Why does she think I should pay CM? (sorry long)

(121 Posts)
VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 22:55:11

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).

lisad123 Mon 05-Nov-12 22:59:08

Tell her to go to CSA. They are his children, not yours. You did agree to take them on as yours if you married him but it seems you are helping with their stuff. Personally I wouldn't give ex any money, but would make sure the kids are ok.

stinkinseamonkey Mon 05-Nov-12 23:00:55

does she have the kind of job where she can do 2 of her 3 days at weekends when your OH can do the childcare, so there's only one day of CM to pay, these days a lot of couples who are still together have to tag team with work to cut childcare costs so it'd be a sensible thing to do even when separated?

EMS23 Mon 05-Nov-12 23:07:24

By CM, do you mean maintenance or childminder?

I think your DH needs to find a job ASAP to allow him to continue paying maintenance. It's all very well him giving her 'his last £300' but the DC's don't stop costing money just because he can't afford it. Did he give his ex much notice that the money would be stopped?

FWIW, my DH and I have completely joint finances so while he wasn't working for 2 years I was, in effect, paying his child maintenance for my DSS so my feeling is that actually, yes, you should cover it till your DH can earn enough himself again.

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:07:30

She works in a school, (but not a teacher), so she finishes at 2.30 every day and the girls are 11 & 13, so okay for a while in the house by themselves if it's necessary, and my parents help out as well (only family close) so they don't have any childcare costs.

lisad123 Mon 05-Nov-12 23:09:56

I agree though he does need to find a job ASAP, it wouldn't wash if he lived with them, why should it just because they are apart.

Stink - think cm is child maintenance not child minder.

stinkinseamonkey Mon 05-Nov-12 23:11:32

sorry I thought you meant child minder costs, yeah in that case I agree with lisa and would also be interested in how much notice he gave his ex so that she could budget for less

"building a buisness" is sort of a luxury, DH would love to go out on his own, but while we have DS to support and Im on SMP he accepts that its not the right time as like lisa said, kids don't stop needing money while you "build a buisness" and until I can make up his shortfall he doesn't have the luxury of starting up on his own I'm afraid!

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:12:20

By CM I mean maintenance, not child minder, sorry for the confusion.

Yes, he's been warning her for a few months that he can't continue to pay over the CSA amount, but I don't think she took it seriously.

DuelingFanjo Mon 05-Nov-12 23:13:13

Why do your parents help out with her children? Are they particularly close to them? Seems odd to me.

It's your dh's responsibility to provide for his own children, what did he do in the previous five years?

stinkinseamonkey Mon 05-Nov-12 23:13:33

so is he still paying the CSA amt and just not the extras?

EMS23 Mon 05-Nov-12 23:16:41

Well it sounds like at the moment you've got an informal arrangement and perhaps it would be best for her and you/ DH if it was formalised via CSA.
That way she'd know where she stood and you wouldn't feel you we're paying too much.

FWIW, while I think your DH has been unreasonable here in just stopping paying maintenance, I also strongly disagree with his ex threatening to cut contact for that reason. Children are not and should not be pay per view.

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:19:55

Yes he's still paying the CSA amount, but not the additional. As soon as the business picks up she will be getting the additional again, plus more.
He really does want to support his kids, I just object to me being expected to do so.
My parents help out because the girls see them most weekends and if she isn't home at the agreed contact time sometimes the girls have to stay with them until she can collect them. (This is always weekends, so not job related).Both the girls and my parents enjoy spending time together, so it isn't an issue.

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:24:45

Sorry trying to respond to everyone.

DF in the previous period he had a job, he was made redundant and his redundancy pay has finally run out.

EMS23 yes I agree getting the payment formalised would be good, and so would contact. I think to get contact sorted we'll end up in court. Which won't be great for anyone, particularly the kids.

DuelingFanjo Mon 05-Nov-12 23:24:47

If he really wants to support them then he needs to get a job which will. Sounds like what he is doing now just doesn't earn enough. You should not be expected to pay and legally no one would be able to make you.

DuelingFanjo Mon 05-Nov-12 23:25:54

What's your husband's (df?) opinion on this?
Does he think you should pay?

Missmuffet28 Mon 05-Nov-12 23:29:10

I think people are being harsh op I think you should tell her to go to Csa if she is going to be awkward if you guys are giving the ex more than she is entitled to then I don't get why she is being silly about it especially if your paying for other stuff too, your dh has his own business and so what it's struggling at the moment.... Name a business that isn't! At least he is off his backside trying to make his way in life and not sat living off the social there are not many jobs out there why should he give up a business he put together with his own merits to get a job that he might get?
It doesn't sound to me like the dc's are going without and why should you guys have a hard time and get into debt if they are getting what they need, and if she refuses access take her to court and get an order, I don't get why people are always so quick to think that the ex should bleed the poor nrp and their family dry she chose to have kids too she should damn well make more of an effort to supprt them also if she is struggling that much.
All just my opinion of course smile

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:31:35

DF No he doesn't think I should pay, but obviously he told me he wasn't going to be able to pay what he had been, and then his ex suggested I should.

I don't want to, and the only way I could contribute to her household would be to take money out of the saving accounts I've set up for the kids university (ironically).

I was just interested to know other peoples opinion, because I'd love to be able to afford it, and like I say I could by taking money out of their savings, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

What would happen if he hadn't married me? Getting a job isn't that easy at the moment.

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:38:38

Sorry, I meant to say I don't want to, I can't afford to, but I still feel guilty and I'm wonering whether she's right in expecting me to pay.

