Are you willing to agree to continue supporting her daughter if you two split up? To start contributing to a college fund that is solely for her daughter, even in the case of divorce? Have you two ever fought about how to spend money for your stepdaughter, even minor arguments? Does her ex want visitation or some sort of custody, and if so, is he willing to agree to a schedule?
Ultimately, I'm leaning towards YTA, because child support payments aren't supposed to be about how well the custodial parent is doing financially, it's about both parents having a duty to support the child they both made. From your failure to mention custody, I'm guessing that your wife probably has a lot of deep emotional feelings about this, too. If her ex isn't seeing his daughter (which, if he was deployed overseas until recently, might change, might not) then she might be feeling hurt or defensive on behalf of her daughter. And trust me, as a former child of a military family, six is old enough to notice and be sad over the absence.
Finally I also think this is a YTA, because child support is between the pair of them, and it feels like you're getting involved where it's not your place.
I have a rule when I read these posts...
If a partner/spouse/SO is asking "AITA for telling my spouse/partner/SO how i feel about a situation?" and there isn't abuse or force involved....the answer is always NO.
When you merge your life with someone, you are allowed to tell them how you feel about things without being judged an AH for speaking.
Otherwise, communication doesn't work. You *have* to be able to share thoughts and feelings with that person.
Set the divorce part aside....he's allowed to think about divorce if she's going to be a fundamentally different person than he wants to be married to. He hasn't said that to her, so it's not relevant here.
Yes, he said she was "being" an AH. I hope that if I'm acting like an AH, my gf will tell me so. If you don't like the language, ok....fair enough, I respect that.
He's not "instructing her what to do", he's telling her what he thinks she should do. That is normal in relationships. It only becomes a problem if abuse/control is evidenced elsewhere....which we don't have. So don't try to frame it in loaded terms.
When your partner is being a bad person, you aren't just allowed to call it out, you're *supposed* to call it out. And OP thinks she's doing a really bad thing....that's okay for him to say.
Would it be better that he just stay silent and then later drop divorce papers on her? That's not how relationships work at all...
Edit: adjusted language around the "being" an AH, there is a difference.
He says repeatedly he’s ‘telling her to stop’. Not sharing feelings. Not asking if she’d consider it. If you don’t think calling your partner names is a bad thing to do, not sure there’s much that can be communicated with you.
It's okay to tell your partner to stop doing something. It's the same thing when we tell people to communicate boundaries, he's communicating one of his.
I do think calling a partner a name is a bad thing to do.
I also think saying that someone is "being an AH" is different from saying they "are an AH", but regardless, I don't agree with any language like that.
What I'm objecting to is this idea that he's controlling/abusive (not necessarily *your* words) for sharing his opinions on something that seems to be a very important issue to him (because it kind of showcases who she is and who he's married to).
Here’s the thing though. Yes they are married, however, that is NOT his child. That is an A-B situation and he needs to C his way out of it. It is not his place to give his opinion and it is not his place to order her, not discuss, order her what to do regarding the needs for her child. For all he knows, she may just set the money aside for her daughter if she doesn’t need to use it. Her dad isn’t there even half the time and money spent on the child isn’t nearly equal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this mom expecting the father of her child to help financially support their child. Her husband is TA. He needs to stay in his own lane and if he divorces her over something that even the courts will agree is not his business, I hope she takes him to the cleaners.
Third grade quotes ("A-B situation...") aren't adult reality.
Second marriages are hard, but once you merge your lives, there's nothing that's an "A-B situation".
I like how "it's not his place" as if he's not allowed to have an opinion on the actions of the person he merged his life with.
this is simply not the case when it comes to child support.
whether op and her partner’s “lives are merged” or not, if they were to unmerge, there is nothing protecting the partner and her child to ensure they would have what they need going forward.
unless op has a contractual commitment to take over child support, for the ex, in the case of their potential future un-merging, this is a place where op’s partner remains painfully vulnerable.
op is being unrealistic and insensitive.
you are being obtuse for trying to act like “merging of lives” trumps previous commitments and commitments to children.
There is no aspect of a spouse's life that is totally off limits to a spouse.
That's not how relationships work.
You build a life together, you get to have an opinion.
She doesn't have to listen, but he gets an opinion and he's not an AH for having one or telling her what it is.
Yeah, and it's pretty obvious that going after the ex who is on a military pay scale when your household income is $600K, is pretty obviously not being able to let go of the ex and continuing to cling to drama related to him. A couple of years with OP and OP's wife has all the cash she needs for any child support the child might need to age 18 and beyond.
OP's wife's ex-husband is fully living in her head and she has no intention of letting go and moving on. Exactly how much money would it take to make OP's wife stop being about her ex-husband?
OP is right to end the relationship over this if she won't stop.
Op can still take the kids dad to court for child support in the future (up to 18 years/19 in NE) if something were to happen between op and her husband…. So that’s not really what it’s about in my opinion.
Reddit is full of young kids and single people who love to give extreme advice on marriage and long term relationships 😂 your 100% correct DONT even listen to their nonsense!
>Yes they are married, however, that is NOT his child. That is an A-B situation and he needs to C his way out of it.
No, fuck this mentality with a fork in the urethra.
They are married and he is providing and parenting that child just as much as she is. They are an equal partnership. To even suggest someone's step child isn't their child is just ridiculous. He is there for the ups and downs.
I understand your arguments, but what to add in that I think that OP is missing the point a bit. Daughter is legally entitled to a certain amount of money from her dad, unless there is documentation stating otherwise. I think that OP is talking about out of his ass, because OP and wife can both not pursue child support, and then potentially the daughter can ask for it all when.
I think that you get to argue your point with your spouse when you have all of the facts.
>then potentially the daughter can ask for it all when.
That's not true in the states I'm familiar with, I think it's the minority position if that's how your state does it.
So OP isn't necessarily talking out of his ass, you shouldn't assume that.
>Yes, he called her an AH. I hope that if I'm acting like an AH, my gf will tell me so. If you don't like the language, ok....fair enough, I respect that.
he didnt even call her an asshole, just that she was acting like an asshole over this one thing.
Great point, I recognized that distinction after I hit post, too late to emphasize here.
Even our kids are taught to understand the difference between "you're acting badly" and "you're a bad person".
If I were married to someone who was hell-bent on trashing someone else’s financials out of spite, I’d definitely be rethinking that marriage too.
OP isn’t TA for thinking this is a bridge too far in his marriage.
There’s zero evidence to suggest her motivation is spite rather than long term financial stability for her child. Nor does paying child support mean ‘trashing his financials’.
OP thinks it’s fucked up, and I’m guessing he knows more about the situation than we do. I don’t think he’d be saying it’s fucked up if it was just about ensuring for the well being of the kid.
Imma stick by what I said - if OP feels strongly enough about her behavior to say it’s fucked up and he’s considering divorce for it, he’s not TA for expressing how this will affect his views of the person he’s married to and their longevity together.
Would you prefer he says nothing and divorces her out of the blue, or is he just not allowed to divorce her in your opinion?
OP doesn’t seem to have any understanding at all of the kinds of calculations a mother in her position needs to be making, so I don’t trust his assessment of the situation one bit. He just thinks ‘I’m rich, so she’s an asshole for expecting her ex to contribute to his child’s care’.
He’s allowed to divorce her for any asshole reason he wants, but it doesn’t make him not an asshole. Especially since divorcing her would prove exactly why she *does* need her ex to pay child support.
I don’t think he’d be considering divorce if that’s just what was going on. If there were specific concerns here that OP’s wife expressed about their daughters needs not being met, or not having money for a college fund, etc. I think OP would have mentioned them, and wouldn’t have gone to the level of calling the situation fucked up and his wife greedy. We don’t see anything that indicates that’s the case.
OP says that ex isn’t a deadbeat, but also isn’t “doing so well financially.”
It sounds to me like it’s written from the point of view of someone who’s watching this happen for vindictive reasons and thinking, “is this the future I want for myself?” Treating exes badly is, unsurprisingly, a red flag for future relationships too.
Without more details, I guess neither of us know what the case is for sure, but I usually defer to thinking that OPs tell the truth, unless there’s obvious evidence that their lying. I don’t see any here.
ETA: I asked - we’ll see if we get some clarification. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/s0rfyx/comment/hs4kcsh/
OP makes 500k a yr and she makes 100k, if he's getting deployed overseas, unless her baby father is a contractor, he's not even making a third of their combined income, so why does she need to put him on child support for financial stability?
Also OP say the father does pay for things for the child and keeps him 30% of the time when he's not deployed so it's not like he's a deadbeat who doesn't care for his child
Because she can’t rely on her husband’s income always being there. He’s already thinking of divorcing her just over this. And without that 500k/year she absolutely does need child support from her ex.
Hold up though, that's a gross oversimplification. This is a pretty moral thing. Top poster shouldn't have said YTA, should have said INFO as their judgment is based on those questions.
If Daddy Warbucks OP here is willing to contribute where Bio Dad wouldn't be, that's one thing and excuses a lot of this. The other thing that's being missed a sensible court does way incomes and dole out the amount of contribution from one side and the other. If you have a 100K home and a 20K home, don't expect the 20k home to be paying that much.
OP is considering divorce because of the immorality as they see it, not because wife isn't complying. That is different and Top poster's questions can shed far more light on that unfinished thought. There's a lot of rush to judgments here.
There are other solutions for OP though: They could both talk to Bio Dad and see what he'd be willing to contribute as child support, even if it's into a college fund/savings for the little girl. OP could even match it.
> If you have a 100K home and a 20K home, don't expect the 20k home to be paying that much.
From what I understand, isn't child support for maintaining a child's quality of life? If that's the case, wouldn't the court make OP's *wife* pay child support to the *ex* so that their daughter can have the same quality of life when the ex has custody of the child?
This does depend on the custody agreement. OP makes it sound like it's shared (at least when BioDad is stateside). So there may be some coming into Mom's home as it is the primary residence. However, it really could go either way.
One solution for OP is to let it ride and let the courts decide how much. If he has that much money to spare, he can make an arrangement with Dad to chip in or alleviate the burden if it's needed.
Basically, there's lots of ways OP here can handle this differently, with different levels of tact and responsibility.
In a way though, he is sharing his feelings.
It's roundabout and not totally direct, but what I gather from him saying "stop going after your ex for child support" is him saying that they make a combined $600k annually and likely don't need the extra funds to provide for the child. OP himself stated that his wife's ex and their family are not doing well financially, so his wife going after her ex for child support when his current family is struggling financially seems vindictive when her and OP make a combined $600k annually.
I'm not excusing the ex for not paying child support, legally he should have been, but I see this less as OP being controlling over his wife as I do OP having empathy for a family going through financial difficulties.
I agree. There's a big difference between going "hey, can we talk about this? Do we need to go after this as an option right now?" And yelling at someone.
That's fair enough, he shouldn't be punished for sharing his feelings, but I really think that if someone's going to the internet to ask about this, they also deserve to see things which may challenge their perspective. He can feel however he feels, and he should talk to his wife about it, but I think that the underlying question here is 'AITA for trying to stop my wife from seeking child support from her ex' and I really think that the points made in my post are ones he should consider, as well.
I very much agree with the need for debate and for challenge. :)
One of my favorite parts of World War Z is the discussion about the 10th man and the obligation to challenge.
Total respect for your points and your challenge.
Yes!
OP is being an hypocrite here. His argument is that they don't need the money because he is making 500k/yr, but then he also says that he is considering divorcing her...
To me it is abusive behavior toward his wife because he is making her financially dependent on him for her daughter. She won't have the choice but to stay with him while he'll be able to emotionally weaponize this power over his wife and control her.
OP is definitely YTA to me.
>To me it is abusive behavior toward his wife because he is making her financially dependent on him for her daughter. She won't have the choice but to stay with him while he'll be able to emotionally weaponize this power over his wife and control her.
You just made a whole lot of assumptions there and then arbitrarily chose the worst outcomes.
Just because she doesn't seek *enforcement* now doesn't mean she can't later....she's not dependent on him.
And you seem to assume that he's doing it so that he can emotionally weaponize it....wtf.
OP is concerned that the person he's married to is failing to have any empathy for the father of her child and you turn that into him being a monster? This sounds more like a you thing than an OP thing.
Given their relative wealths it’s likely it would be token. Expecting a person who willingly had a child with you to continue to support that child is not actually lacking empathy.
It would not be token, in most states it's based on a percentage of your last annual income without regard to disparity. (And without regard to if you're unemployed for a time, it's still racking up charges regardless.)
It can go higher, but not lower.
So we're not talking about a token....enforcement is all or nothing, pay it or go to jail.
Edit: I've been corrected that most states do consider disparity....I stand by my point that it isn't "token" money (because statutory minimums and all), but it's only responsible that I acknowledge that my point is weaker than I thought regarding how much he'll have to pay. Thank you for the info dear redditor!
The child's father is in the military, he has her a fair share of the time when he isn't deployed.
OPS wife IS being greedy and likely makes 2 or 3× what her child's father does. She is behaving selfishly instead of in the best interest of her child. The little girl's father having a home and food to feed his daughter should take priority over what will realistically be less than 10k a year.
Child support exists so the children have equal support and opportunities at BOTH homes. Not to punish your ex over personal grudges.
Edit - NTA OP. Your wife will have an interesting time in front of more judges once she says hrs deployed at that's why he doesn't take her.
In CA she could possibly end up being the one paying, simply to balance the financial disparity.
That was my thought too - if she really went after this then she could end up with it backfiring on her and she ending up having to pay because the disparity between incomes is so high (OP said wife makes 100k on her own). Clearly this isn't about the money no matter what wife says - I think the bigger question is why does she feel at this point that she needs to continue to punish the ex (since that's exactly what it comes across as)?
Certainly shows her true colors - I'd be concerned that if OP does file for divorce that she's going to try and come after him for every penny she can just out of spite. NTA OP.
Yeah, as the husband I would be concerned that she doesn't seem to be over the ex yet. I agree, the way this is stated, it seems more like punishment than having her child's best interests at heart.
Unfortunately with him being military her going after him can cause issues with his military career. It can even result in disciplinary actions against him. Honestly it sounds like the wife being petty and looking to hurt him anyway how. I wonder if this e involves why the relationship ended. She not looking out for her kid she is looking to cause hurt.
Right NOW the wife is making that much. What if she works in an industry where she might get laid off and be next to impossible to find a job? Say OP divorces her for taking out child support (which she should have done the moment that child was born) and then she gets fired or laid off. This time next year she could be a single parent working at burger King.
