Why does she think I should pay CM? (sorry long)(121 Posts)
Dh and I have been married for less than 2 months, they've been split over 5 years, and I was nothing to do with the split.
I am fortunate that I have a reasonably good job, DH has his own business which is struggling.
Dh has 2 girls from a previous marriage and an ex wife who isn't particularly nice to either of us, or supportive of the kids seeing DH (although we do travel to see them every weekend, sometimes this is blocked).
DH has finally run out of money and is at his overdraft limit, given that we've both been married before and had difficult divorces, we keep our money completely separate.
I have paid all our bills for the last 4 months to help DH pay CM to his ex at a significantly higher rate than the CSA would expect. But his funds are now maxed out, so he's sent her his last £300 and said that he'll pay her the rest when the business starts making money (which should be in the next couple of months).
I can understand why she'd be annoyed at her income being reduced, but her first e-mail back was demanding that I paid her the money instead "if I cared about the girls at all", and that DH "should get a proper job" or "he won't see his girls again".
DH responded suggesting that she could increase her hours if she was struggling too (she works part time 3 days a week), to which he got the answer "that would reduce my benefits".
In addition to the money DH has been paying in CM I cover all the music lessons, sports club fees, buy the coats and shoes for school and anything they need (clothes toiletries trainers etc when they are with us).
Is it wrong of me to want to save for the future for DH, me and the kids? (I have opened saving accounts for each of the girls for university), or should I just give in and pay her the money so DH gets access to his kids? (which would mean me using my overdraft as well).
Just out of interest do the CSA take CTC's in to account when calculating maintenance? We're currently going through CSA to sort out DP's maintenance payments and I'll be mightily pissed off if they count the CTC that I get for MY kids as income. I thought you pay less if you're supporting other children?
Near minimum wage...I think?
Petal - I think its a National Minimum Wage job
Oh yeh national not near, that makes more sense lol
And couthy do you think that I agreed to my ex (then bf) getting sacked whilst I was pregnant? And do you think I agreed to him never getting a job again? Not even try? Does that make him a bad dad? No it means that he's lazy and he's realised that if he was to start working again then he'd actually be worse off.
And do you think that I/we agreed to DP to pay half of his wage to his ex? No not really because he was earning more when it was agreed but no he can't get out of it.
But do you think that every time I want to buy my kids something and can't I think ''that's his Dad's fault!'' Or ''that's DP's ex's fault!'' No it's just life, it's just the circumstances and you just have to get on with it.
It sounds like you've got a lot of anger towards your ex but I guarantee the day you give in and realise that you have no right to have a say over what your ex does or doesn't do life becomes sooooo much easier.
Oh yes, your DP has to declare the CTC as income to the CSA. It's because his income (as well as yours) is used to assess the level of CTC you receive.
If you receive WTC as well, then this also has to be considered to be part of your DP's income if he is the higher earner, if you earn the same then half of the WTC is considered to be his and if you are the higher earner, then the CSA leave WTC alone.
The stupid thing is that it's not widely documented that CTC has to be included when telling CSA your income. They ask for payslips and don't tend to mention CTC, even when they make the adjustment for another DC living in the home!
My ex has just been stung for CSA arrears because he claimed CTC for DD for a few months in 2010/11 - and he didn't know that he had to declare it to the CSA - bonkers!
Ok well I'll be honest we filled out the forms and they're still sat by the front door waiting to go to the postbox so I'll look at the again, didn't notice anything about CTC and as it is paid to me I didn't even think of it.
We hardly get anything at all at the mo as we're right on the cusp for the max income but as DP's bonus's have decreased and I'm on mat leave we should get more next tax year. But I do see that as money for my kids, worked out based on our crap income. Why should she get a cut of the money that's been awarded to my kids? [sulky face]
Why should she get a cut of the money that's been awarded to my kids?
I know how you feel BUT, the amount his ex receives from him is reduced because he has chosen to live with you and your DC's rather than live on his own. I doubt she thinks thats fair either!
It's not a brilliant system either way really - but nothing ever would be
I know, this whole situation p***es me off. So on the one hand as a stepmother you are told you are nothing to do with the DSCs, have no rights, have no influence, should not be involved in anything at all. On the other hand, if DH's income goes down (mine is self-employed in an industry that is very volatile at the moment) then EXW still expects to be paid of course! (their agreement is by court order). Even when one of the DSCs comes to live with us - she still expected to be paid THE SAME AMOUNT! (he doesnt any more as they both earn pretty much the same now and have one child living with each).
Roll on a couple of years... DH has claimed CB for his son that lives with us. Now I receive a letter saying I am a higher tax payer therefore CB will not be paid anymore AND if DSC goes to uni (as planned, as is very bright lad and wants to go) it's MY income that will be taken into account.
It makes me so cross I could spit! Meanwhile EXW moans on and on constantly about how miserable her life is and how she shouldnt have to pay anything for either child, that DH should pay for everything as she has done all the upbringing and he has done, I quote "the bare minimum" and been a crap dad. I cant wait till she self-combusts, frankly!
Notadisney, in answer to your question, when exh and new partner earn above £50,000 p/a each and have no children, yes I don't see absolutely anything wrong with him trying to level the ground for his ex who has a part time job in retail and who cares for their DD most of the time.
I often think how do my ex (whose salary is higher than those above) would feel if I took DS to his doorstep, say I don't want to see him anymore and make sure I pay cm religiously as per CSA calculation. I think he would be horrified, considering my salary, he wouldn't be able to pay a babysitter an evening a week with all the money I would be asked to pay to him. Obviously, this doesn't mean he will be struggling as bad as I am, because he still has a salary several times larger than mine.