No, she isn't right in expecting you to pay. It used to be this way but was changed.

VBisme Mon 05-Nov-12 23:50:21

Thank you everyone for your responses. I'm off to bed now, and if there's anyway DH can pay her more money this month he will. (tbh I think if there's anyway I can afford it we'll pay it, it just doesn't look like I can).

izzywizzyisbizzy Mon 05-Nov-12 23:57:41

He is paying more than he should, I cant believe how many extras you are paying for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what benefits are for at the end of the day.

Also if they are 11 and 13 forget about court, they will say do what the girls want.

allnewtaketwo Tue 06-Nov-12 06:10:11

She needs to increase her hours and earn more herself. That is what she would have to do if they were still together and he wasn't earning. Also, her benefits disregard all this money he has been paying her, so the children won't go without.

Cloverhoney Tue 06-Nov-12 06:35:29

I don't think it's your duty to pay at all. I've never paid my DH's child support for him but I have paid for extras when he's been short - school dinners, extra-curricular activities etc. I didn't do it because I felt it was my duty though, I did it to avoid the resulting hassle of him telling his ex that he couldn't pay. Agreed, tell her to go to the CSA.

Kaluki Tue 06-Nov-12 11:21:25

I can see this from both sides.
Just because your DH's business is struggling doesn't negate his responsibility to his dc. They continue to need feeding and clothing regardless.
When I was single and working part time I was on Working Tax Credits and it made no difference if I worked extra hours as the extra was just taken off the tax credits. Not right I know but that is the way the system works, so I also see her point on that.
Sending her his 'last' £300 and telling her she'll get more when he has got it isn't helpful when she has to budget too and is no doubt counting on this income.
BUT on the other hand, why should it be your problem? They are his dc and ultimately paying for them is his responsibility. If he has run out of money then it shouldn't fall to you to pay for them.
If he is paying more than the CSA amount then would it be worth him telling his ex wife he will pay her the CSA amount for a while and go back to paying more as and when he can. My DP had to do this when he was made redundant - his ex didn't like it but it was better than nothing.

izzywizzyisbizzy Tue 06-Nov-12 12:38:57

Maybe if she (ex) had adjusted lifestyles when he lost his job - money wouldn't have run out so quickly though.

anklebitersmum Tue 06-Nov-12 13:27:32

I would recommend DH goes to CSA and asks to be assessed so he can pay an appropriate amount for your current financial situation. If the business improves and he can genuinely afford to do more (or if you feel you could 'top up' if it's really small amounts) then do it, but on an 'additional monies because we're doing the right thing' basis.

If you are currently putting yourselves in financial trouble by paying an excessive CM then that needs to be addressed-after all his ex isn't going to help your family out if the bank says 'give me your overdraft back' is she?

Might be worth pointing out that there's no legal aid type help for 'witholding children' in the event that she starts with the no contact routine..you'd be amazed how fast people get reasonable when faced with £180 per hour fees wink

CheeseandPickledOnion Tue 06-Nov-12 13:38:49

If he's paying the CSA recommended amount, and it's just 'extra' he can't afford then I think she can do one. If you can afford extra you can't, and she'll have to accept that. I wouldn't be plundering savings account for extra money.

Petal02 Tue 06-Nov-12 13:47:18

If he’s paying the CSA recommended amount, and it’s just the “extra” that he can’t afford, then I think she can do one.

Very well put !!! Extras are fine when you’ve got spare money, but not mandatory when you haven’t. If he’s paying the CSA recommended amount, I don’t think she’s got an argument.

theredhen Tue 06-Nov-12 13:51:41

Anklebitersmum, are you sure that's true about legal aid? Surely a pwc just has to site an unhappy child being "damaged" by Nrp and she'll get legal aid to fight him?

izzywizzyisbizzy Tue 06-Nov-12 13:54:36

Here have been recent changes and I believe it is harder to get legal aid now.

anklebitersmum Tue 06-Nov-12 14:03:13

theredhen Obviously if there are genuine fears for the child's safety then legal aid or whatever they're calling it this week is available, but new rules say you can not go into a solicitors office and say "I don't want ex to see my child because he's got a new car/missus/not paid etc".

DH's ex had a very nasty surprise when she tried the "mine" routine. Still had to go to court but she got reasonable fast when she got refused aid hmm

So your dh is still paying the CSA rate,
He lost his job through no fault of his own and is trying to find ways of earning more money by setting up a business,
You pay for loads of extras for your dcs,
You provide clothes etc
You help with childcare
You are saving for their future
Your dh gave her notice of the impending changes...

Therefore, she can get lost, you are doing your best for them already.

EMS23 Tue 06-Nov-12 18:47:04

I know I said different up thread but considering the facts as olibean lists them, I change my view and agree that his ex will unfortunately have to live with the situation as it is now.

Tc80 Tue 06-Nov-12 22:54:36

I think your attitude is amazing. You sound very generous and supportive. Don't fall into the trap of feeling like you aren't doing enough - we all have boundaries and yours sound very reasonable. Leave the wranglings over money to them and if you are happy to put away savings from your own money then fantastic - you will be positively affecting the kids future and can be assured that the money you give them for Uni will be a direct contribution to them from you x

Cloverhoney Wed 07-Nov-12 06:56:52

I believe from March this year you can only get legal aid if you're alleging child abuse or domestic violence in most cases. Pretty sure that's what my DH's husband told him. We're also hoping the ex becomes more reasonable once she's faced with £180 an hour fees....!