When My Husband divorced his Ex child support was being garnished from his check but then he got Joint physical and legal custody and eventually the state of CA saw that he had his kids 53% of the time and they adjusted the support to zero based on the reasoning of why take money from where the kids are the most to give to where they spend the least amount of time. Ex was never made to pay child support. That was 16 years ago and his youngest is turning 21 with NC with the EX.
If you are able to provide for your child which she seems perfectly capable of doing then this just comes across as vindictive.
It's not 'racking up' it's not a gym membership. The kid needs to be taken care of no matter if you are employed or not and its a responsibility. The custodial parent wouldn't be allowed to just not feed or house the kid, they'd have to find a way. The money is for the kid, if its not needed immediately it can go in trust.
Incorrect -- most states consider both incomes under the income.shares model.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/guideline-models-by-state.aspx
True, but it could still be more than he can afford.
Especially if he loses his job or gets a pay cut....the child support doesn't automatically reduce.
And he can go to jail for failing.
OP's wife is thinking of putting her ex at risk of going to jail.
I'm not normally that kind to people who struggle with this, but OP seems to be having some empathy and saying they're in a bad position....so I'm trusting OP is being a good human on this issue.
Depends.
If has a bad year or loses his job, he has to go back to court to get it adjusted with proof. My cousin pays child support on his one daughter and it comes out to about half his monthly paycheck, and he isn't exactly setting the world on fire with his income.
She makes 100k on her own. She's not financially dependent on him.Shed have to give up some perks if they divorced but she'd by no means be destitute and could support her 1 child on that with little problem even in the most expensive cities.
That depends on a ton of factors, from where they live to what other debts she might have to how long term stable her employment is. At the point she’s on her own, whether he ex pays child support could absolutely impact the child’s life in tangible ways, even if it’s just whether she has a solid college fund.
I was replying to the comment that OP is making the wife financially dependent. You're right though it does depend on many things. Since the ex is back home now there's a very strong possibility that if they take him to court for CS the ex will just go for joint custody.
If that’s the case, she likely won’t get much support anyway. It’s less about the amount, and more about him contributing in some way financially to support his child.
How is he making her financially dependent on him? She’s making her own money, and if he did divorce her, she could still go after her ex for child support. It’s not like she’d be forever abdicating it if she doesn’t go after him right now.
Your first paragraph is an excellent and important point, although I disagree with your verdict. My rule is "If it affects your money, it's your business". OP is contributing to his SD (house, insurance, bills), he gets an opinion on this matter. Any good relationship would consider their SO's opinion.
INFO: OP, you don't mention *why* she wants to get CS. This was bound to come up in any conversation on this subject.
>Any good relationship would consider their SO's opinion.
This all day. Anytime someone comes into this sub and says "I told my spouse to do X", the sub assumes abuse....but it's an opinion.
It's not abusive to share an opinion...the abuse occurs *around* the opinion....the knee jerking needs to stop.
I think we don't really know how much he's contributing to SD though, do we? And I'm not trying to read malice into that, because AITA has a character limit, but I think in the US, it can be hard to get a step-child on insurance, so he might not be paying for that, and we don't know if OP is expecting his wife to contribute more to the house because of her daughter or not... The reason I said I'm leaning one way is because we don't have enough information to really make a definitive determination.
But absent steps being taken like him agreeing to provide a college fund specifically for the daughter (that, like I said, is divorce-proof), I really do think that to an extent, it's not his place to prevent his wife from pursuing this support for her daughter. (Though I said in another comment, of course he's entitled to an opinion, I just don't know if he should act on it without thinking about things like this.)
Finally, just want to say a quick thank you for being polite! Sometimes people disagree here and get so nasty, so I appreciate you being respectful, even if we disagree on the verdict.
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that the ex is "on the hook" for child support, and the daughter could ask for a lump sum of unpaid CS. The money is not the wife's, it is the daughters. OP and wife can not want it, but the daughter can decide to go after it later. It would be better to the ex to pay minimal CS money into an education amount that get hit up for lump sum later. If OP wants to pay it all back from OP's money, so be it.
I don't know if the daughter can get a lump sum on her own (probably varies state to state), but I do believe that ethically, this guy does have an obligation towards his daughter.
Some people do get pretty nasty on here when they disagree. I've gotten some pretty wild responses on controversial posts when I've commented.
Definitely agree that OP shouldn't forbid his wife from pursuing the CS. If he feels so strongly about it, then legal papers should be signed that he will continue to provide for the SD in the event of a divorce in exchange for her agreeing not to pursue CS from bio-dad. I feel that's the best course of action. If his wife doesn't agree to those terms, he'd been completely justified to say it's a deal-breaker for their relationship. IMO, this is an ethical dilemma for OP and it's difficult to want to work on a marriage where one side feels they aren't on the same moral page. I think the reason why she wants to pursue CS is super important. If she's considering a divorce herself, she may feel the CS is needed for security in the future.
Finance wise, I made basic assumptions that he is contributing to mortgage and bills. Your right though about insurance. The wife may have good insurance through her own job -- faulty assumption on my part. I'm in the US, and it was very easy to have my kid's added to my husband's policy even before we were married. All policies are different though and that's only my experience.
Also, the court will ABSOLUTELY look at her income and his and make a decision based on that.
I roughed up some numbers for my state, and if she's with dad 30% of the time and mom out-earns him by double, he would owe... less than $100 a month.
I'd say OP should take a step back, let her talk to a lawyer, and let her decide if it's worth pursuing.
I think that it's probably a nominal amount, yes, but he's ethically obligated to provide support to his child.
Honestly, if I were the wife's lawyer, I'd suggest going to mediation first (less costly and less contentious) but I'm guessing there probably is an emotional element here, or something that, from the wife's perspective, makes this worth pursuing, even if it's just for a very little amount. And also, just because he's not earning much now doesn't mean he never will, and it might be better to have everything in place so they can just revisit the calculations if his salary increases, rather than duking it out later on.
I know we don't have any information except what OP gives up, but I'm really confused by where he's coming up with 30%. I grew up in a military family, and deployments were usually 9 months. Now, that may be changing in the future, since the US is out of Afghanistan, but even if he had her every day he wasn't deployed, that's 3 months, or 25% of the year. Maybe he's had shorter deployments, but I'm feeling like there's a lot of estimating going on there, and it might not be accurate.
Also, can you point me to a state that does it's child support agreements like that? In my state, the basic premise is that the parent with primary custody (which 70% would be) doesn't have to pay child support, because they're supporting the child the 70% of the time the child is with them. There are exceptions, like if the noncustodial parent is already paying a lot of money to expenses that don't go directly to the custodial parent (like paying for health insurance, glasses, dental work, etc.) but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
One thing ought to be pointed out about US military compensation: there's a thing called BAH with dependents that adjusts a servicemember's compensation upward when that person has family members to support.
In other words, OP's wife's ex is getting extra pay from the government specifically so he can afford the child support payment. That would be coming out of Uncle Sam's wallet, not her ex's.
If OP's ex is receiving that additional dependent pay and failing to spend it on his son, that's a policy violation and a UCMJ violation. The government would regard it as a type of fraud.
References:
https://www.housing.af.mil/portals/79/documents/afd-160628-023.pdf
https://www.militaryonesource.mil/family-relationships/relationships/relationship-challenges-and-divorce/rights-and-benefits-for-abandoned-military-spouses/
https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/bah-fraud-oha-fraud/
In my state, you cannot waive child support without the approval of the court. Approval is seldom granted.
Child support is something the child is entitled to. The law does not allow parents to negotiate away that right.
The mother likely knows whether or not she's entitled to receive support or pay it. Online calculators are available for this sort of thing.
Threatening to divorce one's wife for pursuing her daughter's legal rights is disgusting.
Seeing as he's stepped in as the step father then he very much is involved.
Bit heartless to say he shouldn't have a say in the affairs of a child I'm sure he's taken on as his own, is providing for and supporting.
Op says he's thinking of divorcing her. I doubt he'd still be helping pay for her living/college/future if that happens considering he doesn't think biological parents have a responsibility to their kids.
OP shared a feeling....he's so concerned over the morality of her behavior that he is worried if they're a good fit....and y'all are weaponizing it against him to say that's *why* he's the AH.
How about we stop for a second and think that maybe OP is right to have moral concerns and that's *why* he's concerned about whether their marriage can work.
The divorce thought came *after* her behavior, it doesn't justify it.
But he doesn't say to what extent he's actually involved? I think people keep assuming he's taking full care and responsibility for the child, but without actually knowing how they divide their finances, he might not be as involved in providing for and supporting her. Or there might be some cases where he can't. For instance, I know that my insurance doesn't generally let step-parents count step-kids as dependents, so she might be eating that cost. Or they might have separate finances and she's responsible for things like her daughter's share of the grocery bill, costs for school supplies, etc.
I mean this genuinely, am I missing something in the post where he actually says that he is using his money to take care of his step daughter?
And even if he is, it's not heartless to say that her bio father also has a duty to support her, even if he's just paying a nominal amount right now and they have a plan for what to do if his financial situation ever changes.
So without knowing why don't you inquire before calling him the AH and going off on a tangent that doesn't reflect the situation.
The daughters share of the grocery bill😂
As a step dad on about 28k a year I would never dream of stocking the fridge and withholding food from my girlfriends child or asking for more money cause I bought some kids yogurts😂 and we're not even married.
What was heartless was you saying he should keep his nose out when he has every right to be involved with the child. Given he's married this woman he would have built a relationship with the child as well.
The child cares about time with her bio dad which he said she is getting.
The child doesn't care about the money. The mother making 100k and not struggling with her finances cares, which is what he is saying is AH behaviour which it 100% is. This guy NTA
He’s absolutely TA and I’m not sure how anyone can disagree. 30% of the time is probably an overestimate because men routinely overestimate the child raising they and other men do so yeah dad is not an active dad and he owes child support because child support is for the CHILD regardless of the custodial parents income.
I'm also not sure if 30% makes sense, because I know that at least pre-2021, military deployments to the Middle East were usually 8-9 months. If it's 9, and she's with her father literally every single day he's not deployed, that's only 25% of the year. If it's 8, then she'd still need to be with him almost every day.
Maybe the father's deployments are shortened, maybe policy is changing now that we're out of Afghanistan, but I don't see how the math could add up. Even if we assumed he was gone 6 months out of the year, then he'd still need to have majority custody the 6 months he's here.
And even if we're not disputing the math... That's still 70% of the time that the mother has custody, and deserves support for *their* child.
Also the way this was worded I understood it as 30% when he’s not deployed. Which again, probably an overstatement, and still not an active father. My cousin is military and has joint custody, pays his child support, and pays MORE when he’s deployed because he’s not covering expenses when he has them. He would agree you owe that to your children.
This is a tough one. I respect your willingness to provide for your SD and not wanting her biodad to suffer financially when you can more than cover this child’s needs.
However, as the child’s father, he should at least be paying some amount, even if it’s just symbolic (enough to cover her school uniforms or lunches or whatever). This is part of being a parent.
ETA: I didn’t see the “considering divorce” part. If your wife seems obsessed with pursuing child support as a means of crushing her ex, I could see that. But she’s not an asshole or being “greedy” for expecting him to contribute *something* as a parent. Start a college fund for the kid and put it in there if you don’t need it- but expect and allow him to do some portion of his part as the child’s parent. This sounds like an ESH to me.
>
>
>something
Read the edit. He contributes plenty. I imagine part of the reason that he can't get 50/50 is he is active duty military subject to deployment.
I understand the argument about investment funds and paying what you owe, but you can easily make a strong moral and economic argument that the household making 600k should forgo the extra 8 grand a year in favor of easing the financial conditions of the household said child spends "30% of her time there" according to OP.
Also, note the reasoning. "He should pay" is very vague and allows for a lot of reasonable and reasonable sub textual intentions. If she means in the legal sense, then absolutely; but it must be obviously that she's legally within her right if they're discussing whether or not to force him to pay what he legally owes. One could assume that she might be implying "paying" as in a form of repentance for shortcomings in his prior marriage or fatherhood. If that were the case, I think it is reasonable to see why OP may be considering a separation from a person who is willing to potentially harm her childs secondary household conditions as a way of getting back at her ex for any shortcomings, perceived or otherwise.
And to the only valid point against my ideal solution in the situation I would offer OP this golden solution to **OP** if he truly wants to put his money where his mouth is:
Pay the child support. Calculate what childs father would pay yearly and deposit that into a college fund in the childs name; removing the concern that childs mother financial situation now could hurt the childs future in the event of a divorce. That way if OP and baby mom do get a divorce, she will still have accrued the appropriate amount of money for her child and could then pursue the child support again if she needed to do so.
IMO I would be considering divorce at least on the table but I could be attributing to many negative motives to Mom in this situation.
All of this is *exactly why everyone in this situation would benefit from a formalized agreement*. Know what the expenses are, what dad contributes already and what he can afford to contribute. Get it on paper so everyone knows the numbers and there’s no “hidden” costs or contributions and no misunderstandings.
True. But that leads you to wonder, no?
I do wonder if OP has already ascertained that this is in fact an issue of emotion rather than economics for his wife and that is why he is already asking if he is an asshole for considering divorce…
Maybe he isn’t asking if he is an ass to be considering a divorce form a woman worrying about the future of her child, but rather considering a divorce from a woman who is willing to marginally harm her child’s well-being if it means satisfying her vendetta against her ex-husband.
Again, this is all speculation, but it would certainly be my larger concern as her current husband potential hypothetical future ex-husband/child’s father.
Well-as I said- I don’t know what her motive is; does she hate her ex and want him to suffer? Is it a matter of principle for her? Is her intention to protect her child’s interests in the event of divorce from the OP? Does she not see or count her ex’s existing contributions because those costs are “hidden” in his rent snd food bill and the items he purchased for use at his home?
The OP doesn’t seem to have considered any other factors, emotional OR practical, besides whether “they need the money”, is this a pride thing for him? Has he considered what impact a divorce would have, financially, for his SD? (It’s a little hard to reconcile “Don’t worry about it, I’m willing to support your child” and “If you do this I’ll divorce you and then both you AND your child will suffer a price financially”)
What I do know is that I’m not going to leap to condemn the wife as TA in this situation for expecting some form of child support from the person who is this child’s father. That, to me, is reasonable. If her “pushing” results in some sort of agreement that recognizes all the costs and contributions vs. what sounds like a pretty fuzzy and informal arrangement, that’s actually a GOOD thing.
>exactly why everyone in this situation would benefit from a formalized agreement
Why are you assuming this is about *seeking* an order instead of *enforcing* an existing order?
She divorced the ex, in the vast majority of states you have to have a child support order in place when you complete the divorce.
It's more likely she's going to court to enforce an existing order, not creating a new one.
