Allowance disagreement with ex

[Colleen27]

To me yes. Growing up in a divorced home our punishments carried over. We had our video games taken away for a year. Dad was a dead beat so we hardly saw him that year but my mother made it very clear that just because we were at dad's didn't mean the punishment was gone. Just like if we got in trouble at dad's and were grounded for a week but since we were only at dad's for no more than two days he would tell mom what we had done (usually brothers fighting) and what their punishment was and mom would make sure if was finished.

Punishments not being carried over is what creates the well I'm going to live with dad or I'm going to live with mom arguments later.

To me, this is overly controlling. Part of adjusting to divorce is accepting that you no longer have control over what happens in the other parent's house and that the other parent has the right to set the rules for his time. Neither parent gets to dictate to the other.

This is a parenting issue, not an allowance issue. Would this be an argument if the parents were still together? If the mom had to buy a suit because the child left them at home, what would happen? How would you discipline the child? Regardless of the parents divorce, the child needs to be treated consistently.

Of course it wouldn't be an issue if the parents were still together because in a marriage all the money comes out of the same pot. A father choosing a financial punishment that will effect his own household is different from a non-custodial parent imposing a financial punishment that will impact only the custodial parent's household.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

You know what'll happen if she has two accounts and conflicts arise. It'll be the dad's fault and he only got her a second account because he didn't like the mom controlling the money.

There's no reason for conflicts. If each parent is putting money aside for the child they each get to say what it may be used for.

A man asking for even $1 from a child he pays zero child support for should be embarrassed.

 

[Marionnette]

There's no reason for conflicts. If each parent is putting money aside for the child they each get to say what it may be used for.

A man asking for even $1 from a child he pays zero child support for should be embarrassed.

Did you miss the part where the OP said that he pays for health insurance for the children? Those premiums are not cheap! It's not that he is paying zero child support. It's just that the OP gets no cash from her ex. His support for the children goes directly to their health insurance premium.

 

[crisi]

Did you miss the part where the OP said that he pays for health insurance for the children? Those premiums are not cheap! It's not that he is paying zero child support. It's just that the OP gets no cash from her ex. His support for the children goes directly to their health insurance premium.

Who knows how expensive they are. At my husband's former employer, adding the kids was less than $100 a month - not a paycheck - a month.

 

[Marionnette]

Who knows how expensive they are. At my husband's former employer, adding the kids was less than $100 a month - not a paycheck - a month.

From the OP herself:

The support issue is way too complex to explain but he isn't a deadbeat. He pays for health insurance. His financial situation is messy and he is trying to get a company off the ground. It makes my life harder than it should me IMO but I really can't do much beyond hoping he succeeds.

Speaking as someone who owns a business, I know all too well how expensive health insurance premiums are when you have to pay for them completely on your own. Adding a family to a policy doesn't come cheaply and certainly isn't less than $100 a month.

 

[crisi]

So is my husband - he just quit his benefits job though. Trying to get a company off the ground doesn't mean that you aren't working for an employer with benefits. And if he is trying to get a company off the ground and not working for benefits, and he isn't making a profit, he gets subsidies from the ACA making his insurance VERY cheap.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

Did you miss the part where the OP said that he pays for health insurance for the children? Those premiums are not cheap! It's not that he is paying zero child support. It's just that the OP gets no cash from her ex. His support for the children goes directly to their health insurance premium.

I didn't miss it. That doesn't put a roof over his child's head, feed or cloth her. I understand getting a business up and running may mean minimal cash flow, but you don't have that luxury when you have children. He provides health insurance, most fathers do. They still pay for the other normal expenses, like the occasional bathing suit.