I also think your attitude is amazing. I would never pay my DH's maintenance for him. That is money going directly to the ex. Like you I do pay for food, clothes, toys, toiletries etc for my SC and I would help my DH out in paying for their school dinners, extra curricular activities, parties etc because I'd know that was going to directly benefit them. I also match what my DH puts into my SC's savings account each week. We each put the same into all of our kids savings accounts regardless of whether they're SC or BC so they'll all have the same amount when they're 18 to go through uni or whatever.

I don't think I could ever give the ex hard cash. Sorry I just couldn't.

Kaluki Wed 07-Nov-12 08:40:22

I misread your earlier posts OP.
Of he is still paying the CSA amount then anything else is a bonus!
You are already doing more than I would!!!
smile

theredhen Wed 07-Nov-12 09:48:17

Op, I agree with the other posters, you are already being generous, don't be guilted into paying more.

The cost of bringing up the kids also falls to the mother too you know! wink

On the legal aid thing, what happens if pwc alleges abuse (untrue and police and ss refuse to get involved) and stops kids having contact. Nrp is them forced to take the legal route. Would pwc get legal help in those circumstances?

Cloverhoney Wed 07-Nov-12 10:17:31

My DH is half expecting this to happen and has been told there would then be something called a Finding Of Fact hearing where the court would establish whether there was indeed any abuse happening. If there wasn't any reasonable proof then my understanding is the allegations would be thrown straight out and the pwc would get a talking to from the judge. My dh was told even if it does happen, although it wastes precious time and money it would have the benefit of ensuring the court saw his ex's true colours...

All very depressing if you ask me :-(

Petal02 Wed 07-Nov-12 11:31:12

The cost of bringing up the kids also falls with the mother too you know

Very good point, and one that often gets forgotten !!!!! In a 'together' family, if the man loses his job, then everyone has to tighten their belts accordingly, so surely logic dictates that the same applies, even if the man/woman are now apart. So many women seem to think that excessive maintenance payments should be 'ring fenced' and not be subjected to normal economic fluctuations.

anklebitersmum Wed 07-Nov-12 11:57:14

Cloverhoney DH's ex alleged 'abuse' hmm and it went via the court social worker phoning DH and ex. They tell each party that whatever you say will be passed on to the other party and recorded for the courts so at that point you'll often find that they back off with the slanderous bull fibbing. DH's ex certainly stopped with the 'poor me she's a cow' routine at that point.

Bear in mind that pwc will have to sign a solicitors agreement regardless wink

izzywizzyisbizzy Wed 07-Nov-12 17:38:51

I know maintenance at CSA rates isnt often a lot, but NRPs also have costs, housing (bigger house to accomodate kids), clothing for in his house etc.

RPs get all the benefits, CB, CTC, WTC, HB etc, if they are entitled (I didnt get a penny as a single parent), NRPs can have their children 40% of the time, with no assistance.

Its about time the government woke up to shared care.

elliebellys Wed 07-Nov-12 17:49:03

Izzy,they are wakling up to it ,as from next year if you have 50 50 carethen no maintenance due.

ghoulygumdrops Wed 07-Nov-12 17:59:30

Is he paying a csa amount based on his 'not much' income (i.e. a fiver a week or similar) or on your household income?

EMS23 Wed 07-Nov-12 18:29:04

izzywizzy - I couldn't agree more re costs for NRP etc..
My DH has a direct arrangement with his ex and we pay well over CSA anyway but in the last couple of years circumstances have allowed us to move to 50:50 care but she would never accept a reduction in maintenance. It's do ingrained in how people perceive things that no one ever appreciates that the NRP incurs considerable costs themselves.

catsmother Wed 07-Nov-12 19:09:39

I know it's all relative and everyone's different of course but the CSA sum remains the same whatever the circumstances of the RP. So, for example, if they left the relationship with an almost or totally mortgage free house, then the CSA money would obviously stretch much further as their housing costs would be so low. People also forget that many NRPs must spend £££s on travel expenses if their ex lives a long way away. My DP's ex moved 140 miles away and then broke all her promises to share driving. She won't move an inch. Every contact visit costs £80 in petrol alone and if the CSA graciously allows you a reduction in respect of this it's something like 5p in the £. Gee thanks that makes a real difference. It's never black and white and despite the cliched idea of deadbeat dads etc many NRPs do indeed incur considerable costs .... when ex has been left with minimal housing costs, it almost always means NRP has to effectively start again from scratch too (unless mega rich).

Cloverhoney Wed 07-Nov-12 19:11:20

izzywizzy - I'm interested in what you say about NRP's being able to have their kids 40% of the time with no assistance. My DH has his DD at least 45% of the time...can he get assistance?? He doesn't get any. And he pays well above CSA rates to the ex.

NotaDisneyMum Wed 07-Nov-12 19:25:42

ghouly the CSA will assess the income (if any) of the NRP, plus any CTC the household receives, and possibly half the WTC as well, so it won't just be the NRP contributing.

izzywizzyisbizzy Wed 07-Nov-12 19:39:59

No Clover, he cant, thats what I mean, he is basically carrying half the costs of raising her himself, then paying maintenance, its simply not right or fair, the mother has the SAME costs, but all the benefits and maintenance.

Cloverhoney Wed 07-Nov-12 19:48:49

Sorry I misunderstood you. That's what I thought. It is ridiculous.