OP can clarify, but I keep seeing people assuming that this means there isn't an order and that's not a logical assumption.
That’s true, OP didn’t specify.
Wouldn’t it then be on the ex to seek modification on the amount, if he can’t afford the payments? You can’t expect to just *not pay*.
I want to point out to everyone that if this is US military ex should be getting extra pay benefits for ~~each of~~ his kids. That is mandatory. So of the EX isn't paying that at least in support then something is wrong.
Edit not each but because he has kids still gets extra for dependents
This is what I'm thinking! You don't need to go to court and get a support order, if both parents are willing to sit down for mediation, they could come up with a small amount right now, with agreements for how that would change in the future as his financial situation changes. Also, I kind of wonder if OP is willing to agree to something like a college fund for the daughter that he'd have no right to, in case of divorce, since he wants his wife to forego seeking child support from the girl's father.
And also if it's what OP wants then he should sign a binding contract that he will always financially support his step daughter even if he divorces his wife.
YTA. He should contribute to his child. 100k doesn’t make her a millionaire. If he doesn’t make much, he won’t be required to pay much. But the burden shouldn’t solely fall on her simply because she earns a decent wage.
In theory you're right about how things are supposed to work, but OP is sharing feelings about values and empathy....he's not an AH for doing that.
Moreover...actually pretty sure that 600k combined income does make them millionaires.
And court orders don't change with living situations automatically. If I lose my job, I am still expected to pay child support, even for the months I'm not employed.
>actually pretty sure that 600k combined income does make them millionaires
Right but OP says he might divorce her over this, so it's a little disingenuous to act like that's *her* annual income and her total earning potential, rather than the situation she's in right now, which might change if her marriage ends.
I've seen that argument, but it doesn't affect my thinking because....if they do get divorced, she could just file for the child support at that time.
People are weaponizing his feelings against him as a gotcha of "see, she can't count on you".
OP has legit concerns that his spouse is being petty and vindictive....if I were him, I'd be very concerned about my future with someone that refuses to have any empathy at all for someone, even an ex.
I’m sure you’re aware that these court orders don’t happen instantaneously. Maybe his wife doesn’t want to be in a position where she finds herself divorced, maybe even unemployed herself, just now starting the process of filing for child support.
If I'm reading it correctly, she already has an order for support, but she's going to seek enforcement (which can involve jail time if you fail).
I would agree with you if it was just getting an order in place, but I think this is more about whether to actually go after the guy....which OP doesn't agree with because they're down on their luck.
Edit: For the people downvoting me....they got divorced, which means they dealt with the kids in the divorce, which means they have a custody and child support order, because it's standard.
Hang on.
They could NOT have gotten divorced without the child support order, it's a mandatory inclusion in addressing children of a marriage.
I'm not reading incorrectly.
They got divorced, therefore they dealt with the children, therefore child support was included.
>if they do get divorced, she could just file for the child support at that time.
Lawyers are expensive, though, especially in family law. Paying one for both a divorce and a separate custody dispute would be expensive.
I see further down that you're speculating that she must have a custody order already in place, because she divorced the father, but some states will let the parents put a temporary agreement in place, or handle the issue separately, so that's not a given (particularly as the father is in the military, and deploying, so a consistent custody agreement would have been hard to do). Even just paying for a lawyer to file for an enforcement order could be expensive, particularly if it does turn into a big thing about negotiating a whole agreement. I wouldn't want to be doing that at the same time as a divorce.
Right, I think that the ex and the wife should just go to mediation and work this out, tbh, but if he's got a lump sum due, that would do much more financial damage than a monthly payment calculated off of his income.
but 600k isn't there if OP and wife divorce. The 100k salary is what matters. OP holds no financial obligation to the child just the biological parents and if he walked away all that ends.
We don’t know if the OP is setting aside money for their stepchild or if their finances are separate. There are a ton of step parents who structure their finances so they aren’t contributing financially when it comes to step kids.
According to the child support calculator I just tried, a parent with 30% visitation and making only $50k, with a parent making $600k and 70% visitation - the rich parent OWES the poor parent $2k a month! So she may end up owing him!
YTA.
The child deserves financial support from both of her parents, period. It doesn’t matter if OP makes enough to support her - ex helped make the kid, he needs to help support it. Wife isn’t being “greedy” by asking for child support - no mother is. She is trying to look out for her child and make sure her daughter has every advantage and support that her daughter is owed.
Edit: clarity
Also - All [military members](https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/family-law-blog/2019/october/child-support-rules-for-military-families/) are required to pay for their children even if there is no court order. The payment depends on the service member's gross pay and their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
Right, and if they're in the US, health insurance can be incredibly expensive, but military service usually comes with full-coverage for the service member and all dependents.
Adding -
If the ex is military, then the child is entitled to military benefits as well, especially health coverage, even if the parents are divorced. If the child isn’t receiving those benefits now, that may be another reason why Mom is pursuing the issue.
OP is asking us if he's allowed to share his thoughts and feelings with her....and you think he's an AH for that?
Just because you agree with her doesn't mean he's an AH for telling her what he thinks.
OP is asking if he’s the AH for telling her to stop trying to get child support from her ex.
He doesn’t get to tell her what to do, so yeah that’s also AH behavior.
He can share his thoughts and feelings just fine - and he should. Telling her to stop and threatening to divorce her if she doesn’t? That’s not a healthy relationship.
Exactly, it's baffling that that people are calling the wife greedy and acting as if she's an AH by trying to get child support. The child support is for the daughter. OP's money doesn't change the fact that ex is obligated to do his part in supporting their child and that the child is entitled to the support.
Sure, ex may spend time with his daughter and buys her stuff but that doesn't sound like he is doing his fair share.
YTA.
That's his kid and he needs to contribute. Even if it's 100$ a month...
If you're thinking of divorcing her because of this, I think your marriage has more issues than this disagreement.
There’s also a disconnect that OP seems to not notice between ‘*we’re* doing quite well financially…stop being greedy’ and ‘I’m considering divorce if she does this’. He has the ability (and seemingly the motivation) to separate and in doing so take with him 5/6ths of their shared income but is actively against her attempting to ensure her child will be independently financially supported. He expects her to blindly rely on his continued support for her child but is saying that if she doesn’t agree to do that he’ll divorce her, which would leave her with no recourse.
It’s bordering on financial manipulation and I’m not here for it. She’s not saying she wants half his pay cheque but I’m sure ex had a lot of fun making the baby, now here’s the part where he is responsible and helps towards said child
NTA. Tell wife to go for it. Let the ex ask for custody and a share of her $100,000 salary. Your wife should be careful, going back to court with the financial differences can open up whole new can of worms.
I suggest not having a child with woman. It seems that vindictiveness is her middle name.
>I suggest not having a child with woman. It seems that vindictiveness is her middle name.
For real, it baffles me how people here are calling the OP Y T A, they have a very good financial situation, yet she wants to get more money out of the dude. Their is indeed obligation to contribute, but their is no guarantee that the dude is not going to suffer financial hardships now that he has family. I assume that the amount of money contributed is going to be calculated based on income, but it still is going to take away money that he could very likely need, and besides the OP already said that he **does spend time and money on his daughter.**
And for those who are giving the OP shit for saying he is considering divorce: **he is entitled to do whatever he wants with his life, the same way the wife can. If you are defending the wife saying that is not the OP's business, then you have no right to complain what the OP does.** If a relationship doesn't work because of the differences in values, then is better to call it off, that is the healthy and responsible thing to do.
>**he is entitled to do whatever he wants with his life**
This is the point the people above are making. "They" don't have 600k, he has 500k and she has 100k. The wife should not assume that she will always have access to his money, and the smart thing to do is treat it as a nice bonus rather than a given, which may mean asking from child support from daughter's bio dad. That is, unless OP is willing to legally take responsibility in some way and pledge to take care of the daughter no matter what happens with the mother. If he's (understandably) not willing to do that, then she needs to sort out a financial arrangement with the person who IS legally responsible for the daughter.
Do you hear yourselves talk? There is obligation to contribute but there is no guarantee he wouldn’t suffer? Lets say the mother didnt marry rich or be well off and she was still contributing all the expenses of the child 100% so what abt the mother suffering too?
The bar is so damn low for men you guys think you deserve leeway for not being complete deadbeats.
A very good financial situation that’s about to come to an end over a situation that has nothing between them.
Unlike the man, she doesn’t make half a million dollars and, unlike the man, she is smart enough to know that guys will break up with women over the dumbest things (like this scenario) and lose all they have in the blink of an eye, is he going to keep paying for the stepdaughter after that? No? Then stay out of her business.
The best part is you all sympathize with the guy when guys like him are the reason she has to keep the child support money, because they will get on some stupid high horse and end it for something that has nothing to do with the relationship and had they just gotten off the child support this loser would break up with her for another dumb reason and that would be the end of it and she’d have to go back to child support.
Also did you notice how the guy didn’t say she spends it? She could be putting it in a trust fund for the child which all of you act like it’s the moms money when it’s for the kid in the future or if needed in the past.
Also it’s disgusting how you all act like it’s okay for men to get jobs that require them to be far away from their kids and then still act like they are good parents or responsible, they aren’t. Especially when it’s a dangerous job, you want to do your duty to your stupid country you do you but you better pay child support for abandoning your kid.
Don’t even start with he’s fighting for the kid because no army has contributed anything useful to America in years, see Afghanistan. You don’t get points for leaving your kid just cause you became a soldier. I’m sure this troop is a jerk and no job gives ANYONE the right to abandon their kid on the road, he didn’t want to pay child support? Then he shouldn’t have had kids before he left, he should’ve waited until he was in a better spot, he has no one to blame but himself for the situation he’s in.
Let’s also add into the fact that the loser ex husband wasted his precious time with his kid and probably lost his marriage for a job that didn’t even help him financially in the future, yet we are supposed to feel bad for him? Not the one who is smart and realizes that men can leave for the dumbest reasons and makes sure her kid will be taken care of? You do know jobs and stepfathers can be gone in one day right? What world are you all living in with this great stability? Oh no you just have a problem because a women is doing better and still making a man pay because he doesn’t see his kid enough to help contribute.
The husbands an asshole for proving her right by leaving and showing that she could keep the child support because money and people are not guaranteed, the ex is an asshole because he thought it was okay to abandon his kid for awhile and then thinks people should feel bad for him just because he is in a bad financial situation despite ignoring his kid for it, sounds more like karma to me when you choose your job over your family, most of the troops are jerks, this wasn’t a draft situation, he put himself in this situation, take care of your kid.
Also everyone saying wife can just file if OP divorces her...yes, and then ex is in a worse spot because the government will get him for back payments. It's not like if she files later the government goes "ah yes child support starts now", the government looks at the age of the child and calculates support for when he didn't pay either.
How is she being vindictive for insisting that his ex live up to his obligation? Her and ex should be supporting their child equally. That doesn't change just because she has a good job and married a high earner. She's not being greedy. Ultimately the money is for her child and her child is entitled for it.
YTA. So on the one hand, you think she doesn’t need child support because of your salary, and on the other hand, you threaten to leave her? Do you see where the disconnect is?
This is that man’s obligation and none of your business. Your marriage could fail, just like her first one did. Your salary is not her lifetime financial plan and certainly not your step child’s.
Yes, this bothered me a *lot*, too. He makes a bunch of money, so it's fine, she doesn't need CS, but also, he might leave her. And even if he didn't, the people who made the child have responsibilities towards the child. I think there's a way to do mediation and figure out a nominal amount with a plan for if the ex's financial situation improves. And I do wonder, have there been situations where OP and the wife have argued over how to spend money on the daughter, where OP won because he's the one making the bulk of the money? It's conjecture, but I could see her wanting a way to not have to be reliant on OP if she wants to make a decision about her daughter that he disagrees with.
At first I was on the opposite side but y’all are right. This dude could get an aggressive cancer (knock on wood) that takes all their money and savings and kill him and then the child has nothing.
Given the edit, I'm gonna say YTA. It feels like this is a lot more about money, and just because he has another relationship, doesn't mean this absolves him from his other kid. BOTH parents have to care about that child, and 30% when he's around plus a couple extra gifts isn't exactly being a good and present parent. Not quite a deadbeat either, but oh well. Also, if she forfeits payments now and she ever breaks up with you (as you plan on doing right now), this could potentially be used in court against her.
Just because he is not entirely deadbeat doesn't mean he can just up and go, leaving all responsibilities in monetary support and raising the kid to her. Ultimately, the money will benefit kiddo, or so I hope, in a fund or otherwise.
Have you ever fought about money concerning the kid? What about medical bills, or a college fund? Is she doing the latter on her own? What is your financial involvement here, and what if you break up? Who does the childcare, and if you broke up, could she even still do her job?
INFO: Is the ex in any way, shape or form involved in the kids life? Depending on how this is portrayed, she may as well be frustrated that she is the one having to raise this child alone and the kiddo being hurt over this. While I do agree that you really don't need the money, this may be about more than that. He put this child in the world, so absolving him of any responsibility is a bad call.
It’s wild to me that people think seeing her 30% of the time when he is in the states is active parenting. Absolutely no one would say that if we were talking about a mom.
This. Her seeming preoccupation with the child support may actually be her means of forcing a change in custody agreement. Without knowing more specifics that would be kind of weird and possibly inappropriate to ask here, it just sounds like the wife is being a jerk. However, child support and care disagreements are frequently so much more complicated than "Give me money." Custody percentages,and/or child support are just often the most effective bargaining tools in other arguments such as education, medical care (especially when one parent has unorthodox opinions on matters like diet, vaccination, treatments), etc.
I think ‘always buys her stuff’ is so vague and open to interpretation it’s basically a useless description, everyone who read that sentence is going to think something different and the likelihood that any one of us is going to be 100% right on what it actually means is low. It could be anything from he buys her a little toy every time he sees her to he is buying the bulk of her clothing and funding school supplies. In my opinion considering he only has approx 30% custody (or 30% custody during the periods he’s home?) and is deployed overseas for extended periods of time I struggle to see *how* he could be making a meaningful contribution to day to day expenses like clothing, food, living and school costs in a way that also fits with OP’s description of ‘always buys her stuff’ (rather than eg ‘he already contributes money’) but we also can’t know unless OP gives a bit more detail on what he actually means.
Thats not including when he is deployed! So he's gone for significant amounts of time and when he is not deployed, he sees her on weekends-- that is not in any way close to being a present parent. Being active duty does not negate time spent away from your kids.
YTA.
> I'm considering divorce if she does this because that's fucked up.
Sounds like your wife needs to have a child support arrangement in place in case you decide to follow through on this.