NADM - I DO 'get' that in certain areas jobs are harder to come by - but you still have shops, pubs, restaurants, petrol stations, supermarkets, and people still have cleaners don't they?
And if none of that is available, then surely just moving to a town rather than rural will mean more job availability. And the NRP can still travel to have contact.
My mother used to travel 40 miles each way to come and see me when I lived with my Dad and she was the NRP. Can't see the issue tbh.
She is equally responsible for the financial support of her children as your DH is. He should go to the CSA and get them to suggest an amount and pay that. She sounds horribly unreasonable, entitled and awkward. No way should you give her a penny of your own money with this attitude.
I'm not angry, just irritated that he thinks it's OK to pay no maintenance for 12 years, to the point where I'm grateful for £12 a week when he should be paying £37.
And he is highly unlikely to be leaving his business to my DD who has multiple disabilities and LD's. That is far more likely to go to his two DS's with his new wife, given the nature of the business.
And by the time he makes a profit that would mean higher maintenance for my DD, she won't be eligible for maintenance, as she is almost 15 already.
So yeah, it fucks me off that his vanity project means that my DD will lose out on £25 a week when SHE most needs it.
So don't try to tell me that I'm in the wrong for wanting him to get off his selfish arse, and take a NMW shop job until my DD is 18. Then surely he can do what the fuck he wants without our DD missing out.
So yeah, I guess I AM a bit pissed off. His DS's with his new wife get to go on foreign holidays, get to go to clubs every week, get to have private fucking therapies for their inherited from him disabilities while I can't do ANY of that for my DD!
I could have moved away to get a better job, and by that I mean 100+ miles, would the ex would havr allowed me to take DS with me? Nope. Would he change his job to avoid being away 40% of the time to care for DS? Nope. Catch22 scenario, i think.
Obviously, i could have taken him back to court, but after seeing a coleague spending £30,000+ in solicitor fees in a removal of juridiction court process, I think I simply can't afford it.
I haven't read all of the posts, so sorry if I double up.
Am I wrong in thinking you knew he supported his kids when you married? If he dies you will be responsible for any debts he has, which presumably you are happy with. Why don't people think of this when they marry a man with kids? If he isn't working then you as a couple are responsible for maintenance IMO, and should have realised this when getting married.
However if you really think this is unfair then get her to go via CSA. If he is on benefits she will get £5 per week. If his business takes off and he earns more than ever, she will get her percentage too. He however, might not like this idea as they have obviously not gone through these channels before...I wonder why?
couthy you really aren't aware of what's happening out here, are you?
The last f/t shop job that was advertised in our nearby town received over 150 applications (it made the local headlines) - many of the applicants who had recently been made redundant from 6 high street stores which closed when they went into administration.
Unsurprising then that former middle managers with no retail experience weren't getting interviews.
Pubs don't open full time round here, (no chains) restaurants are only open a few lunchtimes and evenings and KP jobs are adequately filled by east European immigrants who work for room and board - even the arrests that were made for immigration crime this week haven't resulted in any new vacancies.
The last time the local supermarket recruited was over 12 months ago, even part time posts - and the post office Christmas staff vacancies were filled by last years post holders; no new applications were being accepted this year.
The only people who can afford employ cleaners are those who want their second homes maintained - and at this time of year, those houses are shuttered up and their owners tucked up in their London residences til spring.
Garages etc are family businesses - they may employ the odd family friend or cousins brother in law through word of mouth but unless you happen to be a member of the family, there's no chance of a job.
Soon after i was made redundant, I managed to secure 10 hours a week working for a local fresh food retail outlet, cleaning their chillers and back areas - I beat all the other applicants (there were dozens) because I had a food hygiene certificate already and had recently been in the local press as a competitor in a cooking competition.
There is a weekly county paper where I live; last week, there was a total of 45 jobs advertised (the number was emblazoned on a board outside the newspaper offices) - including 4 teachers, 3 laminators, a quantity surveyor and a ships captain. The current unemployment rate in the county is over 25%. In the last week, two local businesses have announced redundancies totalling hundreds and the biggest employer is the public sector who are now going to be culled for a second time after the chancellors announcement this week.
Believe it or not, those jobs you want everyone to fill just don't exist.
touchofstuffing. sorry but your post is factually incorrect. If a man dies, his wife is not left responsible for his debts (unless they are in joint names), and a wife is not responsible for paying maintenance for children from her husband's first marriage. The only people responsible for maintenance are the bio parents. If you were to extend legal financial responsibility beyond that, where would it end?
Yes and part of the problem is because there is a because there is a shortage of jobs people are reluctant to change jobs as there tends to be more security with an employer you've been with for a while.
So as people aren't moving employment then positions just don't become available, so there may be jobs but they are all filled and those people filling them won't budge.
That's the way it is in my industry, there hasn't really been many redundancies but its become stagnant and very few job vacancies become available because nobody is moving.
Apologies. I thought that if a man died and had an asset, say the family house or car, the debt could be taken from that and it would be repossessed. That is what I meant. Who pays for these debts then?
It's a common misconception that debts are handed down to people.
I think debts are just wiped off when somebody dies. I'm not sure whether they can take it out of their assets or not though.
Joint and several debts (eg mortgage, joint bank account) pass to the joint debtor, unless there is insurance to pay it off. If in a single name, credit cards, bank overdraft, car loan etc are paid out of the estate, assuming there is one. If no estate, unsecured debts die.
Join the discussion
Please login first.