EMS23 Wed 07-Nov-12 19:59:02

catsmother - I sympathise, DH's ex moved 200 miles away and never once brought DSS to DH. We've since moved to be closer (10 miles away now!) and she's still never picked up or dropped off!

Bagofspiders Wed 07-Nov-12 20:01:30

Yeah, same daft situation here. We have 1 DSC 90% of the time & 2DSC's 50% of the time. DP's ex is still the 'parent with care' and gets all the benefits for all of them plus DP has to pay her maintenance. It's depressing.

HKnight Fri 09-Nov-12 05:44:33

We are in similar situation, hubbie and I have a baby and I earn more than hubbie. For us its cheaper for me to go back to work and hubbie look after little one. Our baby has health issues and we don't want to put her in childcare as she is so little and we still trying to work out what's wrong with her. Together we want to support DSS but can't afford quite the same as before (not csa rates either), this has also timed with ex's new hubbie losing his job. Its making an already very acrimonious relationship even worse. But what to do? No one thinks their baby will be poorly and no one expects to be out of work. Life is sometimes unfair, wish all sides could see that and work together on a solution. What does fighting solve, nothing, just causes upset especially for the kids.

ChocHobNob Fri 09-Nov-12 11:42:20

Bagofspiders, if your partner has one DSC 90% of the time, he needs to apply for the child benefit for that child and then he will be officially declared the "parent with care" for CSA purposes. Then he can claim child support from the Mother.

Bagofspiders Fri 09-Nov-12 13:01:10

We've tried that choc. It will only work if his ex will agree that she lives with us. Apparently we can get proof from the school but although DH filled out all the paperwork in his name his ex managed to change it all to hers (without his consent) and now they won't change it back without her consent, which she won't give. The only way of getting anyone official to accept the situation would be to take it to court and we don't have the money for that on top of all the maintenance etc. angry

ChocHobNob Fri 09-Nov-12 13:14:55

If there are two parents claiming to have the child live with them the majority of the time, they should do an investigation into the case and ask both parties for their arguments and a decision maker would decide. It doesn't need to go to court.

It is judged on the amount of time the child spends with each parent, how much the parents financially provide for day to day costs ie. clothes, uniforms, school dinners. You partner should be able to get the child benefit paid to him based on the fact that the child stays with him 90% of the time. It shouldn't have to go to court. And it shouldn't be down to the Mother having to agree the child lives with him. That would just speed up the process.

He should try and provide evidence of how often the child is with him. A diary. Photographs.

izzywizzyisbizzy Fri 09-Nov-12 13:46:37

Apparently photos of children in their jamas with a paper in front of the evening news have been used in situations like that.

Petal02 Fri 09-Nov-12 14:42:26

It just seems really incredible that a father can have his children for 40%/50%/60%+ of the time, but the mother is still the one who gets the benefits and the maintenance. When my DH first split from his ex, he asked his solicitor about 50/50 care, and his solicitor pointed out that even in this case he’d still need to pay maintenance. Did I see a comment further up the thread that such circumstances are now under review?

Sadly, too many women want it all their own way – ie, that their exes do the lion’s share of the child-care (probably putting in more hours/travelling than some resident fathers) and still paying hefty chunks of maintenance. My DH’s ex is still very ‘keen’ about maintenance – if DH ever has DSS for a few hours less per week than scheduled, the ex starts wittering about ringing the CSA and complaining that DH isn’t “doing his bit”, but the reverse never applies - it’s not like we demand a maintenance rebate if we take DSS away on holiday for a week!

Cloverhoney Fri 09-Nov-12 14:58:05

Apparently they are under review but only if you can prove an absolute 50 / 50 split which I don't really get given the odd number of days in year confused

And it sucks for those that have say a 45 / 55 split.

At the moment the person without the child benefit pays maintenance. And if both parents apply for the child benefit - it's the one that applied first that gets it regardless of whether or not they're doing the lion's share of the care!!! Nuts.

ChocHobNob Fri 09-Nov-12 18:23:25

It isn't Clover. If both apply for the child benefit, the child benefit claim should be frozen and an investigation done by the child benefit people into who is the main carer. They have guidelines to go by and the person who has the majority of day to day care, majority of financial day to day costs, the person whose name is on education and medical records etc and the person who the child spends most overnights with is considered the main carer. They should not go on someone's say so that they are the carer and it certainly shouldn't be a case of "she claimed it in her name first so the father can't have it". What if the Mother abandoned the child? Would she continue receiving the money even if Dad could prove he has 100% care of his child? People need to fight more if they are coming up against unfair hurdles. Contact your local MP and get them to write to them on your behalf.

Cloverhoney Sat 10-Nov-12 06:40:55

That's interesting and totally at odds with what the CSA told my DH. We do know of a Dad doing 100% care, not getting the CB and still paying maintenance. And we know of two more doing 50 / 50 care in the same situation.

I shall tell my DH to investigate further! Thank you.

izzywizzyisbizzy Sat 10-Nov-12 09:02:45

This happened to us, and we simply filled in their form with dates when SC lived with us, mother ended up - I believe - paying back a fortune, apparently that was our fault and not her for fraudulently claiming tax credits and CB for a child who didnt live with her.

ChocHobNob Sat 10-Nov-12 11:09:58

The CSA have absolutely nothing to do with Child Benefit and shouldn't be giving out information or advice about claims. They don't even know their own systems or rules properly so I certainly wouldn't be taking anything they say about outside organisations as the truth!