 

[SEA333]

So, I will first admit that I didnt read all 13 pages, but that may be a good thing lol

My very first though was its kind of crappy that a dad would require his daughter to "pay him back" for some thing, until I remembered that, just today, and not for the first time either, my 14 year old damaged something because he was irritated I told him to do something. (That sounds bad....he's not bad, he kind of threw a flashlight into the closet instead of putting it there carefully and it rolled off the shelf and fell) However, this type of thing happens often enough that I got annoyed and told him that if that flashlight was broken, he would be paying for a new one. This isn't the first thing I've done that with (although I get the bad mom award and rarely follow through with actually making him hand over the cash...nothing like empty mom threats lol)

So, in that light, I kind of have to relate to your DD's dad and in all fairness, I dont check with my husband to see if he is OK with my decision to make DS pay, and we are married! I'm not sure it is really too different in your case - do you consult your ex every time you discipline your DD? I think the way the emotion gets in the way is because *you* pay the allowance, so you are really the one buying the new suit. So, you have to ask yourself if that is really what's bugging you. (Not that I blame you if it is!)

Now, as for the ex, if my DD10 left something at home, I would take partial (secret) responsibility for not doing my job as a parent and doublechecking myself that she had it with her because she *is* only 10 after all, and I would not make her pay for new suit. But flashlights are a whole 'nother story...lol (jk)

 

[Marionnette]

So is my husband - he just quit his benefits job though. Trying to get a company off the ground doesn't mean that you aren't working for an employer with benefits. And if he is trying to get a company off the ground and not working for benefits, and he isn't making a profit, he gets subsidies from the ACA making his insurance VERY cheap.

Of course that's all possible.

It's also possible that I'm correct and the OP's ex is paying a butt-load of money for the children's health insurance and that's why he doesn't pay anything more in the form of child support.

But none of us know the truth except the OP. And she's conveniently absent from her own thread. Meanwhile, the ex-husband bashing goes on with very little in the way of facts to support all of the assumptions being made about him.

 

[Marionnette]

I didn't miss it. That doesn't put a roof over his child's head, feed or cloth her. I understand getting a business up and running may mean minimal cash flow, but you don't have that luxury when you have children. He provides health insurance, most fathers do. They still pay for the other normal expenses, like the occasional bathing suit.

And the ex-husband bashing continues.

You said he should be ashamed because he pays nothing in support. I pointed out that he indeed does. But in your mind, it isn't enough, even though you have no idea how much he spends on that health insurance policy or what kind of income he or the OP makes (yes, her income is a factor in determining how much he pays in some states). If a judge approved this child support arrangement, it's pretty much a guarantee that they knew a heck of a lot more about both parents' finances than you do.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Of course that's all possible.

It's also possible that I'm correct and the OP's ex is paying a butt-load of money for the children's health insurance and that's why he doesn't pay anything more in the form of child support.

But none of us know the truth except the OP. And she's conveniently absent from her own thread. Meanwhile, the ex-husband bashing goes on with very little in the way of facts to support all of the assumptions being made about him.

Exactly. Notice how enough little pieces were thrown out to make him look bad but then the rest was left for speculation.

 

[bumbershoot]

I can see his reasoning about her being responsible for buying the suit as he asked her twice before leaving the house if she had everything she needed and she said yes. She does need to be responsible for packing her things.

Absolutely.

But in my household, we told DS quite clearly that (in an exact example) if he forgets his swim goggles, he swims without goggles. No one is going home for them. If he forgot his swim suit, well, there's no place to buy one at the Y, so he woudn't be swimming.

And most importantly, he loses goggles. The first few times, we didn't tell him clearly that this was a problem. The next time it was either his fault or mine, neither of us had a clear memory of who had custody of them last. So I bought them. But we laid it out CLEARLY what our expectations were, that he needed to be responsible for them and have a clear plan of what to do with them after swimming, and that the next pair he lost were on him. He lost them. He bought them.

And the other day, he lost those.

He had just spent his money on Pokemon, and goggles at the swim shop cost about $20. He'll be swimming without goggles until he's got that.


My wordy point is, though, that you can't just buy something and THEN say that the kid has to pay for it. Well, you can't be a reasonable and rational parent and do that. You have to give expectations for *the future*. First time, before laying out expectations, is obviously on the parent. The next time is on the kid.