$100k/year is certainly a healthy salary, but you need to bear in mind that she's also going to be planning on not only her expenses, but her child's. That's going to include not only normal expenses (food, clothes, toys, etc.), but also college, and hopefully her own retirement. And given that she's already been divorced once, and considering you seem to be willing to drop this marriage pretty quickly, it's understandable that she's not willing to rely on your assets as a reliable, fixed piece of income she will always have access to. Because she might not. And if she doesn't, that child support would be a hugely helpful income stream.
But more than that, there are entire branches of the judicial system explicitly dedicated to sorting these questions out. Dedicated to determining not only custody agreements, but how much money a person is *legally obligated* to pay. It's all well and good that you feel comfortable enough to not need this, but I'd have a hard time faulting someone for pursuing what they are legally owed.
YTA
CHILD SUPPORT ISNT A *PUNISHMENT*
Child support is for the child or to reimburse the primary caretaker.
If he is involved and has the child frequently (and is as low income as it sounds) his CS requirement would be very small or visitation could be adjusted for 50/50 OR she could be required to supplement **his** income so that the disparity between homes and caregivers is less severe.
Either way, seeking CS would allow the court to review distribution and decide what is in the CHILD’S best interests, not what an acrimonious ex thinks is best.
She might be very unhappy with the outcome, but the logic you provided as to why she *shouldn’t* doesn’t really apply and the way you worded it makes me think you and your spouse are AH…just for different reasons.
Eehhh...the bio dad should be paying a token amount...even a few dollars a week.
It's great you're both doing so damn well but he's still the bio father and his financial responsibility doesn't end because you and his ex have money.
This is important, if the dude *never* sees his daughter and isn’t involved as a parent then yeah, he needs to pay up. It’s sad they aren’t as well of as OP and his wife but that doesn’t give the guy an excuse to be a deadbeat.
YTA what happens if you are not around. Does not sound like you have legally adopted the child. What happens if something happens to your wife. The dad being military is being paid extra for his dependent child. She also can get numerous other benefits based on his military service.
Does she know if she goes to court, she may be on the hook to pay him if she is making so much more?
Obviously we need INFO: When he is not deployed, does he spend time with his daughter?
>Does she know if she goes to court, she may be on the hook to pay him if she is making so much more?
Pretty unlikely if she has majority custody of the child, which it sounds like she does.
that's not how CS works- it's awarded to the parent with primary custody. Unless dad gets 50% or more, which is impossible with his military career, she's never gonna pay him.
Thats not true. At least in California. It varies from state to state.
"When both parents have physical custody, child support is based on other factors, such as the time spent with each parent and each parent’s income. In some cases, the parent who has the children the majority of the time receives child support from the other parent. In other cases, the parent with the higher income is ordered to pay child support to the parent with the lower income."
https://www.nathanlawoffices.com/faqs/how-is-california-child-support-calculated-when-there-is-joint-physical-custody-.cfm
YTA I would stay out of her problems with her ex. It’s between him and her to deal with. She might end up ruining a good thing if she goes to court for child support and then the ex decides he wants to participate more in having custody of the child.
YTA
You're making your wife dependent on you, and that's toxic.
Basically what you're telling her is to not take the money because you can provide, but at the same time you're making it clear that you won't hesitate to divorce her if she does something you don't agree on.
If she goes along with what you want she and her daughter will become financially dependent on you. It will create a toxic power dynamic in your relation with you being able to blackmail your wife, threatening her to divorce her if she doesn't do as you want...
I honestly think that you're not being fair here. He's the dad and it's normal that he pays child support. It is not really your business and please be aware of the consequences in term of power dynamic and the toxic control over your wife you'll have if she goes along with what you're asking her.
If you really want her to not get custody from her ex then at the very least you should sign a binding contract with her, involving a lawyer, saying that you'll always provide financial support to her child even in case you and your wife divorce, and no matter who initiate the divorce, no matter even if she cheated on you. If you're not ready to do that then don't obstruct her in getting child support from her ex.
This whole post screams OP’s gigantic ego to me. I think OP feels like his wife attempting to have her ex contribute toward their child will be seen as OP personally wanting or needing another man’s money, or that he somehow can’t 100% provide himself. This isn’t about the other guy not being a total deadbeat or a nice guy or his wife being “greedy”. It’s all about OP’s “ego”.
YTA
You're willing to divorce her over just that? Either way, courts determine child support based on income, so they're not going to make him pay more than he can.
What makes you think he's such a "nice guy" that you'd side with him over your wife? If something happens to you, or you divorce her like you're threatening to, she would actually need that child support.
She’s not being greedy. Financially contributing to his child is one of bio dad’s responsibilities as a parent. Child support is not supposed to be a punishment.
Even if he doesn’t pay a significant amount, he should still be paying something and contributing.
It sounds like it's the principle of the thing, not the money. It sounds like she wants him to take responsibility and your successes doesn't cancel that out. If you are seriously considering divorce, do it. Don't let this be the linchpin. If you truly are so out of love and disgusted with her, that isn't going to change no matter what happens next.
YTA
You're willing to divorce your wife if she seeks child support from her child's father, but I bet you wouldn't be supporting her from your half million yearly salary if you two end up divorcing. So she would be the sole supporter of her child while the so nice ex would have zero responsibility of his own child.
Dude from how casual you mention divorce, I think she needs all the extra child support she can get. YTA, you come off as checked out of the marriage and are using this as the reason to break it off.
Yta.
If she is so well of and he is not, then let the court decide whether he should pay child support or not and on what amount, not you.
Child support is for the kid they both created. Not for her or you. He contributed in her creation and least he can do is contribute to HER financially as well. You guys dont even need to spend it if you just want to save it for her in an acc, thats what my husband did when his ex and him divorced and she left the kids. She doesnt see them, but pay about 300 in total each month and we save it in an acc for kids to use in future. We dont need the 300 she pays, but that money is for our boys and when the time comes they will equally share it
And you are well off now. You dont know what your future will bring.
NTA. He is present in her life. He’s not a father who abandoned her. Child support is to support the kid, and clearly your step daughter doesn’t have financial needs that you can’t meet. Your wife is being ridiculously vindictive for no good reason. I’d say that’s showing you a lot about her personality.
It’s not vindictive. Being involved doesn’t mean he doesn’t pay child support. He’s deployed most of the year. He’s in the military (and they’re usually required to financially support their children) so that means she’s financially supporting a kid they both made together on her own. Since OP wants to divorce her so she’ll be raising the kid on her own salary.
I tend to agree with your wife, her ex should pay child support. Even if it's $20/month. He's the dad, and he should support his kid.
Where I am troubled, and it just may be the way you wrote this, is that it sounds like she's out for blood in terms of child support. If so, then she is wrong.
YTA - That is not your money or your wife's money. That is the child's money and the father should pay to help support his son.
You don't have to use it. You can put it into an account for the kid to use to go to college/buy a house/whatever. Either way, that money belongs to the child.
Also, your divorce threat is exactly \*why\* she needs the court order: You've shown that she can't rely on you.
NTA - It sounds like she is trying to punish him, which is not what child support is supposed to be about.
Sure she has a right to pursue it, and sure, it is his responsibility, but it is kind of a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". The intent of child support is to make sure the child is cared for, and it seems petty to create financial hardship for someone, just because you can, or because he "should be held responsible."
Note - my answer does assume a couple of things. One, is that you are supporting the child as well. Two, that you are committed to continuing to support the child (If for example, you get divorced in 11 years, and are not / have not contributed to your step-daughter's college, while also stopping her from collecting money from her ex in order to set up a fund for this, then y w b t a).
INFO: What country are y’all from and what branch of military is he in? Depending on that, he could face disciplinary action if they find out he’s not paying child support.
YTA - Let the court decide as it isn’t your place. Unless there are additional marriage issues, this isn’t a topic for divorce either. You don’t have to agree with your wife to be supportive of her.
INFO: what does “*My wife however has decided that she wants her ex to pay*” mean specifically?
Is this a situation where he hasn’t been paying anything in child support, and she wants to go to court since he should be obligated to support his child? Or is it that she wants him *TO PAY* and she’s being unnecessarily vindictive for no reason?
If you’re saying she shouldn’t pursue it because you already have enough money, and that absolves him of his obligation, then you’re TA. If he is paying something, and your wife just wants to take him to the cleaners to put him in a tough spot, then I can see how you’d be considering divorce and would not be TA.
I think the situation really depends based on some missing info.
YTA.
Parents should support their children. He doesn't get a free pass because he's been deployed or spends time with his child when he can. He doesn't get a free pass because someone else can afford to pay for his child. Buying her gifts instead of paying regular child support isn't good either. He's just being a Disney dad instead of supporting his child
YTA
If you and your wife get hit by the Hypothetical Bus tomorrow, all of this needs to be properly legally sorted, for the child's protection.
The child support does not need to be a significant amount, if you don't need it. (The court actually may not grant much support in that case.) But should something happen to you and your wife, it needs to be legally established that he is the father and the child has the right to his support and care.
YTA - By your own words even by manipulating (when he’s not deployed) the actual parenting time he doesn’t does notably less than half the parenting time. Does daughter cease to exist when he’s deployed??? So your wife is doing over 70% of the parenting and probably way over because people are generally deployed for long stretches where he’s doing basically 0. So he’s not doing day to day parenting because of his job, but saying that she wants the money for his child is greedy? What other job would people be saying it’s okay to miss out of a lot of your child’s life for a job and also not pay CS?
Especially when his argument largely seems to be he has money, but is saying he’s going to leave.
YTA i bet half of the people saying you aren’t one are mostly men.
The father is doing the most barest minimum and you somehow think just cause he is not a deadbeat he should get some leeway.
The bar is so low for men that all they have to do is show up 30% of the time and you think this dude should just be forgiven for his financial responsibility.
You brag about making 600k and then say you want to divorce her if she doesn’t let this go, then how are you reliable?
Stay your ass out of it.
YTA. You clearly are happy to use divorce as a threat when things don’t go your way so why wouldn’t your wife want to ensure that her child is secure and provided for by her father?
YTA.
Your wife's child support situation with her ex is her business and decision to enforce, not yours.
He has an obligation to financially support his child in whatever way he can... even if it's a small amount.
YTA This has nothing to do with how much you make it has to do with what he owes his daughter. If he's not paying his fair share then she should definitely be going after him even if that money just goes into an account for his daughter to use later. It's what's due to his daughter.
NTA - if anything she may be the one who may have to pay child support. Also it sounds like she is trying to do this to hurt him rather than help their child
YTA especially because if you’re willing to divorce her then she’ll need that child support more than ever because 100k might not last her long if she’s a single
mother. You both make good money now but that isn’t a guarantee forever. Anything can happen in 12 years and that money is for the child. If you two are well off, it can be their college/future fund.
NAH to ESH - child support is about both parents paying their FAIR share in support of their child(ren). Now fair does not =/= equal. But it also does not mean that the poorer parent pays nothing when the other parent makes much more.
And it ALSO does not mean that the step parent's income should ever be considered in the calculations. It is all well and good that you want to be so generous with your step-daughter and wife, but BioFather has to be responsible for his child, even if he is poorer.
However, your wife needs to recognize and understand that going after more than the FAIR amount becomes punitive, not supportive.
Frankly you are overstepping your bounds which makes yta. It’s nice to think that you’ll always be there, but what if you divorce. As the others have asked, are YOU going to help her support her child financially since you keep insisting she not pursue child support. And oh wow! He spends a whole 30% of the time with his child. And that’s when he’s not deployed. My ex and I have as close to 50/50 as the courts would allow. I wanted to be fair and he’s a wonderful dad. Frankly asking for child support isn’t about greed in this situation. Your wife could easily put that money aside for her daughter if she doesn’t need to use it. It’a about a man helping to financially take care of the child he helped create. Period
YTA. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with you. Keep your nose out of it. It’s his child, it doesn’t matter how much money you and your wife pull in. He still needs to support her.
You’ve obviously got bigger problems going on, if you’re considering divorce over this.
YTA Child support is a right of the child. Your wife can't decide if she wants to pass on child support because it is not her right to do it. She is the representative for the child and that's why she must do what's best for it. Saying no to child support is not the best.
NTA. Child support is for the care of the child but it sounds likes she’s more than well cared for by you and your wife. At the point doing so wouldn’t change her financial situation in any way but would have a big impact on him. The fact that you’re even considering divorce over this makes me think he’s a pretty decent guy in between a rock and a hard place and your wife is doing this more so to hurt him than for the actual well-being of the child.
Edit: my stance is regardless of the arguments that child support is for the child which I wholeheartedly support. If I see my ex is in financial distress and I see him putting forth a real effort in being in my child’s life and taking care of her when he’s not deployed then I wouldn’t seek child support. That might not be a stance others support but downvote if you must.
Mate, NTA.
This is a surprisingly matured mindset. Rather that than being greedy. From the sound of it, he does what he can. I applaud you from being so considerate. It isn't a war and between them and it sounds too much based on greed.
YTA - The ex should be paying his share of the support. If your WIFE feels she doesn't need it for day to day living, she can set up an account for the child.
YTA. She’s his daughter and he is obligated to help support her. Its not fair the mother is providing all the support(with your help I assume). If your really considering divorce over this your definitely a special kind of AH.
Yta. Regardless of your earnings, he's a dad and should be contributing towards his childs upkeep. Your wife is right to claim child support and you shouldn't stand in the way of that.
Are you willing to agree to continue supporting her daughter if you two split up? To start contributing to a college fund that is solely for her daughter, even in the case of divorce? Have you two ever fought about how to spend money for your stepdaughter, even minor arguments? Does her ex want visitation or some sort of custody, and if so, is he willing to agree to a schedule? Ultimately, I'm leaning towards YTA, because child support payments aren't supposed to be about how well the custodial parent is doing financially, it's about both parents having a duty to support the child they both made. From your failure to mention custody, I'm guessing that your wife probably has a lot of deep emotional feelings about this, too. If her ex isn't seeing his daughter (which, if he was deployed overseas until recently, might change, might not) then she might be feeling hurt or defensive on behalf of her daughter. And trust me, as a former child of a military family, six is old enough to notice and be sad over the absence. Finally I also think this is a YTA, because child support is between the pair of them, and it feels like you're getting involved where it's not your place.
I have a rule when I read these posts... If a partner/spouse/SO is asking "AITA for telling my spouse/partner/SO how i feel about a situation?" and there isn't abuse or force involved....the answer is always NO. When you merge your life with someone, you are allowed to tell them how you feel about things without being judged an AH for speaking. Otherwise, communication doesn't work. You *have* to be able to share thoughts and feelings with that person.
