Husband's ex wife wanting more money

clearingout

paulineb wrote: »

Someone made a comment that she bought him out of his portion, she didnt. She paid 30k on a house thats worth 300k and he paid for the mortgage when they were living there.

No one said that she should have walked away with nothing. But she certainly hasnt walked away with nothing has she?

And Id never devalue what stay at home parents do. But some women and men who are single parents dont have an option of being stay at home parents, because they cant afford it.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility given that the boy is 12 and is at school most of the day that the woman could increase her hours at work or look for additional hours elsewhere.

and again, an assumption that she hasn't tried to increase her working hours? or that she hasn't looked for another job? or even that she didn't ask her boss for extra hours to try and cover this £150? or that she has decided to see her child into secondary school and then look for full-time work? None of that helps the apparent need to clothe the child in the next week, does it?

paulineb_2

clearingout wrote: »

it is unreasonable that the mother's life has been picked apart and her every motive and move brought into question...it is unreasonable it is assumed she can afford her child's school uniform at this precise moment in time without knowing the finer details of her finances. It is unreasonable that the OP judges her without knowing her and attempts to pit her life against the ex's wife's because it is done only to try and make the ex wife look unreasonable.

What happens if this money isn't found? Is the child going to go without? What if mum really doesn't have it before the 1st September...what will happen? Is dad going to discuss it with mum sensibly and come up with a plan between them or does he let his current wife tell him the child can go without, backed by people on an internet forum when none of us are in possession of the facts?

We cant assume that the OP doesnt know the ex wife, she may well do.

As was posted earlier on, the OP said that the mum has been sending the child over in their school shoes and clothes that dont fit and theyve kitted the child out in new clothes that do fit. And if that is the case, they are doing more to provide the child with clothes and trainers than the mum who is being paid maintenance every month. So if he wants to ask where the money is going, I think hes more than entitled given that the kid is being bought day to day clothes by them.

I think its also fair to say that the money that is being spent on this child might also come from the OPs pocket and not just her husbands, particularly if there are times when additional money has been asked for and they are struggling.

It does impact on her as well, it impacts on the pair of them.

Mojisola

clearingout wrote: »

What happens if this money isn't found? Is the child going to go without? What if mum really doesn't have it before the 1st September...what will happen?

Is dad going to discuss it with mum sensibly and come up with a plan between them or does he let his current wife tell him the child can go without, backed by people on an internet forum when none of us are in possession of the facts?

If Mum really doesn't have the money, why doesn't she say "Our child needs shoes/blazer/jumpers/etc before going back to school. I've got x and y, could you pay for the others" rather than "Give me £150"?

The new term hasn't suddenly materialised - most parents plan for the expenditure involved.

She gets CM, CB, part-time wages and other benefit top-ups so isn't on the bread line.

duchy

The "He paid the mortgage" is a straw man argument.
As a couple they made a decision together -one that many families make - that the mother stayed home to care for their child whilst he worked. They were both contributing in different ways. They chose to marry and chose a division of labour that suited them both. It doesn't mean the wife's contribution to the family was less -just different. Whether the reasons were that childcare costs made it uneconomic for the wife to work or if they simply felt it was better for the child to have a parent home fulltime isn't really important. It was a family decision.

It always strikes me as a bit odd that you can read one thread here where mothers (with earning resident husbands) are applauded for deciding to be SAHMs yet if that same couple split up and the woman disadvantaged careerwise (because she has stayed home) doesn't instantly put her small kids or even babies into full time childcare and work - she's some kind of a leech. It really isn't that simple - especially if the NRP has chosen to move away and can make no physical contribution to childcare to help the mother to work .
Personally I feel there should be some kind of two tier system of CSA -one for parents who stay close by and continue to take an active part in the children's daily lives and enable the PWC to work and another for the purely weekend parents. I'm not talking about the overnight allowance which already exists (at the moment a NRP can pick a child up at 11pm at night and drop them at breakfast club at 7am the next morning and benefit financially to the same tune as a parent who picks the same child up at 7am and returns them home at 9pm the following evening-yet the amount of parenting in the two timeframes will be vastly different)

We have a somewhat weird mindset that money can replace a parent -we need a way to keep parents who leave the family home better engaged -and a big part of that is we need a social attitude that takes for granted that when a man remarries his children are welcomed into new unions and not resented or considered a burden. My ex always told his new partners our son was a part of the package ...he had one very misfortunate experience with a woman who assured him she was happy with that - but it became clear within months she wasn't ...... he soon ditched her .