So, I will first admit that I didnt read all 13 pages, but that may be a good thing lol

Same. First and last pages.

Punishments not being carried over is what creates the well I'm going to live with dad or I'm going to live with mom arguments later.

I disagree. That sort of comment is said by nearly every kid of divorce, and it's always out of anger, and it's almost never meant. When I said it (and I was never grounded or had things taken away, or anything like that, because I was a basically good kid, and my brother was even better, so punishments had nothing to do with anything) my mom told me to pack. Told me to think about what life would be like there.

Yeah, I didn't pack. Gosh, the ONE time I ever got sick during our rare visits to my dad (less than an hour away), he called my mom to come get me immediately. In the middle of the night. Dude didn't know how to deal with it. Yeah, I was going to go live with him.

But it has more to do with the idea that everything would be better "if only"...not because one parent lets you play videogames awhile the other doesn't. It's much deeper (and less based in reality) than that. IMO. IME.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Absolutely.

But in my household, we told DS quite clearly that (in an exact example) if he forgets his swim goggles, he swims without goggles. No one is going home for them. If he forgot his swim suit, well, there's no place to buy one at the Y, so he woudn't be swimming.

And most importantly, he loses goggles. The first few times, we didn't tell him clearly that this was a problem. The next time it was either his fault or mine, neither of us had a clear memory of who had custody of them last. So I bought them. But we laid it out CLEARLY what our expectations were, that he needed to be responsible for them and have a clear plan of what to do with them after swimming, and that the next pair he lost were on him. He lost them. He bought them.

And the other day, he lost those.

He had just spent his money on Pokemon, and goggles at the swim shop cost about $20. He'll be swimming without goggles until he's got that.


My wordy point is, though, that you can't just buy something and THEN say that the kid has to pay for it. Well, you can't be a reasonable and rational parent and do that. You have to give expectations for *the future*. First time, before laying out expectations, is obviously on the parent. The next time is on the kid.





Same. First and last pages.





I disagree. That sort of comment is said by nearly every kid of divorce, and it's always out of anger, and it's almost never meant. When I said it (and I was never grounded or had things taken away, or anything like that, because I was a basically good kid, and my brother was even better, so punishments had nothing to do with anything) my mom told me to pack. Told me to think about what life would be like there.

Yeah, I didn't pack. Gosh, the ONE time I ever got sick during our rare visits to my dad (less than an hour away), he called my mom to come get me immediately. In the middle of the night. Dude didn't know how to deal with it. Yeah, I was going to go live with him.

But it has more to do with the idea that everything would be better "if only"...not because one parent lets you play videogames awhile the other doesn't. It's much deeper (and less based in reality) than that. IMO. IME.

To the bolded, u don't know that's what he did.

What if you had clearly laid out the expectations with the swim goggles, he lost them and your son's father told you your punishment was wrong and the boy wasn't buying his own goggles?
What if your son insists he was never told he'd have to buy new googles so your punishment gets dismissed as being something you are lying about and made up later?

 

[MrsPete]

So let's say the dd who is 10 agrees to pay the money...doesn't MOM have to go to the bank to get it? Mom has to be involved because she is the only one who has access to the money. I agree with the PP this is a situation where everyone is quick to flame this father when we have very limited info and the mom has IMO posted some very telling statements about how she feels that are red flags there is probably a lot more to this story. If my dh makes a decision with the kids I don't agree with I don't override the punishment. We discuss it like adults and agree if it stands or not. Divorced or not this should not change. Be adults, discuss the situation with the ex and if he has valid reasons dd pays. If you feel the reasons aren't valid, but he still feels strongly have her pay half. There are lots of options beside overriding the Dads authority and is setting both parents up for a long bumpy road for a very minor consequence disagreement.

And the mother is the only person who can access the money .Thus, she needs to get the money (from the bank) for the daughter so the daughter can work it out with her father. It's really not that hard to understand.