They just (inaccurately) use child benefit as the deciding factor over who is the "parent with care". There are no guidelines or legislation saying they should use child benefit that way, it's just what they have always done because it makes their life easier. They know Mum "usually" claims the child benefit because she is "usually" the stay at home parent or the lower earner, even when it doesn't always reflect the true dynamics of who is the parent with most care in the family.

They are going to have to rethink using child benefit in this way when the child benefit changes come into play next year. There may be no child benefit paid for a child if both parents don't qualify for whatever reason. It should be interesting.

When it comes to exact 50/50 care is when it gets very tricky and fathers may struggle to be awarded the child benefit because they can only pay it to one person and if it is completely 50/50 they'll leave it with the existing claimant.

ladydeedy Mon 03-Dec-12 20:37:04

It's not down to you. It is unfortunate that your DH is struggling a bit at the moment (and therefore implications for you too, as a couple). Imagine if it were the mother struggling. It wouldnt mean she could expect more from your DH, would it? This is just how things are at the moment, uncertain work situations etc. As you were already paying for extras, I think ex can count herself pretty lucky for the extra help she has had to date. I would suggest going through CSA. FWIW, my DH had a court ordered maintenance order and could often not afford it. I used to pay it as our finances are pretty much joint and I am the main breadwinner. Even when one of the two DSCs came to live with us, DH's exw wrote to say she still expected to be paid the money!!! One cuts one's cloth according to the money coming in. If your DH is not earning v much right now, she has to adjust accordingly (as you are having to also....).

Athendof Mon 03-Dec-12 20:48:14

Just for the record... Yes if she increases her hours her benefits will go down. I went from 3 days a week to 5 recently. The tax crdits have gone down while my child care expenses have gone up. By working almost twice the amount of hours I am only about £100 better off and note that I earn a modest but not a basic salary. But I need the money so there are no choices to be made

I'm sure my ex and his new partner think I'm spending the meagre child maintenance in having a good life (probably that's why he has not paid more than half of what he should for several years), not aware about how badly we are struggling. Someway I think that your partner's ex has learned not to trust his words and doesn't believe he is experiencing difficulties. In the same way that you don't think she really needs the money. :-(

Athendof Mon 03-Dec-12 20:48:51

Ps £100 better of a month

PoppyPrincess Tue 04-Dec-12 12:22:41

If he had been made redundant then he wouldn't be expected to pay out money he hasn't got would he? And CSA wouldn't expect his wife to pay maintenance either.
Yes it is your DH's responsibility to pay her money when he has it but I'm sure he is doing his best to make the business earn some money, I doubt that he's enjoying having no money for himself and he's being 'kept' by his wife.
Yes I'm sure his ex probably won't be well off but I managed to survive as a lone parent working part time and getting tax credits with no maintenance from ex, I know lots of others who do. She will survive.
I really do think you'd all benefit from going through the CSA, my DP's ex was very demanding and we got loads of hassle from her over it so we have now applied to CSA so if she know doesn't get what she wants when she wants it she can ring them to complain instead of us.
However, I think if someone is self employed they will prob make a decision based on his annual profits and prob still have to pay her money, even if he hasn't got it. But if they decide that the payments should be less than what he's paying now then hopefully he wouldn't end up in a situation where he has no money to give her.
It sounds to me like you are doing more than enough. No way would I give DP's X a penny of my money. I'd buy the kids stuff they need like clothes and shoes etc but not give her money

NotaDisneyMum Tue 04-Dec-12 12:51:55

Poppy That's what I've been doing.

DP was made redundant a year ago, and as his ex had applied to the CSA years ago without even trying to agree a private arrangement, they dropped the CM payments to the minimum and she was furious!

He tried hard to find another job, and tried to set up as freelance as well - and I bought DSS the things he needed when he was here, covered the cost of clubs etc.

His ex didn't change her standard of living at all; despite losing not only several £hundred in CM every month but also she was affected by the change in threshold for tax credits and lost those a few months later. She has moaned endlessly to the DCs' and anyone else who will listen about how she hadn't got any money and is struggling to make ends meet - usually to people at the gym she pays a monthly membership to!

I've had a lot of vitriol directed at me for "robbing" my DSC of the money they deserve from their Dad - I'm not quite sure why really - but I've learnt to let it wash over me and not get het up when I'm told that DP should move away from his family in order to get another job and financially support his DC's. I think it's a shame that some people equate the roll of a parent with money - any scmuck can hand over cash, but it takes a special kind of man to be a Dad smile

PoppyPrincess Tue 04-Dec-12 13:21:20

notadisneymum how on earth are you ''robbing'' DSC? Surely anybody with half a brain cell can work out that if ur DH has been made redundant then that means it is also putting a huge financial strain on you?! I'm guessing you'll be the one paying all the bills, feeding him etc and no matter how well off a person or a couple is you live to your means so to lose a whole income is hard.
DP's ex is obsessed with money, it's all she bloody goes on about. There's times when I want to just show her our bank statements to say ''look we don't have any F***ing money, you earn more than the 2 of us put together, now do one you greedy, selfish bitch!'' Lol but no I just smile and think of fluffy puppies haha

NotaDisneyMum Tue 04-Dec-12 13:28:59

Poppy The argument put to me was that because my DP was choosing to stat and live with me and DD, rather than move to another part of the UK where he was more likely to secure employment, I was depriving his DCs of the financial support they would otherwise have received. It is, apparently, better for him to give financially than have regular, meaningful contact with his DCs.

It's quite a widely shared view on the LP board of MN!