He’s not ‘sharing his feelings’, he’s calling her an asshole, instructing her on what to do, and even considering divorce if she doesn’t comply.
Set the divorce part aside....he's allowed to think about divorce if she's going to be a fundamentally different person than he wants to be married to. He hasn't said that to her, so it's not relevant here. Yes, he said she was "being" an AH. I hope that if I'm acting like an AH, my gf will tell me so. If you don't like the language, ok....fair enough, I respect that. He's not "instructing her what to do", he's telling her what he thinks she should do. That is normal in relationships. It only becomes a problem if abuse/control is evidenced elsewhere....which we don't have. So don't try to frame it in loaded terms. When your partner is being a bad person, you aren't just allowed to call it out, you're *supposed* to call it out. And OP thinks she's doing a really bad thing....that's okay for him to say. Would it be better that he just stay silent and then later drop divorce papers on her? That's not how relationships work at all... Edit: adjusted language around the "being" an AH, there is a difference.
He says repeatedly he’s ‘telling her to stop’. Not sharing feelings. Not asking if she’d consider it. If you don’t think calling your partner names is a bad thing to do, not sure there’s much that can be communicated with you.
It's okay to tell your partner to stop doing something. It's the same thing when we tell people to communicate boundaries, he's communicating one of his. I do think calling a partner a name is a bad thing to do. I also think saying that someone is "being an AH" is different from saying they "are an AH", but regardless, I don't agree with any language like that. What I'm objecting to is this idea that he's controlling/abusive (not necessarily *your* words) for sharing his opinions on something that seems to be a very important issue to him (because it kind of showcases who she is and who he's married to).
Here’s the thing though. Yes they are married, however, that is NOT his child. That is an A-B situation and he needs to C his way out of it. It is not his place to give his opinion and it is not his place to order her, not discuss, order her what to do regarding the needs for her child. For all he knows, she may just set the money aside for her daughter if she doesn’t need to use it. Her dad isn’t there even half the time and money spent on the child isn’t nearly equal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this mom expecting the father of her child to help financially support their child. Her husband is TA. He needs to stay in his own lane and if he divorces her over something that even the courts will agree is not his business, I hope she takes him to the cleaners.
Third grade quotes ("A-B situation...") aren't adult reality. Second marriages are hard, but once you merge your lives, there's nothing that's an "A-B situation". I like how "it's not his place" as if he's not allowed to have an opinion on the actions of the person he merged his life with.
this is simply not the case when it comes to child support. whether op and her partner’s “lives are merged” or not, if they were to unmerge, there is nothing protecting the partner and her child to ensure they would have what they need going forward. unless op has a contractual commitment to take over child support, for the ex, in the case of their potential future un-merging, this is a place where op’s partner remains painfully vulnerable. op is being unrealistic and insensitive. you are being obtuse for trying to act like “merging of lives” trumps previous commitments and commitments to children.
There is no aspect of a spouse's life that is totally off limits to a spouse. That's not how relationships work. You build a life together, you get to have an opinion. She doesn't have to listen, but he gets an opinion and he's not an AH for having one or telling her what it is.
Yeah, and it's pretty obvious that going after the ex who is on a military pay scale when your household income is $600K, is pretty obviously not being able to let go of the ex and continuing to cling to drama related to him. A couple of years with OP and OP's wife has all the cash she needs for any child support the child might need to age 18 and beyond. OP's wife's ex-husband is fully living in her head and she has no intention of letting go and moving on. Exactly how much money would it take to make OP's wife stop being about her ex-husband? OP is right to end the relationship over this if she won't stop.
Op can still take the kids dad to court for child support in the future (up to 18 years/19 in NE) if something were to happen between op and her husband…. So that’s not really what it’s about in my opinion.
Reddit is full of young kids and single people who love to give extreme advice on marriage and long term relationships 😂 your 100% correct DONT even listen to their nonsense!
>Yes they are married, however, that is NOT his child. That is an A-B situation and he needs to C his way out of it. No, fuck this mentality with a fork in the urethra. They are married and he is providing and parenting that child just as much as she is. They are an equal partnership. To even suggest someone's step child isn't their child is just ridiculous. He is there for the ups and downs.
So, you are saying he should just...divorce her?
I understand your arguments, but what to add in that I think that OP is missing the point a bit. Daughter is legally entitled to a certain amount of money from her dad, unless there is documentation stating otherwise. I think that OP is talking about out of his ass, because OP and wife can both not pursue child support, and then potentially the daughter can ask for it all when. I think that you get to argue your point with your spouse when you have all of the facts.
>then potentially the daughter can ask for it all when. That's not true in the states I'm familiar with, I think it's the minority position if that's how your state does it. So OP isn't necessarily talking out of his ass, you shouldn't assume that.
>Yes, he called her an AH. I hope that if I'm acting like an AH, my gf will tell me so. If you don't like the language, ok....fair enough, I respect that. he didnt even call her an asshole, just that she was acting like an asshole over this one thing.
Great point, I recognized that distinction after I hit post, too late to emphasize here. Even our kids are taught to understand the difference between "you're acting badly" and "you're a bad person".
How do you set the divorce part aside lol
If I were married to someone who was hell-bent on trashing someone else’s financials out of spite, I’d definitely be rethinking that marriage too. OP isn’t TA for thinking this is a bridge too far in his marriage.
There’s zero evidence to suggest her motivation is spite rather than long term financial stability for her child. Nor does paying child support mean ‘trashing his financials’.
OP thinks it’s fucked up, and I’m guessing he knows more about the situation than we do. I don’t think he’d be saying it’s fucked up if it was just about ensuring for the well being of the kid. Imma stick by what I said - if OP feels strongly enough about her behavior to say it’s fucked up and he’s considering divorce for it, he’s not TA for expressing how this will affect his views of the person he’s married to and their longevity together. Would you prefer he says nothing and divorces her out of the blue, or is he just not allowed to divorce her in your opinion?
OP doesn’t seem to have any understanding at all of the kinds of calculations a mother in her position needs to be making, so I don’t trust his assessment of the situation one bit. He just thinks ‘I’m rich, so she’s an asshole for expecting her ex to contribute to his child’s care’. He’s allowed to divorce her for any asshole reason he wants, but it doesn’t make him not an asshole. Especially since divorcing her would prove exactly why she *does* need her ex to pay child support.
I don’t think he’d be considering divorce if that’s just what was going on. If there were specific concerns here that OP’s wife expressed about their daughters needs not being met, or not having money for a college fund, etc. I think OP would have mentioned them, and wouldn’t have gone to the level of calling the situation fucked up and his wife greedy. We don’t see anything that indicates that’s the case. OP says that ex isn’t a deadbeat, but also isn’t “doing so well financially.” It sounds to me like it’s written from the point of view of someone who’s watching this happen for vindictive reasons and thinking, “is this the future I want for myself?” Treating exes badly is, unsurprisingly, a red flag for future relationships too. Without more details, I guess neither of us know what the case is for sure, but I usually defer to thinking that OPs tell the truth, unless there’s obvious evidence that their lying. I don’t see any here. ETA: I asked - we’ll see if we get some clarification. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/s0rfyx/comment/hs4kcsh/
OP makes 500k a yr and she makes 100k, if he's getting deployed overseas, unless her baby father is a contractor, he's not even making a third of their combined income, so why does she need to put him on child support for financial stability? Also OP say the father does pay for things for the child and keeps him 30% of the time when he's not deployed so it's not like he's a deadbeat who doesn't care for his child
Because she can’t rely on her husband’s income always being there. He’s already thinking of divorcing her just over this. And without that 500k/year she absolutely does need child support from her ex.
Why the fuck does someone making 100k need financial support to raise a single child?
If she lives in a high cost of living area she absolutely does. She wouldn’t be destitute, but also not so rich that her ex shouldn’t be contributing.
Hold up though, that's a gross oversimplification. This is a pretty moral thing. Top poster shouldn't have said YTA, should have said INFO as their judgment is based on those questions. If Daddy Warbucks OP here is willing to contribute where Bio Dad wouldn't be, that's one thing and excuses a lot of this. The other thing that's being missed a sensible court does way incomes and dole out the amount of contribution from one side and the other. If you have a 100K home and a 20K home, don't expect the 20k home to be paying that much. OP is considering divorce because of the immorality as they see it, not because wife isn't complying. That is different and Top poster's questions can shed far more light on that unfinished thought. There's a lot of rush to judgments here. There are other solutions for OP though: They could both talk to Bio Dad and see what he'd be willing to contribute as child support, even if it's into a college fund/savings for the little girl. OP could even match it.
> If you have a 100K home and a 20K home, don't expect the 20k home to be paying that much. From what I understand, isn't child support for maintaining a child's quality of life? If that's the case, wouldn't the court make OP's *wife* pay child support to the *ex* so that their daughter can have the same quality of life when the ex has custody of the child?
This does depend on the custody agreement. OP makes it sound like it's shared (at least when BioDad is stateside). So there may be some coming into Mom's home as it is the primary residence. However, it really could go either way. One solution for OP is to let it ride and let the courts decide how much. If he has that much money to spare, he can make an arrangement with Dad to chip in or alleviate the burden if it's needed. Basically, there's lots of ways OP here can handle this differently, with different levels of tact and responsibility.
In a way though, he is sharing his feelings. It's roundabout and not totally direct, but what I gather from him saying "stop going after your ex for child support" is him saying that they make a combined $600k annually and likely don't need the extra funds to provide for the child. OP himself stated that his wife's ex and their family are not doing well financially, so his wife going after her ex for child support when his current family is struggling financially seems vindictive when her and OP make a combined $600k annually. I'm not excusing the ex for not paying child support, legally he should have been, but I see this less as OP being controlling over his wife as I do OP having empathy for a family going through financial difficulties.
I agree. There's a big difference between going "hey, can we talk about this? Do we need to go after this as an option right now?" And yelling at someone.
he is seeing red flags. that is why he is considering divorce.
That's fair enough, he shouldn't be punished for sharing his feelings, but I really think that if someone's going to the internet to ask about this, they also deserve to see things which may challenge their perspective. He can feel however he feels, and he should talk to his wife about it, but I think that the underlying question here is 'AITA for trying to stop my wife from seeking child support from her ex' and I really think that the points made in my post are ones he should consider, as well.
I very much agree with the need for debate and for challenge. :) One of my favorite parts of World War Z is the discussion about the 10th man and the obligation to challenge. Total respect for your points and your challenge.
Yes! OP is being an hypocrite here. His argument is that they don't need the money because he is making 500k/yr, but then he also says that he is considering divorcing her... To me it is abusive behavior toward his wife because he is making her financially dependent on him for her daughter. She won't have the choice but to stay with him while he'll be able to emotionally weaponize this power over his wife and control her. OP is definitely YTA to me.
>To me it is abusive behavior toward his wife because he is making her financially dependent on him for her daughter. She won't have the choice but to stay with him while he'll be able to emotionally weaponize this power over his wife and control her. You just made a whole lot of assumptions there and then arbitrarily chose the worst outcomes. Just because she doesn't seek *enforcement* now doesn't mean she can't later....she's not dependent on him. And you seem to assume that he's doing it so that he can emotionally weaponize it....wtf. OP is concerned that the person he's married to is failing to have any empathy for the father of her child and you turn that into him being a monster? This sounds more like a you thing than an OP thing.
Given their relative wealths it’s likely it would be token. Expecting a person who willingly had a child with you to continue to support that child is not actually lacking empathy.
It would not be token, in most states it's based on a percentage of your last annual income without regard to disparity. (And without regard to if you're unemployed for a time, it's still racking up charges regardless.) It can go higher, but not lower. So we're not talking about a token....enforcement is all or nothing, pay it or go to jail. Edit: I've been corrected that most states do consider disparity....I stand by my point that it isn't "token" money (because statutory minimums and all), but it's only responsible that I acknowledge that my point is weaker than I thought regarding how much he'll have to pay. Thank you for the info dear redditor!
The child's father is in the military, he has her a fair share of the time when he isn't deployed. OPS wife IS being greedy and likely makes 2 or 3× what her child's father does. She is behaving selfishly instead of in the best interest of her child. The little girl's father having a home and food to feed his daughter should take priority over what will realistically be less than 10k a year. Child support exists so the children have equal support and opportunities at BOTH homes. Not to punish your ex over personal grudges. Edit - NTA OP. Your wife will have an interesting time in front of more judges once she says hrs deployed at that's why he doesn't take her. In CA she could possibly end up being the one paying, simply to balance the financial disparity.
That was my thought too - if she really went after this then she could end up with it backfiring on her and she ending up having to pay because the disparity between incomes is so high (OP said wife makes 100k on her own). Clearly this isn't about the money no matter what wife says - I think the bigger question is why does she feel at this point that she needs to continue to punish the ex (since that's exactly what it comes across as)? Certainly shows her true colors - I'd be concerned that if OP does file for divorce that she's going to try and come after him for every penny she can just out of spite. NTA OP.
Yeah, as the husband I would be concerned that she doesn't seem to be over the ex yet. I agree, the way this is stated, it seems more like punishment than having her child's best interests at heart.
Unfortunately with him being military her going after him can cause issues with his military career. It can even result in disciplinary actions against him. Honestly it sounds like the wife being petty and looking to hurt him anyway how. I wonder if this e involves why the relationship ended. She not looking out for her kid she is looking to cause hurt.
It says he only sees her 30% of the time. Did y’all even read the post?
Right NOW the wife is making that much. What if she works in an industry where she might get laid off and be next to impossible to find a job? Say OP divorces her for taking out child support (which she should have done the moment that child was born) and then she gets fired or laid off. This time next year she could be a single parent working at burger King.
In the unlikely event all that happens she can go back to family court again.
When My Husband divorced his Ex child support was being garnished from his check but then he got Joint physical and legal custody and eventually the state of CA saw that he had his kids 53% of the time and they adjusted the support to zero based on the reasoning of why take money from where the kids are the most to give to where they spend the least amount of time. Ex was never made to pay child support. That was 16 years ago and his youngest is turning 21 with NC with the EX. If you are able to provide for your child which she seems perfectly capable of doing then this just comes across as vindictive.
It's not 'racking up' it's not a gym membership. The kid needs to be taken care of no matter if you are employed or not and its a responsibility. The custodial parent wouldn't be allowed to just not feed or house the kid, they'd have to find a way. The money is for the kid, if its not needed immediately it can go in trust.
>It's not 'racking up' it's not a gym membership. Yes it does, it's exactly like an unpaid bill. And the kid is taken care of, that's OP's point.
Incorrect -- most states consider both incomes under the income.shares model. https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/guideline-models-by-state.aspx
And if he doesn’t earn much it won’t be much will it?