You seem to be failing to understand that the mother controls the daughter's money. She has to get involved only to give the daughter her money. After she does that she can step out of it.

So if Daughter wanted to buy a candy bar or go to the movies with her friends, Mom would have to physically procure Daughter's money for her? I doubt it.

The main point here is that this is a problem that originated between the Dad and the Daughter. Mom wasn't part of it, and she should stay out of it. Mom can only lose by involving herself. The DECISION about whether to pay needs to be made between Dad and Daughter. Whether Mom physically helps Daughter get the money or whether Daughter takes it out of her wallet is beside the point. How the money gets into Daughter's hand isn't the issue at all.

I had ALL of these same thoughts! Well said LovesTimone. The bottom line is he is the adult, he shouldn't make this your problem and a natural consequence would have been, "I guess you aren't swimming today. I hope you remember your swimsuit next time."

Yes, I think we all agree that Dad handled it poorly in the beginning. At a glance, I suspect he didn't want her to be disappointed "on his watch" and didn't want to deny her an activity. While this is understandable, he didn't do anyone any favors in the long run. I bet he's learned something from this experience too.

To me, this is overly controlling. Part of adjusting to divorce is accepting that you no longer have control over what happens in the other parent's house and that the other parent has the right to set the rules for his time. Neither parent gets to dictate to the other.

Well, if they were good at agreeing and getting along, they probably wouldn't be divorced.

I didn't miss it. That doesn't put a roof over his child's head, feed or cloth her. I understand getting a business up and running may mean minimal cash flow, but you don't have that luxury when you have children. He provides health insurance, most fathers do. They still pay for the other normal expenses, like the occasional bathing suit.

I'm not divorced, and my husband and I together provide everything our kids need - but we do require our kids to pay for certain things. That's a time-honored way of teaching kids to value things; however, I've never provided something to my children and THEN LATER DECIDED that they should pay for it. (And, yes, I recognize that may or may not have happened.)

To the bolded, u don't know that's what he did.

What if you had clearly laid out the expectations with the swim goggles, he lost them and your son's father told you your punishment was wrong and the boy wasn't buying his own goggles?
What if your son insists he was never told he'd have to buy new googles so your punishment gets dismissed as being something you are lying about and made up later?

I totally agree that children ALWAYS do better when expectations are laid out clearly for them.

What if the kid insists you didn't say that? If I really hadn't told them, I'd let them off the hook, but I can't really imagine that happening -- I'm crystal clear with expectations like this, and my kids wouldn't try to pull such a thing. I know Dad's coming out looking bad here, but it could also be a matter of Daughter trying to "play both sides". Children of divorce have a greater opportunity to do this than do other kids: That is, it's easier for them to say, "No, Dad never said . . . " and since Mom already isn't too fond of Dad, it's all to easy for her to believe he's been unfair. In reality, we don't know -- and that's another reason why it should be between the two actual players in this game: Dad and Daughter.

 

[nugov2]

So if Daughter wanted to buy a candy bar or go to the movies with her friends, Mom would have to physically procure Daughter's money for her? I doubt it.

According to the mom(OP) yes she would. She stated she was the only one who had access to her dd's allowance/birthday money in the bank account. If my dd wants to take money out of her account for a movie...Yes, I'm the one who has to access it. She can't ride her bike(she is the same age as the OP's dd) and take the money out on her own. I don't keep the kids money in our house. After birthdays I deposit it and b/c their accounts are linked to mine I direct deposit any money they earn right into the bank account. They do keep water jugs of change in each of their rooms and we give the kids our change to put in there, but I'm not going to have dd take $20 worth of change to the movies. I typically pay for all of those expenses, unless it becomes excessive. In that instance I transfer the money I feel she should be responsible for into my account and make sure she understands this before deciding to spend it. My dd is as cheap as the come so if it involves her money she says no 99% of the time.

