perhaps it would be worth looking at the bigger picture rather than making ridiculous, ill-informed assumptions about a person...tenth hand on the internet?

I am a single parent to three children and have a non-contributing ex who his happy to see his children, just not support them. I have been on benefits - and had people call me 'benefit scrounging scum' to my face and I currently work full-time, as a teacher, where I still receive comments about my parenting, usually along the lines of 'poor children, in childcare every day, perhaps they would be better off living with their father?'. I am OK financially now - because I have worked hard and saved hard and gone without in a huge, huge way, for many years now. But I still get some tax credit and child benefit so I guess I'm still 'scum' in the eyes of people like you - I'm a single parent, after all, so I must have either been a terrible wife or chosen that life so I deserve no respect whatsoever.

This month I have had to fork out a small fortune in essential house repairs which include the treatment of black mould in one of the children's bedrooms. I have also had to arrange additional childcare to deal with roadworks which sit in the way of my path to school and will mean that I don't get there on time if I don't re-arrange things. This has come at an additional cost of £500 a month, of which I will now need to find £350 a month myself (tax credits will pick up the rest). I wonder how many people here could deal with an additional expense of £350 a month out of the blue with no end date in sight (at least three months, possibly more) without feeling the pinch and without feeling incredibly hard done by when your ex takes no responsibility whatsoever for their children. Frankly, paying £450 a month to have someone else worry about what everything involved in bringing up a child whilst you stand back and get to comment on how badly it's being done is cheap at half the price.

And then you come on here and you read total carp from people who are second guessing income, second guessing outgoings, making assumptions about this woman's working status (because it is incredibly simple to just earn more or gain more hours at work in the current climate, isn't it?) My ex knows nothing about what I spend on my house or childcare or anything else. He has no clue what might be an essential repair or what finance I might have had to take out to make sure the children live in reasonable conditions - and yet I'm sure he'd have something to say if the children were ill as a result of the mould in the house,as would the latest girlfriend who I can see now in public forums 'she works full time, you'd think she could afford to get the problem sorted? Should we go for full custody?'. The response to that would be 'gosh, terrible woman, even though she's working full time I get she spends all her money on fags and vodka...of course you must go for full custody'. And as such, I struggle to understand why all of you here are quite clear about this woman's incomings and out-goings and your assertions that she is taking the mick and clarity that she can afford her son's school uniform at this precise moment in time.

I asked the OP questions about how she knows this woman's income, out-goings, what debts she may be carrying, what additional debts she may have had to take out to deal with essentials etc. etc. The only response I have received to this is to be told 'I have an axe to grind' and that the woman robbed her husband blind by leaving him and demanding a share of the life they had together. Indeed, she seems to feel her husband is doing everyone a favour by taking his child on holiday. None of this deals with the fundamental issue: the welfare of the child who needs housing and feeding and clothing, one way or another. If the mother isn't going to do it - either because she's taking the mick or because she's currently struggling (which is not impossible, for a million reasons none of us could possibly even begin to guess about) - that leaves the father. But hey ho, child can go without for all you lot care and that's the end of it.