Ultimately we are not putting the children first - Kids are getting the message that a father can be replaced by money -and family relations are strained because of money-whether they are the first family's or subsequent unions. I do believe a lot of second wives don't consider how a first family is going to impact long term on their lives .....and become bitter - but then I also genuinely don't understand why they don't realize that it is going to. If you marry a man with a five year old surely it is obvious that he's going to be contributing to that child and co-parenting with the mother to one degree or another for the next thirteen years ? It's not like the child suddenly appears later. Is it women not considering this ...or is it the fathers downplaying the impact ? I don't know - but it's the kids who end up in the middle and it really isn't fair.

So yes I am fed up with second wives who demonize first families especially when they paint a one sided picture like this OP did with the nonsense that her husband "gave" the mother the house (I do realize that if she had no support at all from the father of her daughter she may feel the mother of her stepson has an easier ride than she did - but that isn't the mother or the child's fault that this child's father remains involved. Presumably one of the traits that attracted her to him was him sense of responsibility and values ?)

paulineb_2

clearingout wrote: »

and again, an assumption that she hasn't tried to increase her working hours? or that she hasn't looked for another job? or even that she didn't ask her boss for extra hours to try and cover this £150? or that she has decided to see her child into secondary school and then look for full-time work? None of that helps the apparent need to clothe the child in the next week, does it?

Of course its an assumption, we can only assume based on limited information.

But no one knows that she did either do they?

Bottom line is, this kid has already been kitted out in clothes and trainers by the Op and his wife, its not just the OP whose financial budget this impacts on, its the wife as well

And it shouldnt need to come down to, one set of people are right and one set of people are wrong

But if you know your child is going to need £150 for school uniform and you will be told before the school breaks up, you dont get letters in the holidays from schools, why not ask at the time? Why not ask when the schools broke up rather than a week before they went back?

Because the OP and her husband might not have that cash sum to spare and could have budgeted for it

No one should be asked at a weeks notice to pay 150 quid towards a bill, its just basic manners, regardless of who pays what, who is in the right, who is in the wrong and who has more money or not as the case may be

You want someone to stump up, you ask them in good time and dont just assume they have that money to hand.

paulineb_2

duchy wrote: »

The "He paid the mortgage" is a straw man argument.
As a couple they made a decision together -one that many families make - that the mother stayed home to care for their child whilst he worked. They were both contributing in different ways. They chose to marry and chose a division of labour that suited them both. It doesn't mean the wife's contribution to the family was less -just different. Whether the reasons were that childcare costs made it uneconomic for the wife to work or if they simply felt it was better for the child to have a parent home fulltime isn't really important. It was a family decision.

It always strikes me as a bit odd that you can read one thread here where mothers (with earning resident husbands) are applauded for deciding to be SAHMs yet if that same couple split up and the woman disadvantaged careerwise (because she has stayed home) doesn't instantly put her small kids or even babies into full time childcare and work - she's some kind of a leech. It really isn't that simple - especially if the NRP has chosen to move away and can make no physical contribution to childcare to help the mother to work .
Personally I feel there should be some kind of two tier system of CSA -one for parents who stay close by and continue to take an active part in the children's daily lives and enable the PWC to work and another for the purely weekend parents. I'm not talking about the overnight allowance which already exists (at the moment a NRP can pick a child up at 11pm at night and drop them at breakfast club at 7am the next morning and benefit financially to the same tune as a parent who picks the same child up at 7am and returns them home at 9pm the following evening-yet the amount of parenting in the two timeframes will be vastly different)

We have a somewhat weird mindset that money can replace a parent -we need a way to keep parents who leave the family home better engaged -and a big part of that is we need a social attitude that takes for granted that when a man remarries his children are welcomed into new unions and not resented or considered a burden. My ex always told his new partners our son was a part of the package ...he had one very misfortunate experience with a woman who assured him she was happy with that - but it became clear within months she wasn't ...... he soon ditched her .