Petal02 Tue 04-Dec-12 15:13:15

If a man and woman are together, and the man’s income drops, then the woman will have less money to spend. Why should his theory be any different if a man and woman are no longer to together? For example, £15k per year pays for a lot less than £75k per annum, regardless of whether a couple are together or not. So many women have the (weird) idea that their maintenance payments should be ring-fenced regardless of the circumstances and it’s totally unrealistic. If you’re together, you take the rough with the smooth (financially speaking) and it’s no different if you’re apart.

prettyfly1 Wed 05-Dec-12 12:56:47

I will get entirely flamed but I tell you what hell would freeze over before I handed dps ex my income. I am told regularly, in letters, over the phone, in person and by my dss that I am not his mother, have no influence on his life am not important, am just his dads bit of stuff and dont count in any way shape or form so as far as I am concerned my income is my business and I wouldnt hand over a single solitary penny of it. Their child = their business is the line most of us get fed when we complain about behaviour issues, discipline guidelines or access concerns so guess what - their child, their business when it comes to finance.

PoppyPrincess Wed 05-Dec-12 13:34:33

prettyfly I wish there was a ' like' button on here like there is on Facebook.
You're right, we're not relevant one minute but as soon as it involves money we are.
At the mo the ex doesn't want the kids to see me, come to my/our house, even speak to me in the school playground but I would bet your bottom dollar if DP lost his job she'd expect me to pay the maintenance and I'd have 2 words for her... Starts with F and ends in off!

Petal02 Wed 05-Dec-12 13:38:30

Hell would freeze over before I handed DPs ex my income

Ditto. My situation is different to yours Prettyfly, so I have no issue with paying for extras etc for DSS when he’s with us, but there is no way on earth I would ever give money to DH’s ex. I work full time, she stays at home drinking cappuccino and watching Jeremy Kyle. If she wants more money, she can get off her rapidly-increasing backside and get a job.

HKnight Wed 05-Dec-12 13:48:36

Can I just say that if there was a like button I would be hitting it too! I buy my DSS new things when he needs it, but I will never be sending my money to his ex.

CatchingMockingbirds Wed 05-Dec-12 22:47:13

vbisme how much is the minimum CSA payment that your DP will be making until work picks up more?

I can see why she's upset, having the cm dramatically drop just right before Christmas, but it's your DP that needs to get a job. Your money is yours and she shouldn't be asking you for it.

NotaDisneyMum Wed 05-Dec-12 23:26:16

catching isn't it just as much the DCs Mum's responsibility as their Dad's?

If mum and dad were still together and dad was made redundant - wouldn't mum increase her hours from p/t to f/t if the option was available? Or would she refuse to work any more hours herself, and demand that her DP find another job, berating him when he didn't, all the while accruing family debt as she refused to live within their means?

CatchingMockingbirds Wed 05-Dec-12 23:47:38

Of course she should pay her way but I was referring to the OP and her partner. Between them both he should be the one providing for his children by getting another job if his business is failing, not having his partner pay for them.

Also, increasing her working hours may not be the wonderful solution, if she works more her benefits would stop as she's already stated, so she'll need to pay full rent, after school care, and a percentage of income support may stop too which the extra amount of wages may just cover (if she's able to increase her hours at all).

If mum and dad were still together though I wouldn't be saying the father doesn't have to get a job as the mum should just work more.

Athendof Thu 06-Dec-12 00:19:10

I think that NotaDisneyMum is right, I think that's the attitude of many non resident parents: hands on air, can't do more and leave the resident parent to sort the mess.

I know a lot of non resident parents, and all of them are great in many different ways, but I have only met a single one who would go totally out of his way to ensure his DD lifestyle didn't suffer too much when the resident parent was struggling. Interestingly, he ended up spliting with his second wife because new wife couldn't understand/be happy about him paying more than he should, he simply thought that even 20% net of his salary wasn't enough and that he needed to balance the things up given his great salary and his ex wife's limited income.

Athendof Thu 06-Dec-12 00:22:54

Now thinking of it, everytime I managed to get my salary increased the ex would reduce maintenznce (fair enough) but every time it has gone don or disapeared he never put the maintenance back up.

Athendof Thu 06-Dec-12 00:28:47

I agree however that new partners should not be expected to pay maintenance, and also that resident parents should get back to work ASAP for the sake if their children and themselves.

EMS23 Thu 06-Dec-12 01:00:44

Well Athendof it's a shame you don't know my DH.
He has always paid well over CSA, he has gone without for years to maintain his DS's needs and we, as a couple, have given up a lot for my DSS, in order to make his life better.

Now, after giving up our great careers to move across the country to be near DSS, we have 50/50 care and yet still pay the same amount we always have. Now, his ex's costs have definitely gone down as we are doing 50/50 care but she insists she can't afford maintenance to be reduced and despite a good co-parenting relationship with her, my DH is still terrified his son will be taken away from him if he rocks the money boat.

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 07:09:48

athendof do you think that a NRP who experiences a significant reduction in income (such as through redundancy) has a greater obligation to his first family than his current one?

Should he ensure that his first children are not impacted in any way - even if their resident household has the opportunity to cut back - at the expense of essentials for his current family?

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 07:25:46

She has a bloody cheek, and I talk as the resident parent.

She IS still getting the CSA level of maintenance. Anything over that is a bonus, and should not be expected as it can easily stop when finances change.

She is just pissed off that she is not getting what she was.

No, you shouldn't have to pay - your DH is paying what he should, he just can't afford to continue to pay extra. Tough. As long as he is paying what he should be paying according to the CSA, she will have to tough it out, just like she would have to if they were still in a relationship.

