My bf divorse his wife for 7 years. After the divorse he an his x wife got a house where his x wife was the main applicant and he is the co applicant. However they have 2 kids in the Marriage. Last year he went to a lawyer and requested for his name to be removed from the hdc house. In Feb 2024 the Hdc lawyers contacted his lawyer stating they remove his name from the house. However according to approval of removal the lawyer give him documents to go to the mortage ttmf company to get a letter to carry it to his job to stop the payment. We in the month of May 2024 an he stilñ has not gone to stop the money he refuse to stop payment. In April 2023 i went an event with his x wife an 2 kids. I watch him stare down her ass like he in love with her still. In my head i believe he still inlove with his x wife still after a divorse of 7 years. Am looking to leave the relationship because his focous an energy is his x wife. That love he has is unstoppable. The ppl that lives in the hdc house is the x wife, the horner child, her man, her niece and her sister. When a man refusing to stop payments like the way he refusing look out. He is still inlove with his x wife. I hope this helps.

"You are right, but this is about extras, not CS. If SM feels that on top of CS and regular necessities SD requires (during her 50/50) that BM is expecting Dad (and therefore SM) to pay for extras, I can see her problem." The problem is that not only are there bound to be plenty of costs for "extras" that are going to be incurred in raising children (I mean, if we're considering anything beyond food ---but not necessarily FAVORITE food, just food--- and, like, Hanes 3-pack basic white tees as clothing and the cheapest uglist Walmart notebook and Dixon Ticonderoga #2 pencils as "extras")... but that the definition of "extras" is very debatable... "It would feel like BM considers her husband's money as separate and not to be used for her child, but SM's to be part of Dad's available income. Who would be purchasing the sports equipment if there was no SM, and therefore no item to borrow? Assuming Dad's income was the same, and his CS and custody the same, could he afford this item on his own, or would he ask BM to split the cost? (BM could use some of her CS, or ask her husband to help.)If both parents were still single, how would the item be procured?" I just gathered that there happened to be already in existence in the house an item of the kind that was required, which was not being used by anyone else at the time it was going to be needed. In that case, why SHOULDN'T OP's daughter be able to use it? Is it inconceivable that OP's daughter would loan something to her step-sister in a similar situation? Has that never occured before? I mean, yeah, I suppose that for everyone to be perfectly even and everything to be perfectly fair, there should be two of absolutely everything in the house for each of the girls, no matter how easily worked out a sharing plan may be... just so nobody feels like BM is "getting off scot free" or "taking advantage" of the already-purchased hockey stick (or whatever it is). But why spend the extra money (which Dad would be, since he's presumably already paid for half of his step-daughter's item, we can presume he'd be paying half of this item too) or insist or suggest that someone else (BM) spend extra money when there is a perfectly good item right there, which will not be in use, and which the user of (step-sister) has already agreed to lending? It's not costing step-sister or SP anything to lend it, and if it's damaged it won't cost them anything either b/c Dad & BM would pay for a replacement. The only reason would be to (pardon the pun) "stick it" to the person(s) who would be asked to pay for a second one, in one way or the other. Now, obviously, if the item is lost or damaged, or if OP's daughter will be using such an item more frequently in the future, then it's appropriate to purchase another. But to go around and imply that anything shared in the house that's an "extra" has to be purchased separately even for one-time use is just not very family-like. In intact families, no one would dream of proposing a waste of money (on anyone's part) or excessive consumption (and clutter?) of this sort as a general practice... I guess that's what I find so colossally sad in these blended family situations. That, as much as many SP's regard the situation like the SK's are "spoiled" b/c they have two households, it's just as often that they end up getting shafted b/c everything gets nickel-and-dimed and bickered over to death. And I'm not even really thinking about in the *material* sense, but psychologically... How do you think it feels growing up where every little item or expense you require as a kid is argued over, debated, and you're made to feel like you're such a source of financial burden and your parents arguing all the time and the expenses paid for are all conditional on how well you (or your mom) behave? Like someone's sitting there all "ca-ching! ca-ching!" every time you express a cereal preference that costs an extra 80 cents, or scowl ("deduct a dollar for the "extra"-nice notebook b/c of your attitude! I don't HAVE to do anything for you!")... and you may, perhaps, be in the regular presence of a step-sibling who (b/c his/her parents aren't divorced) doesn't face the same kind of nickel-and-diming, or you feel like you have to run a decathalon of requests and requests-for-requests to DARE to borrow the item of its "rightful" owner, whom it WAS procured for, presumably without much hubub... I CERTAINLY can understand the need to budget to the point of splitting hairs (b/c there's no choice) when funds are tight (but in OP's case it didn't sound like that was necessarily the case)... but when the situation is more comfortable, nickel-and-diming is unnecessary and rather depressing. Not to mention an enormous waste of energy and a veritable minefield packed chock-full of potential explosions at every little teensy turn. (Which, btw, ain't so great for the marriage, either...) Come up with a plan, an agreement, based on reality, decency, common sense, and what you think "family" should mean and general principles of what will/won't be split (or set a dollar amount limit, or an age limit, or limit the extracurricualr activities by quantity). Figure out and decide once and for all on the definitions of "extras" you and spouse agree on and everything should fall into place. If this can't be agreed upon between current spouses, it is not the ex-spouse's fault, and they shouldn't be dragged into the mess. If the CS arrangement is unsatisfactory to both current spouses, seek to have it changed instead of whining/nickel-and-diming/b.s. psychological games. If it's satisfactory to one spouse but not SP, or if expenditures just CANNOT be agreed upon no matter what, then maybe consider splitting finances. But acknowledge that it is the CURRENT SPOUSES who cannot agree on expenditures or come up with a workable plan, so it isn't anyone else's fault or burden to bear if you two can't work it out between yourselves.