Ultimately we are not putting the children first - Kids are getting the message that a father can be replaced by money -and family relations are strained because of money-whether they are the first family's or subsequent unions. I do believe a lot of second wives don't consider how a first family is going to impact long term on their lives .....and become bitter - but then I also genuinely don't understand why they don't realize that it is going to. If you marry a man with a five year old surely it is obvious that he's going to be contributing to that child and co-parenting with the mother to one degree or another for the next thirteen years ? It's not like the child suddenly appears later. Is it women not considering this ...or is it the fathers downplaying the impact ? I don't know - but it's the kids who end up in the middle and it really isn't fair.

So yes I am fed up with second wives who demonize first families especially when they paint a one sided picture like this OP did (I do realize that if she had no support at all from the father of her daughter she may feel the mother of her stepson has an easier ride than she did - but that isn't the mother or the child's fault that this child's father remains involved. Presumably one of the traits that attracted her to him was him sense of responsibility and values ?)

Of course its one sided, everything on this board tends to be, we always get one side of the picture.

In just about every single thread thats started on here. I dont think the OP has demonised anyone. I think shes fed up that theyve been asked to pay £150 at very short notice and not for the first time have they been asked to buy something expensive.

It might not be the money, it might be the lack of communication and awful timing. And yes kids come as part of a package but this dad is as active as he can be in his childs life considering the distance they live from one another.

We know nothing about the ex wife. She could be someone who is struggling with cash and cant say so and is too proud.
She could be someone who doesnt give a hoot about whether she has spare cash and just thinks oh well, if I blow all my money I can always go and ask him for more.

That is the point, we dont know. And of course we make assumptions and of course people and their viewpoints will be shaped by their own experiences.

I just dont see how putting a thread on here saying that they have been asked and not for the first time to buy something expensive for a 12 year old kid at very short notice when they have large outgoings themselves and that makes the OP a tad cheesed off is that bad.

Its someone being honest about how they feel. This child does not seem to be neglected by his father, far far from it.

And sometimes we all need to sound off when we are cheesed off, people do it on here all the time.

duchy

paulineb wrote: »

Of course its an assumption, we can only assume based on limited information.

But no one knows that she did either do they?

Bottom line is, this kid has already been kitted out in clothes and trainers by the Op and his wife, its not just the OP whose financial budget this impacts on, its the wife as well

And it shouldnt need to come down to, one set of people are right and one set of people are wrong

But if you know your child is going to need £150 for school uniform and you will be told before the school breaks up, you dont get letters in the holidays from schools, why not ask at the time? Why not ask when the schools broke up rather than a week before they went back?

Because the OP and her husband might not have that cash sum to spare and could have budgeted for it

No one should be asked at a weeks notice to pay 150 quid towards a bill, its just basic manners, regardless of who pays what, who is in the right, who is in the wrong and who has more money or not as the case may be

You want someone to stump up, you ask them in good time and dont just assume they have that money to hand.

As you say we have limited information - We have no idea if the mother asks for extra often (I suspect not or I think the OP would have mentioned it) but if we assume it's a one off ....could it be that the mother has been trying to find a way to get the money and has failed and has finally gone to the Father as a last resort knowing that the wife will kick off ?
The mother works part-time in retail -possibly her hours are part-time to fit in with school hours so she's worked less as it is holiday time ....or just had more to pay out because her son is home fulltime ? Maybe she even has a term-time only contract-we don't know. Could she have mentioned it to the father months ago and he never got back to her ? Could she just have got the uniform out to get ready and realized it no long fits - 12 year olds do have pretty fast growth spurts sometimes. She asked for half so it implies there was some budgeting going on. Again we have no idea..... so it may not be just a case of bad manners.

Guest101

julie2710 wrote: »

I'm going to play devils advocate a bit here as I have to say I often find it annoying that people (often ex partners or new partners of exs) constantly complain at the rate of "maintenance" they have to pay to support their children. I often hear the "surely £x is more than enough to clothe a child?" Where does it say that the "maintenance" payment is solely for the use of clothing the child? Who pays for the roof over their head, the water they use, the food they eat, the electricity and gas used to light and heat their home, the soap, shampoo and other toiletries, their clothes, cough medicine or other over the counter remedies they may need, furniture in their home, bedding, on top of clothes, school trips, presents for school friends when they are invited to parties etc. In addition to this being a single parent means that you are providing the service of cook, cleaner, medic, carer, taxi, helper with homework etc etc. It impacts your work, you may only be able to work part time or if you work full time you will have to pay for additional childcare outside of school hours. It impacts your life. If you fancy going to a keep fit class in the evening you can't take the child/children with you, so a simple gym visit means paying for childcare!