As long as your DH is paying what the CSA says is necessary, then it's not your problem or issue.

If she wants extras, she will have to work more hours!

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 07:35:33

He will still be paying a barest minimum of £20.20 a week for two DC's, based on an income of £101 a week. Or if his income is under £101 a week, he will be paying £5 a week.

Still paying the CSA minimum.

If he is paying £20.20 a week or more, she will just have to cope.

I would say that if he is only paying £5 a week, he will have to take A job, ANY job though.

My ex is meant to pay £55 a week according to the CSA, for our two DC's. He currently pays £70 a week. I never count on that extra £15 a week, because if his income goes down, I won't get it.

If he wasn't earning enough to pay £20 a week, I'd expect him to look for a proper job, but even NMW FT would have to pay £48.72 maintenance for two DC's!

So IMO, if he is paying the £48 a week that would be the equivalent maintenance for a FT NMW job, she can shut up and cope, and enjoy the extra he pays when he is paid better!

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 09:56:43

couthy you and I have disagreed about this issue before - what if there isn't a F/T NMW job available? There are some parts of the country in which there are literally no jobs. Should a NRP leave the area, reducing the time he spends with ALL his DC's, in order to ensure that his first family don't have to change their standard of living?

If the minimum that a NRP is required to pay is based on a F/T NMW job, then if they can't secure that, then their partner will be covering that expense.

My DP was not entitled to JSA after 6 months due to my income, but was still required to pay the minimum £5 a week to the CSA (plus a proportion of the CTC we receive on account of my DD living with us 50% of the time). He had no income - so who do you think paid that?

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 09:59:31

I'm not really of the opinion that he should have to get a 'proper' job, yes maybe eventually if after a long time his business isn't making a profit then he'd have to accept its not working and get a proper job. But most businesses make a loss at some point and you just have to ride the storm. There would be few businesses around if everybody threw in the towel as soon as they make a loss. Who knows his business could take off and then his kids will benefit considerably more in the long run.
It's not just about the ex and how she can cope in the short term, you've got to think of the bigger picture.
My ex doesn't work and I only get £5pw in maintenance out of his benefits, I'd love him to work and provide for him, but how can I make him? The only tool I have is our son but I can't/won't stop contact until he gets a job and starts providing, that's just wrong and it's our son who would suffer.

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 10:28:02

poppy How would you feel about a situation in which the minimum amount that your DP was required to pay (via the CSA) was the amount couthy proposes - the equivalent of a f/t NMW job?
Would you be happy in the knowledge that it was your ex's DP who was supporting your household to that extent?

Thinking about it, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to take money from my DD's stepmum if my ex couldn't pay!

Petal02 Thu 06-Dec-12 10:30:15

Do you think that a NRP who experiences a significant reduction in income has a greater obligation to his “first” family than his current one? Should he ensure that his “first” children are not impacted in any way, at the expense of essentials for his current family?

Excellent point NADM. If there’s less money to go round, then EVERYONE should have their “share” reduced, the money to the “first” family should not be ring-fenced at the expense of the current family, any more than it would be appropriate for the reverse to apply.

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 10:37:44

Tbh I'm just not that bothered about money, my ex actually offered me money for petrol for taking him to his house the other week (it's quite far) but I didn't want it, I told him to keep it and spend it on our DS. I know he's skint and I'm happy knowing that everything my son has, everything I feed him, every where I take him is paid for by ME. It makes me proud that I don't financially depend on his dad. BUT I have never had any money from him in all the 3&1/2 years that he's been on this earth so I just had to get used to it very early, maybe I'd feel differently if I had been getting money and then it stopped.
But no I can't imagine ever wanting his girlfriend's money, in fact she did start working for a while (until she realised she was worse off) and the thought of getting maintenance off her didn't even cross my mind.
But like I said I'm just not that bothered about money, some women seem to think of their child as an extra income.

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 10:45:28

And on the subject of income decrease...my DP pays nearly half his wage in supporting his ''first'' family, then he has debts and expenses like petrol etc so more money goes towards keeping his first family than it does his second. It is frustrating that we're so skint and she's so much better off than us and its ME accruing debts whilst I'm on mat leave but hey...that's just life, we've not got a pot to piss in but I've never been happier smile

Petal02 Thu 06-Dec-12 10:45:57

Some ex’s have really jaundiced views about the whole finance thing. My DH’s ex has repeatedly told DSS that “your Dad could pay us more if he wasn’t having to finance Petal’s lifestyle” which absolutely cracks me up because I’ve got a well-paid full time job, it’s not like I spend my days trawling Harvey Nichols and having facials (chance would be a fine thing ……. ). The ex doesn’t realise (or chooses to ignore) that without my salary, DSS wouldn’t get half as many ‘extras’. But hey – it’s far easier to blame the second wife, isn’t it !!!!

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 10:50:01

Sorry I didn't make that last post clear...he's paying so much to his ex because it was agreed when he was on a better income and living at home with his mum, the ex wasn't earning as much either, but now his wage has gone down, her wage has gone up and his circumstances have changed so now he can't really afford what he pays but he can't really get out of it. Well he will soon as the sale of the house is going through so he soon won't have to be making mortgage payments.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 13:33:15

NADM - I know we disagree about the NMW job thing, but YOU wouldn't have to pay your DP's maintenance if he took whatever NMW job was available.