Good for you Sunflower! I've been thinking about your situation over the past few days, and had an epiphany a few minutes ago, and wondered if that might apply. You seem like a sensible and reasonably mature (though young - under 30) person who's goal-oriented. All good. And you talked about moving forward with your relationship -- and I get that. Moving forward in a relationship is generally what we like to do. It's the normal and logical progression of life: High school, some high school boyfriends, college, some college boyfriends, graduate, get a job, set up life with an apartment, career, more boyfriends. Then you find a BF you especially like who especially likes you, and you move forward -- maybe live together, then get married. Then you have kids, raise a happy family, etc., etc. You spoke of moving in together as 'moving forward', and I'm wondering if in your mind, is somehow is. Like it's 'advancing to the next stage of life' -- moving your game piece forward, or 'growing up' another degree. And in a sense, it is. It is moving to another stage of life. But viewing it from that angle makes it sound like it's automatically a good thing -- a step ahead, a move forward. And in reality, it isn't at all! (Does the teen mother who marries her high school baby daddy somehow 'win' by going through her step-forwards quickly?) It certainly can be a move forward -- with the right guy at the right time in the right circumstances. But it can be every bit as much the learning and growing experience to say "No" as it is to say OK and move in together. Laying out your ground rules -- the way you did by specifying that he had to get his finances in order -- That's a very empowering thing you did! If it turns out we were all wrong and he is a reponsible guy, then he'll respect you for taking a stance now. And if he's a weak link, that'll become evident too, and probably a bit sooner now. You're doing the right thing Sunflower! And that's really a step forward.

I have been a single mother since my son was 3 years old and he is now 18. I know that many states now have the same laws regarding child support, I am surprised yours took the helpless attitude that they did. You have the option of having your ex's wages garnished. Plus, you can file to have the child support order adjusted for the ex's increase in wages. The support order goes according to a schedule based on how much money the ex earns. The judge will re-look at the wages and will adjust accordingly. In the state of California, the child support division was very good about contacting me to keep the information current regarding wages, address, etc. But, once you have an order in place to collect child support via garnished wages, you are in the system and they will follow up for you. You sometimes have to push them. Most states consider child support a top priority and will also garnish income tax returns and put a lien on property. So, they will work with you and for you. Most child support agencies are swamped, so you do have to keep at them. This could be why they took the attitude that they did. Call them a lot. Don't be afraid to bug them, that is what the agency is for - it's put in place to secure financial support for your loved ones. A lot of tears and frustration you go through, I know. You don't want your children to go through the rejection by their father. Keep your chin up, you will see a brighter future. Your sons will love you even more through the years knowing you stuck by them (I know, how can anyone not?) and the rewards will be awesome. Keep up the positive support for them. Write and let us know how you are doing.