When you add all that together maybe the £450 per month isn't that much after all? A childminder can cost anything between £5-10 per hour! Consider the impact on your lifestyle if you had to pay the going rate for all those services and commodities!

As far as the ex being "given" the house when they split and your partner having paid for it! I'm assuming this is whilst they were together and she didn't work. I would assume that they had agreed she would be a stay at home mum so was making a contribution albeit not in actual monetary terms! She took out a £30k mortgage so she wasn't actually given it and is now paying for the roof over her child's head! Why should she downsize? It's her child's home! If she could live in tent to save her some maintenance would that be expected.

Yes she possibly should have asked sooner. Maybe her ex could have offered. He after all knew in advance that sons holidays were ending and he would need school uniform or is he just of the mind that he needs to just pay the minimum that was awarded?

It amazes me that absent dads are more than happy for mums to compromise their lifestyle to care for their children but complain at having to do so themselves.

That said I also know some women do take advantage of exs. Has she actually said she will stop access? If she had that is wrong and one shouldn't depend on the other.

Try not to think of maintenance as a clothing allowance plus a way of subsidising the mother's lifestyle. What it is in reality is a payment to ensure that the parent whom the child resides with is able to provide a lifestyle for that child that is as close as possible to the lifestyle that the child would have experienced had their parents stayed together.

You're right, except for two things.

The ex gets the benefit of having the child 80% of the time.

The ex must also provide for half the costs.

The work she puts in is ofset by having the child more. She could always swap roles... Strange not many take up that option...

duchy

paulineb wrote: »

But that goes both ways. The OP pays a bigger mortgage now on a property that he bought when they split because he and his new wife could only get a 19 year mortgage. The OP made it very clear in the first paragraph that their mortgage takes up a huge chunk of their earnings

So why should it be automatically assume that the man has excess money to give every time the ex wife asks for it?

Post that you are struggling with a large mortgage on some boards here and the majority response would be "downsize" and a lecture how you shouldn't buy above your means. It's all about perspective <sigh>

duchy

Guest101 wrote: »

You're right, except for two things.

The ex gets the benefit of having the child 80% of the time.

The ex must also provide for half the costs.

The work she puts in is ofset by having the child more. She could always swap roles... Strange not many take up that option...

Umm

The PWC gets the benefit of needing to find a job that works around the needs of the child/children - limiting job choice-limiting overtime etc
The PWC is the one who takes time off if the child is ill, meetings at school etc etc
The PWC is the one who has to drop everything if needed if the child is injured, locks themselves out
The PWC is the one who spends the time supervising homework , running the kids to activities ...the one who gets the call "Mum I've missed the bus and there isn't another for an hour " or "Mum I've lost my bus pass/dinner pass/left my homework behind"
The PWC can't just decide to do something on impulse but needs to make sure childcare is in place first.
The PWC can have a well earned break from working plus all of the above planned - and get an 11th hour phonecall from the NRP "Sorry can't have them this weekend after all as we have planned something else - we'll have them next week instead"

Most parents with care don't resent any of those things it's part of the package - but if you cost out all those "extra services" it's a bit like costing out what a SAHM's services would cost for a newborn.......it adds up to far more than would be economically viable ........so it's a bit pointless trying to put a financial value on either parent's contribution and benefits.

Most NRP's have built a life that accomadates children for limited periods but would struggle to swop lifestyles (not saying that is wrong - the OP and her husband for example both work fulltime ....they'd find if the child turned up tomorrow they'd need to make massive changes which would impact financially especially as they both work to pay a big mortgage currently)

I once suggested to my ex we moved to a 50/50 arrangement (I had been offered a fantastic job that would have changed my life but it came with needing to travel at times)- we talked about how it would work......with his work pattern and his social life it didn't work at all and we decided it worked better for both of us with me working part-time and him working full-time - basically when faced with the choice he didn't really want to have to make the changes it would have needed. I suspect the fantasy and the reality for many seperated parents would be the same.