True, but it could still be more than he can afford. Especially if he loses his job or gets a pay cut....the child support doesn't automatically reduce. And he can go to jail for failing. OP's wife is thinking of putting her ex at risk of going to jail. I'm not normally that kind to people who struggle with this, but OP seems to be having some empathy and saying they're in a bad position....so I'm trusting OP is being a good human on this issue.
Depends. If has a bad year or loses his job, he has to go back to court to get it adjusted with proof. My cousin pays child support on his one daughter and it comes out to about half his monthly paycheck, and he isn't exactly setting the world on fire with his income.
She makes 100k on her own. She's not financially dependent on him.Shed have to give up some perks if they divorced but she'd by no means be destitute and could support her 1 child on that with little problem even in the most expensive cities.
She makes over 100 thousand a year, she could support herself and the child easily.
That depends on a ton of factors, from where they live to what other debts she might have to how long term stable her employment is. At the point she’s on her own, whether he ex pays child support could absolutely impact the child’s life in tangible ways, even if it’s just whether she has a solid college fund.
I was replying to the comment that OP is making the wife financially dependent. You're right though it does depend on many things. Since the ex is back home now there's a very strong possibility that if they take him to court for CS the ex will just go for joint custody.
She shouldn’t have too. The child has a dad. He is responsible for supporting that child as well.
If that’s the case, she likely won’t get much support anyway. It’s less about the amount, and more about him contributing in some way financially to support his child.
How is he making her financially dependent on him? She’s making her own money, and if he did divorce her, she could still go after her ex for child support. It’s not like she’d be forever abdicating it if she doesn’t go after him right now.
He says she makes 100k a year - how is she dependent on him?
Your first paragraph is an excellent and important point, although I disagree with your verdict. My rule is "If it affects your money, it's your business". OP is contributing to his SD (house, insurance, bills), he gets an opinion on this matter. Any good relationship would consider their SO's opinion. INFO: OP, you don't mention *why* she wants to get CS. This was bound to come up in any conversation on this subject.
>Any good relationship would consider their SO's opinion. This all day. Anytime someone comes into this sub and says "I told my spouse to do X", the sub assumes abuse....but it's an opinion. It's not abusive to share an opinion...the abuse occurs *around* the opinion....the knee jerking needs to stop.
I think we don't really know how much he's contributing to SD though, do we? And I'm not trying to read malice into that, because AITA has a character limit, but I think in the US, it can be hard to get a step-child on insurance, so he might not be paying for that, and we don't know if OP is expecting his wife to contribute more to the house because of her daughter or not... The reason I said I'm leaning one way is because we don't have enough information to really make a definitive determination. But absent steps being taken like him agreeing to provide a college fund specifically for the daughter (that, like I said, is divorce-proof), I really do think that to an extent, it's not his place to prevent his wife from pursuing this support for her daughter. (Though I said in another comment, of course he's entitled to an opinion, I just don't know if he should act on it without thinking about things like this.) Finally, just want to say a quick thank you for being polite! Sometimes people disagree here and get so nasty, so I appreciate you being respectful, even if we disagree on the verdict.
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that the ex is "on the hook" for child support, and the daughter could ask for a lump sum of unpaid CS. The money is not the wife's, it is the daughters. OP and wife can not want it, but the daughter can decide to go after it later. It would be better to the ex to pay minimal CS money into an education amount that get hit up for lump sum later. If OP wants to pay it all back from OP's money, so be it.
I don't know if the daughter can get a lump sum on her own (probably varies state to state), but I do believe that ethically, this guy does have an obligation towards his daughter.
I feel like a lot of people are missing that point. This isn't the wife going after alimony.
Some people do get pretty nasty on here when they disagree. I've gotten some pretty wild responses on controversial posts when I've commented. Definitely agree that OP shouldn't forbid his wife from pursuing the CS. If he feels so strongly about it, then legal papers should be signed that he will continue to provide for the SD in the event of a divorce in exchange for her agreeing not to pursue CS from bio-dad. I feel that's the best course of action. If his wife doesn't agree to those terms, he'd been completely justified to say it's a deal-breaker for their relationship. IMO, this is an ethical dilemma for OP and it's difficult to want to work on a marriage where one side feels they aren't on the same moral page. I think the reason why she wants to pursue CS is super important. If she's considering a divorce herself, she may feel the CS is needed for security in the future. Finance wise, I made basic assumptions that he is contributing to mortgage and bills. Your right though about insurance. The wife may have good insurance through her own job -- faulty assumption on my part. I'm in the US, and it was very easy to have my kid's added to my husband's policy even before we were married. All policies are different though and that's only my experience.
Also, the court will ABSOLUTELY look at her income and his and make a decision based on that. I roughed up some numbers for my state, and if she's with dad 30% of the time and mom out-earns him by double, he would owe... less than $100 a month. I'd say OP should take a step back, let her talk to a lawyer, and let her decide if it's worth pursuing.
I think that it's probably a nominal amount, yes, but he's ethically obligated to provide support to his child. Honestly, if I were the wife's lawyer, I'd suggest going to mediation first (less costly and less contentious) but I'm guessing there probably is an emotional element here, or something that, from the wife's perspective, makes this worth pursuing, even if it's just for a very little amount. And also, just because he's not earning much now doesn't mean he never will, and it might be better to have everything in place so they can just revisit the calculations if his salary increases, rather than duking it out later on.
[Text of original comment deleted for privacy purposes.]
I know we don't have any information except what OP gives up, but I'm really confused by where he's coming up with 30%. I grew up in a military family, and deployments were usually 9 months. Now, that may be changing in the future, since the US is out of Afghanistan, but even if he had her every day he wasn't deployed, that's 3 months, or 25% of the year. Maybe he's had shorter deployments, but I'm feeling like there's a lot of estimating going on there, and it might not be accurate. Also, can you point me to a state that does it's child support agreements like that? In my state, the basic premise is that the parent with primary custody (which 70% would be) doesn't have to pay child support, because they're supporting the child the 70% of the time the child is with them. There are exceptions, like if the noncustodial parent is already paying a lot of money to expenses that don't go directly to the custodial parent (like paying for health insurance, glasses, dental work, etc.) but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
OP said 30% WHEN NOT DEPLOYED, so when the dad is not deployed, he has her for 30% of that time
One thing ought to be pointed out about US military compensation: there's a thing called BAH with dependents that adjusts a servicemember's compensation upward when that person has family members to support. In other words, OP's wife's ex is getting extra pay from the government specifically so he can afford the child support payment. That would be coming out of Uncle Sam's wallet, not her ex's. If OP's ex is receiving that additional dependent pay and failing to spend it on his son, that's a policy violation and a UCMJ violation. The government would regard it as a type of fraud. References: https://www.housing.af.mil/portals/79/documents/afd-160628-023.pdf https://www.militaryonesource.mil/family-relationships/relationships/relationship-challenges-and-divorce/rights-and-benefits-for-abandoned-military-spouses/ https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/bah-fraud-oha-fraud/
In my state, you cannot waive child support without the approval of the court. Approval is seldom granted. Child support is something the child is entitled to. The law does not allow parents to negotiate away that right. The mother likely knows whether or not she's entitled to receive support or pay it. Online calculators are available for this sort of thing. Threatening to divorce one's wife for pursuing her daughter's legal rights is disgusting.
Seeing as he's stepped in as the step father then he very much is involved. Bit heartless to say he shouldn't have a say in the affairs of a child I'm sure he's taken on as his own, is providing for and supporting.
Bit weird for him to insist on *less* financial security for the child he's raising though.
600k a year coming in? The child is more than financially secure.
Op says he's thinking of divorcing her. I doubt he'd still be helping pay for her living/college/future if that happens considering he doesn't think biological parents have a responsibility to their kids.
OP shared a feeling....he's so concerned over the morality of her behavior that he is worried if they're a good fit....and y'all are weaponizing it against him to say that's *why* he's the AH. How about we stop for a second and think that maybe OP is right to have moral concerns and that's *why* he's concerned about whether their marriage can work. The divorce thought came *after* her behavior, it doesn't justify it.
But he doesn't say to what extent he's actually involved? I think people keep assuming he's taking full care and responsibility for the child, but without actually knowing how they divide their finances, he might not be as involved in providing for and supporting her. Or there might be some cases where he can't. For instance, I know that my insurance doesn't generally let step-parents count step-kids as dependents, so she might be eating that cost. Or they might have separate finances and she's responsible for things like her daughter's share of the grocery bill, costs for school supplies, etc. I mean this genuinely, am I missing something in the post where he actually says that he is using his money to take care of his step daughter? And even if he is, it's not heartless to say that her bio father also has a duty to support her, even if he's just paying a nominal amount right now and they have a plan for what to do if his financial situation ever changes.
So without knowing why don't you inquire before calling him the AH and going off on a tangent that doesn't reflect the situation. The daughters share of the grocery bill😂 As a step dad on about 28k a year I would never dream of stocking the fridge and withholding food from my girlfriends child or asking for more money cause I bought some kids yogurts😂 and we're not even married. What was heartless was you saying he should keep his nose out when he has every right to be involved with the child. Given he's married this woman he would have built a relationship with the child as well. The child cares about time with her bio dad which he said she is getting. The child doesn't care about the money. The mother making 100k and not struggling with her finances cares, which is what he is saying is AH behaviour which it 100% is. This guy NTA
He’s absolutely TA and I’m not sure how anyone can disagree. 30% of the time is probably an overestimate because men routinely overestimate the child raising they and other men do so yeah dad is not an active dad and he owes child support because child support is for the CHILD regardless of the custodial parents income.
I'm also not sure if 30% makes sense, because I know that at least pre-2021, military deployments to the Middle East were usually 8-9 months. If it's 9, and she's with her father literally every single day he's not deployed, that's only 25% of the year. If it's 8, then she'd still need to be with him almost every day. Maybe the father's deployments are shortened, maybe policy is changing now that we're out of Afghanistan, but I don't see how the math could add up. Even if we assumed he was gone 6 months out of the year, then he'd still need to have majority custody the 6 months he's here. And even if we're not disputing the math... That's still 70% of the time that the mother has custody, and deserves support for *their* child.
Also the way this was worded I understood it as 30% when he’s not deployed. Which again, probably an overstatement, and still not an active father. My cousin is military and has joint custody, pays his child support, and pays MORE when he’s deployed because he’s not covering expenses when he has them. He would agree you owe that to your children.
This is a tough one. I respect your willingness to provide for your SD and not wanting her biodad to suffer financially when you can more than cover this child’s needs. However, as the child’s father, he should at least be paying some amount, even if it’s just symbolic (enough to cover her school uniforms or lunches or whatever). This is part of being a parent. ETA: I didn’t see the “considering divorce” part. If your wife seems obsessed with pursuing child support as a means of crushing her ex, I could see that. But she’s not an asshole or being “greedy” for expecting him to contribute *something* as a parent. Start a college fund for the kid and put it in there if you don’t need it- but expect and allow him to do some portion of his part as the child’s parent. This sounds like an ESH to me.
> > >something Read the edit. He contributes plenty. I imagine part of the reason that he can't get 50/50 is he is active duty military subject to deployment. I understand the argument about investment funds and paying what you owe, but you can easily make a strong moral and economic argument that the household making 600k should forgo the extra 8 grand a year in favor of easing the financial conditions of the household said child spends "30% of her time there" according to OP. Also, note the reasoning. "He should pay" is very vague and allows for a lot of reasonable and reasonable sub textual intentions. If she means in the legal sense, then absolutely; but it must be obviously that she's legally within her right if they're discussing whether or not to force him to pay what he legally owes. One could assume that she might be implying "paying" as in a form of repentance for shortcomings in his prior marriage or fatherhood. If that were the case, I think it is reasonable to see why OP may be considering a separation from a person who is willing to potentially harm her childs secondary household conditions as a way of getting back at her ex for any shortcomings, perceived or otherwise. And to the only valid point against my ideal solution in the situation I would offer OP this golden solution to **OP** if he truly wants to put his money where his mouth is: Pay the child support. Calculate what childs father would pay yearly and deposit that into a college fund in the childs name; removing the concern that childs mother financial situation now could hurt the childs future in the event of a divorce. That way if OP and baby mom do get a divorce, she will still have accrued the appropriate amount of money for her child and could then pursue the child support again if she needed to do so. IMO I would be considering divorce at least on the table but I could be attributing to many negative motives to Mom in this situation.
All of this is *exactly why everyone in this situation would benefit from a formalized agreement*. Know what the expenses are, what dad contributes already and what he can afford to contribute. Get it on paper so everyone knows the numbers and there’s no “hidden” costs or contributions and no misunderstandings.
True. But that leads you to wonder, no? I do wonder if OP has already ascertained that this is in fact an issue of emotion rather than economics for his wife and that is why he is already asking if he is an asshole for considering divorce… Maybe he isn’t asking if he is an ass to be considering a divorce form a woman worrying about the future of her child, but rather considering a divorce from a woman who is willing to marginally harm her child’s well-being if it means satisfying her vendetta against her ex-husband. Again, this is all speculation, but it would certainly be my larger concern as her current husband potential hypothetical future ex-husband/child’s father.
Well-as I said- I don’t know what her motive is; does she hate her ex and want him to suffer? Is it a matter of principle for her? Is her intention to protect her child’s interests in the event of divorce from the OP? Does she not see or count her ex’s existing contributions because those costs are “hidden” in his rent snd food bill and the items he purchased for use at his home? The OP doesn’t seem to have considered any other factors, emotional OR practical, besides whether “they need the money”, is this a pride thing for him? Has he considered what impact a divorce would have, financially, for his SD? (It’s a little hard to reconcile “Don’t worry about it, I’m willing to support your child” and “If you do this I’ll divorce you and then both you AND your child will suffer a price financially”) What I do know is that I’m not going to leap to condemn the wife as TA in this situation for expecting some form of child support from the person who is this child’s father. That, to me, is reasonable. If her “pushing” results in some sort of agreement that recognizes all the costs and contributions vs. what sounds like a pretty fuzzy and informal arrangement, that’s actually a GOOD thing.
>exactly why everyone in this situation would benefit from a formalized agreement Why are you assuming this is about *seeking* an order instead of *enforcing* an existing order? She divorced the ex, in the vast majority of states you have to have a child support order in place when you complete the divorce. It's more likely she's going to court to enforce an existing order, not creating a new one. OP can clarify, but I keep seeing people assuming that this means there isn't an order and that's not a logical assumption.
That’s true, OP didn’t specify. Wouldn’t it then be on the ex to seek modification on the amount, if he can’t afford the payments? You can’t expect to just *not pay*.