Like many have already stated this dad's side of the story has tons of holes in it to make him look bad. DD could have been well aware of this consequence and lying to mom. Dad could have told DD you will now miss swimming, but she begged him to buy the suit at the pool...we have no idea. Regardless, he set the punishment and dd should have to stick with it. Mom doesn't need to be involved at all other than to get the money to dd b/c she cannot access it. DD can then take her $40 and discuss further with dad if she feels she is being treated unfairly. She takes the money out and says, honey this is between you and your father. I don't know if it was an overreaction by dad or not, but either way it amazes me that when co parenting a child you would make a big deal out of something so minor. If this is such an ordeal I feel bad for the issues coming down the pipe and how difficult it will be for both parents and the negative way it will impact the kids.

 

[sunshinehighway]

So if Daughter wanted to buy a candy bar or go to the movies with her friends, Mom would have to physically procure Daughter's money for her? I doubt it.

The main point here is that this is a problem that originated between the Dad and the Daughter. Mom wasn't part of it, and she should stay out of it. Mom can only lose by involving herself. The DECISION about whether to pay needs to be made between Dad and Daughter. Whether Mom physically helps Daughter get the money or whether Daughter takes it out of her wallet is beside the point. How the money gets into Daughter's hand isn't the issue at all. Yes, I think we all agree that Dad handled it poorly in the beginning. At a glance, I suspect he didn't want her to be disappointed "on his watch" and didn't want to deny her an activity. While this is understandable, he didn't do anyone any favors in the long run. I bet he's learned something from this experience too. Well, if they were good at agreeing and getting along, they probably wouldn't be divorced. I'm not divorced, and my husband and I together provide everything our kids need - but we do require our kids to pay for certain things. That's a time-honored way of teaching kids to value things; however, I've never provided something to my children and THEN LATER DECIDED that they should pay for it. (And, yes, I recognize that may or may not have happened.)I totally agree that children ALWAYS do better when expectations are laid out clearly for them.

What if the kid insists you didn't say that? If I really hadn't told them, I'd let them off the hook, but I can't really imagine that happening -- I'm crystal clear with expectations like this, and my kids wouldn't try to pull such a thing. I know Dad's coming out looking bad here, but it could also be a matter of Daughter trying to "play both sides". Children of divorce have a greater opportunity to do this than do other kids: That is, it's easier for them to say, "No, Dad never said . . . " and since Mom already isn't too fond of Dad, it's all to easy for her to believe he's been unfair. In reality, we don't know -- and that's another reason why it should be between the two actual players in this game: Dad and Daughter.

I think you and I are really in the same page as far as it being between dad and daughter.

Mom said she controls the money and she wasn't going to get it for the daughter because she disagrees with the dad, so yeah I do disagree with you on that. She said she'd have to get the money for the kids to give her father.

I think she said this is a 10 year old. I doubt a 10 year old is deciding to just go to the movies with a friend so I can see mom controlling her money and needing to approve her purchases.

 

[crisi]

Of course that's all possible.

It's also possible that I'm correct and the OP's ex is paying a butt-load of money for the children's health insurance and that's why he doesn't pay anything more in the form of child support.

But none of us know the truth except the OP. And she's conveniently absent from her own thread. Meanwhile, the ex-husband bashing goes on with very little in the way of facts to support all of the assumptions being made about him.

Only one of three things can be true regarding health insurance in 2014 in the U.S.

1) He makes enough money where he is not subsidized for the ACA. That sort of implies a lot of money - the thresholds for no subsidies at all are rather high.

(the "we don't have a nanny right now" also implies a lot of money by the way)

2)He is covered by insurance at work - he may have significant copays, but the arrangement IMPLIES that his are less than his ex-wife's would be.

3)His income is low enough where he qualifies for subsidies.

I'm not ex husband bashing, but paying insurance here is not exactly absolving him of all other financial responsibility to his children.

The whole point of the ACA was that insurance will not be burdensome. Yes, even then, insurance can be expensive - but CHILDREN are expensive - from swimsuits and hobbies, to food, to extra airfare on vacation, to college. Don't want the expense - don't have the kids. Once you have the kids, you get the expense - regardless of whether the marriage stays together or not.