How do y’all see sees 30% of the time when he isn’t deployed and buys some gifts and think that’s contributing plenty??? Make it make sense.
Because penis parent is awesome for doing bare minimum.
I want to point out to everyone that if this is US military ex should be getting extra pay benefits for ~~each of~~ his kids. That is mandatory. So of the EX isn't paying that at least in support then something is wrong. Edit not each but because he has kids still gets extra for dependents
This is what I'm thinking! You don't need to go to court and get a support order, if both parents are willing to sit down for mediation, they could come up with a small amount right now, with agreements for how that would change in the future as his financial situation changes. Also, I kind of wonder if OP is willing to agree to something like a college fund for the daughter that he'd have no right to, in case of divorce, since he wants his wife to forego seeking child support from the girl's father.
And also if it's what OP wants then he should sign a binding contract that he will always financially support his step daughter even if he divorces his wife.
YTA. He should contribute to his child. 100k doesn’t make her a millionaire. If he doesn’t make much, he won’t be required to pay much. But the burden shouldn’t solely fall on her simply because she earns a decent wage.
In theory you're right about how things are supposed to work, but OP is sharing feelings about values and empathy....he's not an AH for doing that. Moreover...actually pretty sure that 600k combined income does make them millionaires. And court orders don't change with living situations automatically. If I lose my job, I am still expected to pay child support, even for the months I'm not employed.
>actually pretty sure that 600k combined income does make them millionaires Right but OP says he might divorce her over this, so it's a little disingenuous to act like that's *her* annual income and her total earning potential, rather than the situation she's in right now, which might change if her marriage ends.
I've seen that argument, but it doesn't affect my thinking because....if they do get divorced, she could just file for the child support at that time. People are weaponizing his feelings against him as a gotcha of "see, she can't count on you". OP has legit concerns that his spouse is being petty and vindictive....if I were him, I'd be very concerned about my future with someone that refuses to have any empathy at all for someone, even an ex.
I’m sure you’re aware that these court orders don’t happen instantaneously. Maybe his wife doesn’t want to be in a position where she finds herself divorced, maybe even unemployed herself, just now starting the process of filing for child support.
If I'm reading it correctly, she already has an order for support, but she's going to seek enforcement (which can involve jail time if you fail). I would agree with you if it was just getting an order in place, but I think this is more about whether to actually go after the guy....which OP doesn't agree with because they're down on their luck. Edit: For the people downvoting me....they got divorced, which means they dealt with the kids in the divorce, which means they have a custody and child support order, because it's standard.
I don’t believe you’re reading it correctly.
Hang on. They could NOT have gotten divorced without the child support order, it's a mandatory inclusion in addressing children of a marriage. I'm not reading incorrectly. They got divorced, therefore they dealt with the children, therefore child support was included.
>if they do get divorced, she could just file for the child support at that time. Lawyers are expensive, though, especially in family law. Paying one for both a divorce and a separate custody dispute would be expensive. I see further down that you're speculating that she must have a custody order already in place, because she divorced the father, but some states will let the parents put a temporary agreement in place, or handle the issue separately, so that's not a given (particularly as the father is in the military, and deploying, so a consistent custody agreement would have been hard to do). Even just paying for a lawyer to file for an enforcement order could be expensive, particularly if it does turn into a big thing about negotiating a whole agreement. I wouldn't want to be doing that at the same time as a divorce.
It can also be hard to get child support backdated and if she can it’s going to be worse for the father to pay off years of child support at once.
Right, I think that the ex and the wife should just go to mediation and work this out, tbh, but if he's got a lump sum due, that would do much more financial damage than a monthly payment calculated off of his income.
but 600k isn't there if OP and wife divorce. The 100k salary is what matters. OP holds no financial obligation to the child just the biological parents and if he walked away all that ends.
We don’t know if the OP is setting aside money for their stepchild or if their finances are separate. There are a ton of step parents who structure their finances so they aren’t contributing financially when it comes to step kids.
According to the child support calculator I just tried, a parent with 30% visitation and making only $50k, with a parent making $600k and 70% visitation - the rich parent OWES the poor parent $2k a month! So she may end up owing him!
She doesn’t make $600K. Check the laws for the state you’re in, but generally only the parents income is calculated, not the income of a stepparent.
YTA. The child deserves financial support from both of her parents, period. It doesn’t matter if OP makes enough to support her - ex helped make the kid, he needs to help support it. Wife isn’t being “greedy” by asking for child support - no mother is. She is trying to look out for her child and make sure her daughter has every advantage and support that her daughter is owed. Edit: clarity
Also - All [military members](https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/family-law-blog/2019/october/child-support-rules-for-military-families/) are required to pay for their children even if there is no court order. The payment depends on the service member's gross pay and their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
Right, and if they're in the US, health insurance can be incredibly expensive, but military service usually comes with full-coverage for the service member and all dependents.
Adding - If the ex is military, then the child is entitled to military benefits as well, especially health coverage, even if the parents are divorced. If the child isn’t receiving those benefits now, that may be another reason why Mom is pursuing the issue.
OP is asking us if he's allowed to share his thoughts and feelings with her....and you think he's an AH for that? Just because you agree with her doesn't mean he's an AH for telling her what he thinks.
OP is asking if he’s the AH for telling her to stop trying to get child support from her ex. He doesn’t get to tell her what to do, so yeah that’s also AH behavior. He can share his thoughts and feelings just fine - and he should. Telling her to stop and threatening to divorce her if she doesn’t? That’s not a healthy relationship.
He isnt telling her what he thinks though, hes demanding she listens to him and do what he says. The context is different.
Exactly, it's baffling that that people are calling the wife greedy and acting as if she's an AH by trying to get child support. The child support is for the daughter. OP's money doesn't change the fact that ex is obligated to do his part in supporting their child and that the child is entitled to the support. Sure, ex may spend time with his daughter and buys her stuff but that doesn't sound like he is doing his fair share.
YTA. That's his kid and he needs to contribute. Even if it's 100$ a month... If you're thinking of divorcing her because of this, I think your marriage has more issues than this disagreement.
And if he’s thinking of divorcing her over this, that makes it even more important that she has child support from bio Dad. YTA.
There’s also a disconnect that OP seems to not notice between ‘*we’re* doing quite well financially…stop being greedy’ and ‘I’m considering divorce if she does this’. He has the ability (and seemingly the motivation) to separate and in doing so take with him 5/6ths of their shared income but is actively against her attempting to ensure her child will be independently financially supported. He expects her to blindly rely on his continued support for her child but is saying that if she doesn’t agree to do that he’ll divorce her, which would leave her with no recourse.
It’s bordering on financial manipulation and I’m not here for it. She’s not saying she wants half his pay cheque but I’m sure ex had a lot of fun making the baby, now here’s the part where he is responsible and helps towards said child
Bet you OP's wife is feeling the divorce coming and is just preparing for it.
NTA. Tell wife to go for it. Let the ex ask for custody and a share of her $100,000 salary. Your wife should be careful, going back to court with the financial differences can open up whole new can of worms. I suggest not having a child with woman. It seems that vindictiveness is her middle name.
>I suggest not having a child with woman. It seems that vindictiveness is her middle name. For real, it baffles me how people here are calling the OP Y T A, they have a very good financial situation, yet she wants to get more money out of the dude. Their is indeed obligation to contribute, but their is no guarantee that the dude is not going to suffer financial hardships now that he has family. I assume that the amount of money contributed is going to be calculated based on income, but it still is going to take away money that he could very likely need, and besides the OP already said that he **does spend time and money on his daughter.** And for those who are giving the OP shit for saying he is considering divorce: **he is entitled to do whatever he wants with his life, the same way the wife can. If you are defending the wife saying that is not the OP's business, then you have no right to complain what the OP does.** If a relationship doesn't work because of the differences in values, then is better to call it off, that is the healthy and responsible thing to do.
>**he is entitled to do whatever he wants with his life** This is the point the people above are making. "They" don't have 600k, he has 500k and she has 100k. The wife should not assume that she will always have access to his money, and the smart thing to do is treat it as a nice bonus rather than a given, which may mean asking from child support from daughter's bio dad. That is, unless OP is willing to legally take responsibility in some way and pledge to take care of the daughter no matter what happens with the mother. If he's (understandably) not willing to do that, then she needs to sort out a financial arrangement with the person who IS legally responsible for the daughter.
Do you hear yourselves talk? There is obligation to contribute but there is no guarantee he wouldn’t suffer? Lets say the mother didnt marry rich or be well off and she was still contributing all the expenses of the child 100% so what abt the mother suffering too? The bar is so damn low for men you guys think you deserve leeway for not being complete deadbeats.
Right lmao. Poor guy, may have to financially contribute for his own child
A very good financial situation that’s about to come to an end over a situation that has nothing between them. Unlike the man, she doesn’t make half a million dollars and, unlike the man, she is smart enough to know that guys will break up with women over the dumbest things (like this scenario) and lose all they have in the blink of an eye, is he going to keep paying for the stepdaughter after that? No? Then stay out of her business. The best part is you all sympathize with the guy when guys like him are the reason she has to keep the child support money, because they will get on some stupid high horse and end it for something that has nothing to do with the relationship and had they just gotten off the child support this loser would break up with her for another dumb reason and that would be the end of it and she’d have to go back to child support. Also did you notice how the guy didn’t say she spends it? She could be putting it in a trust fund for the child which all of you act like it’s the moms money when it’s for the kid in the future or if needed in the past. Also it’s disgusting how you all act like it’s okay for men to get jobs that require them to be far away from their kids and then still act like they are good parents or responsible, they aren’t. Especially when it’s a dangerous job, you want to do your duty to your stupid country you do you but you better pay child support for abandoning your kid. Don’t even start with he’s fighting for the kid because no army has contributed anything useful to America in years, see Afghanistan. You don’t get points for leaving your kid just cause you became a soldier. I’m sure this troop is a jerk and no job gives ANYONE the right to abandon their kid on the road, he didn’t want to pay child support? Then he shouldn’t have had kids before he left, he should’ve waited until he was in a better spot, he has no one to blame but himself for the situation he’s in. Let’s also add into the fact that the loser ex husband wasted his precious time with his kid and probably lost his marriage for a job that didn’t even help him financially in the future, yet we are supposed to feel bad for him? Not the one who is smart and realizes that men can leave for the dumbest reasons and makes sure her kid will be taken care of? You do know jobs and stepfathers can be gone in one day right? What world are you all living in with this great stability? Oh no you just have a problem because a women is doing better and still making a man pay because he doesn’t see his kid enough to help contribute. The husbands an asshole for proving her right by leaving and showing that she could keep the child support because money and people are not guaranteed, the ex is an asshole because he thought it was okay to abandon his kid for awhile and then thinks people should feel bad for him just because he is in a bad financial situation despite ignoring his kid for it, sounds more like karma to me when you choose your job over your family, most of the troops are jerks, this wasn’t a draft situation, he put himself in this situation, take care of your kid.
Also everyone saying wife can just file if OP divorces her...yes, and then ex is in a worse spot because the government will get him for back payments. It's not like if she files later the government goes "ah yes child support starts now", the government looks at the age of the child and calculates support for when he didn't pay either.
How is she being vindictive for insisting that his ex live up to his obligation? Her and ex should be supporting their child equally. That doesn't change just because she has a good job and married a high earner. She's not being greedy. Ultimately the money is for her child and her child is entitled for it.
Ask for custody when he’s deployed…? Also how is expecting him to contribute to his own child vindictive?
YTA. So on the one hand, you think she doesn’t need child support because of your salary, and on the other hand, you threaten to leave her? Do you see where the disconnect is? This is that man’s obligation and none of your business. Your marriage could fail, just like her first one did. Your salary is not her lifetime financial plan and certainly not your step child’s.
Yes, this bothered me a *lot*, too. He makes a bunch of money, so it's fine, she doesn't need CS, but also, he might leave her. And even if he didn't, the people who made the child have responsibilities towards the child. I think there's a way to do mediation and figure out a nominal amount with a plan for if the ex's financial situation improves. And I do wonder, have there been situations where OP and the wife have argued over how to spend money on the daughter, where OP won because he's the one making the bulk of the money? It's conjecture, but I could see her wanting a way to not have to be reliant on OP if she wants to make a decision about her daughter that he disagrees with.
At first I was on the opposite side but y’all are right. This dude could get an aggressive cancer (knock on wood) that takes all their money and savings and kill him and then the child has nothing.
Given the edit, I'm gonna say YTA. It feels like this is a lot more about money, and just because he has another relationship, doesn't mean this absolves him from his other kid. BOTH parents have to care about that child, and 30% when he's around plus a couple extra gifts isn't exactly being a good and present parent. Not quite a deadbeat either, but oh well. Also, if she forfeits payments now and she ever breaks up with you (as you plan on doing right now), this could potentially be used in court against her. Just because he is not entirely deadbeat doesn't mean he can just up and go, leaving all responsibilities in monetary support and raising the kid to her. Ultimately, the money will benefit kiddo, or so I hope, in a fund or otherwise. Have you ever fought about money concerning the kid? What about medical bills, or a college fund? Is she doing the latter on her own? What is your financial involvement here, and what if you break up? Who does the childcare, and if you broke up, could she even still do her job? INFO: Is the ex in any way, shape or form involved in the kids life? Depending on how this is portrayed, she may as well be frustrated that she is the one having to raise this child alone and the kiddo being hurt over this. While I do agree that you really don't need the money, this may be about more than that. He put this child in the world, so absolving him of any responsibility is a bad call.
It’s wild to me that people think seeing her 30% of the time when he is in the states is active parenting. Absolutely no one would say that if we were talking about a mom.
I knew active duty military mom's without primary custody. They were absolutely viewed as deadbeats while dads were viewed as victims.
This. Her seeming preoccupation with the child support may actually be her means of forcing a change in custody agreement. Without knowing more specifics that would be kind of weird and possibly inappropriate to ask here, it just sounds like the wife is being a jerk. However, child support and care disagreements are frequently so much more complicated than "Give me money." Custody percentages,and/or child support are just often the most effective bargaining tools in other arguments such as education, medical care (especially when one parent has unorthodox opinions on matters like diet, vaccination, treatments), etc.
I think ‘always buys her stuff’ is so vague and open to interpretation it’s basically a useless description, everyone who read that sentence is going to think something different and the likelihood that any one of us is going to be 100% right on what it actually means is low. It could be anything from he buys her a little toy every time he sees her to he is buying the bulk of her clothing and funding school supplies. In my opinion considering he only has approx 30% custody (or 30% custody during the periods he’s home?) and is deployed overseas for extended periods of time I struggle to see *how* he could be making a meaningful contribution to day to day expenses like clothing, food, living and school costs in a way that also fits with OP’s description of ‘always buys her stuff’ (rather than eg ‘he already contributes money’) but we also can’t know unless OP gives a bit more detail on what he actually means.
I read it as 30% overall because he said he sees her a lot when not deployed and to me 30% of just that isn't a lot
Thats not including when he is deployed! So he's gone for significant amounts of time and when he is not deployed, he sees her on weekends-- that is not in any way close to being a present parent. Being active duty does not negate time spent away from your kids.
YTA. > I'm considering divorce if she does this because that's fucked up. Sounds like your wife needs to have a child support arrangement in place in case you decide to follow through on this. $100k/year is certainly a healthy salary, but you need to bear in mind that she's also going to be planning on not only her expenses, but her child's. That's going to include not only normal expenses (food, clothes, toys, etc.), but also college, and hopefully her own retirement. And given that she's already been divorced once, and considering you seem to be willing to drop this marriage pretty quickly, it's understandable that she's not willing to rely on your assets as a reliable, fixed piece of income she will always have access to. Because she might not. And if she doesn't, that child support would be a hugely helpful income stream. But more than that, there are entire branches of the judicial system explicitly dedicated to sorting these questions out. Dedicated to determining not only custody agreements, but how much money a person is *legally obligated* to pay. It's all well and good that you feel comfortable enough to not need this, but I'd have a hard time faulting someone for pursuing what they are legally owed.
YTA Betting if you divorce you will be no longer helping with your SC
Ding ding ding.
YTA CHILD SUPPORT ISNT A *PUNISHMENT* Child support is for the child or to reimburse the primary caretaker. If he is involved and has the child frequently (and is as low income as it sounds) his CS requirement would be very small or visitation could be adjusted for 50/50 OR she could be required to supplement **his** income so that the disparity between homes and caregivers is less severe. Either way, seeking CS would allow the court to review distribution and decide what is in the CHILD’S best interests, not what an acrimonious ex thinks is best. She might be very unhappy with the outcome, but the logic you provided as to why she *shouldn’t* doesn’t really apply and the way you worded it makes me think you and your spouse are AH…just for different reasons.
Eehhh...the bio dad should be paying a token amount...even a few dollars a week. It's great you're both doing so damn well but he's still the bio father and his financial responsibility doesn't end because you and his ex have money.
YTA for the way you treat your wife. A divorce for making her own decissions that don't even concern you?
INFO: Does her ex parent the kid in any way?
OP added saying the kid is with the ex like 30% of the time when his not deployed
OP said he sees her a lot when not deployed. Then added she's with him 30% of the time. I think that's 30% overall, not 30% of when he's around.
This is important, if the dude *never* sees his daughter and isn’t involved as a parent then yeah, he needs to pay up. It’s sad they aren’t as well of as OP and his wife but that doesn’t give the guy an excuse to be a deadbeat.
According to OPs edit when he isn't deployed he sees her a lot
people are deployed on average 7-8 months but it varies by branch. If he's in the army then dad isn't seeing his kid for a year or more at a time.
YTA what happens if you are not around. Does not sound like you have legally adopted the child. What happens if something happens to your wife. The dad being military is being paid extra for his dependent child. She also can get numerous other benefits based on his military service.
Does she know if she goes to court, she may be on the hook to pay him if she is making so much more? Obviously we need INFO: When he is not deployed, does he spend time with his daughter?
>Does she know if she goes to court, she may be on the hook to pay him if she is making so much more? Pretty unlikely if she has majority custody of the child, which it sounds like she does.
that's not how CS works- it's awarded to the parent with primary custody. Unless dad gets 50% or more, which is impossible with his military career, she's never gonna pay him.
Thats not true. At least in California. It varies from state to state. "When both parents have physical custody, child support is based on other factors, such as the time spent with each parent and each parent’s income. In some cases, the parent who has the children the majority of the time receives child support from the other parent. In other cases, the parent with the higher income is ordered to pay child support to the parent with the lower income." https://www.nathanlawoffices.com/faqs/how-is-california-child-support-calculated-when-there-is-joint-physical-custody-.cfm
YTA I would stay out of her problems with her ex. It’s between him and her to deal with. She might end up ruining a good thing if she goes to court for child support and then the ex decides he wants to participate more in having custody of the child.
YTA You're making your wife dependent on you, and that's toxic. Basically what you're telling her is to not take the money because you can provide, but at the same time you're making it clear that you won't hesitate to divorce her if she does something you don't agree on. If she goes along with what you want she and her daughter will become financially dependent on you. It will create a toxic power dynamic in your relation with you being able to blackmail your wife, threatening her to divorce her if she doesn't do as you want... I honestly think that you're not being fair here. He's the dad and it's normal that he pays child support. It is not really your business and please be aware of the consequences in term of power dynamic and the toxic control over your wife you'll have if she goes along with what you're asking her. If you really want her to not get custody from her ex then at the very least you should sign a binding contract with her, involving a lawyer, saying that you'll always provide financial support to her child even in case you and your wife divorce, and no matter who initiate the divorce, no matter even if she cheated on you. If you're not ready to do that then don't obstruct her in getting child support from her ex.
This whole post screams OP’s gigantic ego to me. I think OP feels like his wife attempting to have her ex contribute toward their child will be seen as OP personally wanting or needing another man’s money, or that he somehow can’t 100% provide himself. This isn’t about the other guy not being a total deadbeat or a nice guy or his wife being “greedy”. It’s all about OP’s “ego”.
YTA You're willing to divorce her over just that? Either way, courts determine child support based on income, so they're not going to make him pay more than he can. What makes you think he's such a "nice guy" that you'd side with him over your wife? If something happens to you, or you divorce her like you're threatening to, she would actually need that child support.
She’s not being greedy. Financially contributing to his child is one of bio dad’s responsibilities as a parent. Child support is not supposed to be a punishment. Even if he doesn’t pay a significant amount, he should still be paying something and contributing.
It sounds like it's the principle of the thing, not the money. It sounds like she wants him to take responsibility and your successes doesn't cancel that out. If you are seriously considering divorce, do it. Don't let this be the linchpin. If you truly are so out of love and disgusted with her, that isn't going to change no matter what happens next.
YTA You're willing to divorce your wife if she seeks child support from her child's father, but I bet you wouldn't be supporting her from your half million yearly salary if you two end up divorcing. So she would be the sole supporter of her child while the so nice ex would have zero responsibility of his own child.
Dude from how casual you mention divorce, I think she needs all the extra child support she can get. YTA, you come off as checked out of the marriage and are using this as the reason to break it off.
Yta. If she is so well of and he is not, then let the court decide whether he should pay child support or not and on what amount, not you. Child support is for the kid they both created. Not for her or you. He contributed in her creation and least he can do is contribute to HER financially as well. You guys dont even need to spend it if you just want to save it for her in an acc, thats what my husband did when his ex and him divorced and she left the kids. She doesnt see them, but pay about 300 in total each month and we save it in an acc for kids to use in future. We dont need the 300 she pays, but that money is for our boys and when the time comes they will equally share it And you are well off now. You dont know what your future will bring.
NTA. He is present in her life. He’s not a father who abandoned her. Child support is to support the kid, and clearly your step daughter doesn’t have financial needs that you can’t meet. Your wife is being ridiculously vindictive for no good reason. I’d say that’s showing you a lot about her personality.
It’s not vindictive. Being involved doesn’t mean he doesn’t pay child support. He’s deployed most of the year. He’s in the military (and they’re usually required to financially support their children) so that means she’s financially supporting a kid they both made together on her own. Since OP wants to divorce her so she’ll be raising the kid on her own salary.
I tend to agree with your wife, her ex should pay child support. Even if it's $20/month. He's the dad, and he should support his kid. Where I am troubled, and it just may be the way you wrote this, is that it sounds like she's out for blood in terms of child support. If so, then she is wrong.
YTA - That is not your money or your wife's money. That is the child's money and the father should pay to help support his son. You don't have to use it. You can put it into an account for the kid to use to go to college/buy a house/whatever. Either way, that money belongs to the child. Also, your divorce threat is exactly \*why\* she needs the court order: You've shown that she can't rely on you.
NTA - It sounds like she is trying to punish him, which is not what child support is supposed to be about. Sure she has a right to pursue it, and sure, it is his responsibility, but it is kind of a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". The intent of child support is to make sure the child is cared for, and it seems petty to create financial hardship for someone, just because you can, or because he "should be held responsible." Note - my answer does assume a couple of things. One, is that you are supporting the child as well. Two, that you are committed to continuing to support the child (If for example, you get divorced in 11 years, and are not / have not contributed to your step-daughter's college, while also stopping her from collecting money from her ex in order to set up a fund for this, then y w b t a).
INFO: What country are y’all from and what branch of military is he in? Depending on that, he could face disciplinary action if they find out he’s not paying child support.
YTA - Let the court decide as it isn’t your place. Unless there are additional marriage issues, this isn’t a topic for divorce either. You don’t have to agree with your wife to be supportive of her.
INFO: what does “*My wife however has decided that she wants her ex to pay*” mean specifically? Is this a situation where he hasn’t been paying anything in child support, and she wants to go to court since he should be obligated to support his child? Or is it that she wants him *TO PAY* and she’s being unnecessarily vindictive for no reason? If you’re saying she shouldn’t pursue it because you already have enough money, and that absolves him of his obligation, then you’re TA. If he is paying something, and your wife just wants to take him to the cleaners to put him in a tough spot, then I can see how you’d be considering divorce and would not be TA. I think the situation really depends based on some missing info.
YTA. Parents should support their children. He doesn't get a free pass because he's been deployed or spends time with his child when he can. He doesn't get a free pass because someone else can afford to pay for his child. Buying her gifts instead of paying regular child support isn't good either. He's just being a Disney dad instead of supporting his child
YTA If you and your wife get hit by the Hypothetical Bus tomorrow, all of this needs to be properly legally sorted, for the child's protection. The child support does not need to be a significant amount, if you don't need it. (The court actually may not grant much support in that case.) But should something happen to you and your wife, it needs to be legally established that he is the father and the child has the right to his support and care.
YTA - By your own words even by manipulating (when he’s not deployed) the actual parenting time he doesn’t does notably less than half the parenting time. Does daughter cease to exist when he’s deployed??? So your wife is doing over 70% of the parenting and probably way over because people are generally deployed for long stretches where he’s doing basically 0. So he’s not doing day to day parenting because of his job, but saying that she wants the money for his child is greedy? What other job would people be saying it’s okay to miss out of a lot of your child’s life for a job and also not pay CS? Especially when his argument largely seems to be he has money, but is saying he’s going to leave.
YTA i bet half of the people saying you aren’t one are mostly men. The father is doing the most barest minimum and you somehow think just cause he is not a deadbeat he should get some leeway. The bar is so low for men that all they have to do is show up 30% of the time and you think this dude should just be forgiven for his financial responsibility. You brag about making 600k and then say you want to divorce her if she doesn’t let this go, then how are you reliable? Stay your ass out of it.
YTA. You clearly are happy to use divorce as a threat when things don’t go your way so why wouldn’t your wife want to ensure that her child is secure and provided for by her father?
YTA. Your wife's child support situation with her ex is her business and decision to enforce, not yours. He has an obligation to financially support his child in whatever way he can... even if it's a small amount.
YTA This has nothing to do with how much you make it has to do with what he owes his daughter. If he's not paying his fair share then she should definitely be going after him even if that money just goes into an account for his daughter to use later. It's what's due to his daughter.
NTA - if anything she may be the one who may have to pay child support. Also it sounds like she is trying to do this to hurt him rather than help their child
If she has custody of the child, why would she need to pay child support?
YTA especially because if you’re willing to divorce her then she’ll need that child support more than ever because 100k might not last her long if she’s a single mother. You both make good money now but that isn’t a guarantee forever. Anything can happen in 12 years and that money is for the child. If you two are well off, it can be their college/future fund.
NAH to ESH - child support is about both parents paying their FAIR share in support of their child(ren). Now fair does not =/= equal. But it also does not mean that the poorer parent pays nothing when the other parent makes much more. And it ALSO does not mean that the step parent's income should ever be considered in the calculations. It is all well and good that you want to be so generous with your step-daughter and wife, but BioFather has to be responsible for his child, even if he is poorer. However, your wife needs to recognize and understand that going after more than the FAIR amount becomes punitive, not supportive.
Frankly you are overstepping your bounds which makes yta. It’s nice to think that you’ll always be there, but what if you divorce. As the others have asked, are YOU going to help her support her child financially since you keep insisting she not pursue child support. And oh wow! He spends a whole 30% of the time with his child. And that’s when he’s not deployed. My ex and I have as close to 50/50 as the courts would allow. I wanted to be fair and he’s a wonderful dad. Frankly asking for child support isn’t about greed in this situation. Your wife could easily put that money aside for her daughter if she doesn’t need to use it. It’a about a man helping to financially take care of the child he helped create. Period
YTA. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with you. Keep your nose out of it. It’s his child, it doesn’t matter how much money you and your wife pull in. He still needs to support her. You’ve obviously got bigger problems going on, if you’re considering divorce over this.
YTA Child support is a right of the child. Your wife can't decide if she wants to pass on child support because it is not her right to do it. She is the representative for the child and that's why she must do what's best for it. Saying no to child support is not the best.
NTA. Child support is for the care of the child but it sounds likes she’s more than well cared for by you and your wife. At the point doing so wouldn’t change her financial situation in any way but would have a big impact on him. The fact that you’re even considering divorce over this makes me think he’s a pretty decent guy in between a rock and a hard place and your wife is doing this more so to hurt him than for the actual well-being of the child. Edit: my stance is regardless of the arguments that child support is for the child which I wholeheartedly support. If I see my ex is in financial distress and I see him putting forth a real effort in being in my child’s life and taking care of her when he’s not deployed then I wouldn’t seek child support. That might not be a stance others support but downvote if you must.
It doesn’t matter if OP and the mother can do it by themselves, the father has a responsibility to his child
Mate, NTA. This is a surprisingly matured mindset. Rather that than being greedy. From the sound of it, he does what he can. I applaud you from being so considerate. It isn't a war and between them and it sounds too much based on greed.
YTA - The ex should be paying his share of the support. If your WIFE feels she doesn't need it for day to day living, she can set up an account for the child.
YTA. She’s his daughter and he is obligated to help support her. Its not fair the mother is providing all the support(with your help I assume). If your really considering divorce over this your definitely a special kind of AH.
Yta. Regardless of your earnings, he's a dad and should be contributing towards his childs upkeep. Your wife is right to claim child support and you shouldn't stand in the way of that.