He made a choice to buy a swimsuit. He now lives with that choice just like his daughter should have lived with her choice to forget his swimsuit by not attending practice.

 

[Marionnette]

So if Daughter wanted to buy a candy bar or go to the movies with her friends, Mom would have to physically procure Daughter's money for her? I doubt it.

According to the OP, she controls the accounts that the children's money (birthday, allowance, etc.) goes into. It sounds like she would have to access those funds if she were to give the daughter the $40 she needs to repay the father. I imagine that a small amount is given to the child each week for an allowance for small purchases because that's the idea behind giving an allowance. But the bigger purchases have to go through the mom because the child doesn't have $40 just sitting in her piggy bank.

The main point here is that this is a problem that originated between the Dad and the Daughter. Mom wasn't part of it, and she should stay out of it. Mom can only lose by involving herself. The DECISION about whether to pay needs to be made between Dad and Daughter. Whether Mom physically helps Daughter get the money or whether Daughter takes it out of her wallet is beside the point. How the money gets into Daughter's hand isn't the issue at all.

I disagree with you on this point only because the OP made it sound as if the child doesn't have that kind of cash sitting in her wallet or piggy bank. I know that I would not have permitted my kids to have access to that much cash when they were only 10.

IMO, Mom should hand the cash over to her daughter, after deducting it from the child's savings, and let the daughter work it out with her father. Mom's only involvement should be as the ATM.

Yes, I think we all agree that Dad handled it poorly in the beginning. At a glance, I suspect he didn't want her to be disappointed "on his watch" and didn't want to deny her an activity. While this is understandable, he didn't do anyone any favors in the long run. I bet he's learned something from this experience too. Well, if they were good at agreeing and getting along, they probably wouldn't be divorced.

All of this is probably very true. Most noncustodial parents don't want to be the bad guy when they get to spend time with their kids, so he agreed to buy her a suit rather than bother the OP or make the child sit out practice and make it up on Saturday.

I'm not divorced, and my husband and I together provide everything our kids need - but we do require our kids to pay for certain things. That's a time-honored way of teaching kids to value things; however, I've never provided something to my children and THEN LATER DECIDED that they should pay for it. (And, yes, I recognize that may or may not have happened.)I totally agree that children ALWAYS do better when expectations are laid out clearly for them.

I agree. We don't know what conversation went on between daddy and daughter. If he didn't tell her at the time he was making the purchase that she was responsible for reimbursing him, he was very much in the wrong to change the rules after the fact. And if he was clear about it, then the OP is very much in the wrong for interfering with that agreement by refusing to give the daughter access to her money in order to repay him.

What if the kid insists you didn't say that? If I really hadn't told them, I'd let them off the hook, but I can't really imagine that happening -- I'm crystal clear with expectations like this, and my kids wouldn't try to pull such a thing. I know Dad's coming out looking bad here, but it could also be a matter of Daughter trying to "play both sides". Children of divorce have a greater opportunity to do this than do other kids: That is, it's easier for them to say, "No, Dad never said . . . " and since Mom already isn't too fond of Dad, it's all to easy for her to believe he's been unfair. In reality, we don't know -- and that's another reason why it should be between the two actual players in this game: Dad and Daughter.

Yep. Kids can be manipulative. My own kids each tried this a couple of times. Daddy is a softee, especially when it comes to our daughter. I was more hands-on with the kids because of his schedule, so I was the meanie more often than not. But, if I said "no" and then they went to Dad to get a "yes", my word overruled his. It wasn't because what I said carried more weight or that I felt that I needed the upper hand in the parenting relationship. It was because I gave them an answer first and then they were sneaky about going to Dad. Dad would reverse his decision to support mine just because he didn't like being played by the kids.

I agree that there are two actual players in the OP's game: Dad and daughter. That's why I feel that ATM-Mom should give the girl the money from her bank account and let Parenting-Dad and Daughter work it out between them.