Yes, they use a portion of your DD's CTC's, but a) CTC is part of your HOUSEHOLD income, not paid individually but based on your household income, and if your DP was employed you probably wouldn't get any anyway, and b) As you have another DC resident in your household to support (your DD), your DP's maintenance receives a reduction to allow for that.

So taking the TC's into account, that you wouldn't be getting if he was employed FT, unless you earn less than £15k pa before tax & NI, is offset by the reduction in payable maintenance to allow for the fact that there is another DC in your household that needs to be supported, your DD.

Give with one hand, take with the other!!

I still think the OP's DH's Ex is taking the piss if he is paying £20-£48 a week. If he is paying more than that, then his Ex is royally taking the piss moaning about losing anything on top of that until he finds a proper job.

However, IMO, you don't have the luxury of trying to build your own business at the expense of supporting your DC's, unless it has been AGREED with the Ex partner (the RP) that maintenance payments will drop during that period.

It's called being a responsible parent - you ensure that if you wish to build your own business, you can still afford to support your DC's to the tune of what you would be paying in maintenance in a FT NMW job.

If you can't pay the £48 a week for two DC's that you would be paying if you were working in a FT NMW job, then you are being irresponsible and shirking your responsibilities to your DC's by following your own wishes and dreams at the expense of supporting your own DC's.

Which isn't responsible parenting IMO and IME.

I DO have issues with this, because I am at the other end of that situation, and get just £12.50 a week in maintenance from my DD's father because he is 'building his own business', when if he took a NMW job, he would be paying nearly £37 a week for one DC!

So because he is following HIS dream, I am getting £25 a week less than I should be, and would be if he stood up to his responsibilities, and did what I have had to do at times since having our DD, and work a shitty NMW job to support our DD.

I don't class that as good or responsible parenting - I class it as selfishness, and childishly following your own dreams without thinking about how that will affect your DC's.

And as for the thought that if they were together they would both have to tighten their belts - if I was still with my DD's father, no way would I have agreed to him following a pipe dream of trying to start his own business instead of taking A job, ANY job, even NMW when he has a DC to support.

So why should I accept that just because we are no longer together?

If I as the RP have had to work shitty NMW jobs to support my DD, why the hell can't he?!

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 13:41:08

I don't think he is financing his new wife's lifestyle though - she finances that by...working in a shitty barely over NMW job. So I STILL don't see why she has to fund his lifestyle!

irresponsible childish muppet tbh, he is!

I get on very well with his DW, she's lovely, and lives my DD like she is her own, as they only have boys together, so she gets to enjoy more 'girly' stuff with my DD.

But it irks me that I can't afford to do things like give my DD the money she wants to go into town with her friends this weekend, as it is going to cost £20 to do what she wants - and that's only bus fare, a calendar signed by some TV Z-list celeb (she's 14, I despair! grin ), and a McDonalds.

It's not fair that I can no longer afford her gym club because the CTC and ChB barely cover her food, clothes and £10 phone credit a month.

So while I feel it's not my Ex's DW's job to pay the maintenance AT ALL, I get very annoyed that they made a decision that works for THEM (my Ex setting up his own business), without considering the impact on my DD with the drop in maintenance.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 13:43:09

Oh - and we do it by private agreement, and I refuse to include the TC's that they get for their DC's.

So I'm not an ogre - I just wish it was different so my DD could do normal teenage things.

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 14:03:49

So taking the TC's into account, that you wouldn't be getting if he was employed FT, unless you earn less than £15k pa before tax & NI, is offset by the reduction in payable maintenance to allow for the fact that there is another DC in your household that needs to be supported, your DD.

£15,000? Really?

I haven't earned that in the last 2 years since I was made redundant, despite holding down two p/t PAYE jobs and setting up my own business simultaneously! My DP, after 11 months of unemployment, has finally secured a temporary p/t position that earns him 2/3 of that. No chance of a f/t job (yes, he has been looking), and he was told that if he didn't accept a p/t position, the JSA would stop paying his NI stamp and we would no longer be eligible for CT benefit, either. If you expect a NRP to get a F/T job, then there have to be F/T jobs available, don't there?

You have a very narrow view of the types of jobs and work that are available, couthy - and you carefully avoided totally ignored my point that in some parts of the country, there just aren't f/t nmw jobs available; especially at this time of year, when tourism and agriculture are stagnant. Of course, there is always the solution of the NRP moving away to get a job and spending less time with ALL his DC's; but then he would then be branded a deadbeat Dad who never watches his DS play football, or his DD's gymnastics competition. Whichever way you look at it, NRP are just a waste of space, aren't they?

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 14:14:14

I DO have issues with this, because I am at the other end of that situation, and get just £12.50 a week in maintenance from my DD's father because he is 'building his own business', when if he took a NMW job, he would be paying nearly £37 a week for one DC!

But if he wasn't setting up his own business, and was registered with JSA because he couldn't find a F/T NMW job, you would be receiving no more £5 a week (CSA minimum), which would be paid by his DW because he wouldn't be earning anything.

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 14:27:59

couthy you should accept it because you have to, the day you and your ex split up you lost any right to tell him what he should or shouldn't do. Why should he seek your approval? It's HIS life, HIS career, you are nothing to him anymore, just his EX.
I don't think you'll be complaining if in 2 years his business takes off and you're receiving more money than you would do if he had a 'proper' job, you probably won't be complaining if in 20 years he leaves his successful business to his child.
Yes it would be nice if every NRP provided a big bag of money to their ex every month but in reality it doesn't always happen and it doesn't make that parent a bad parent, especially not if it is because they are trying to build a business which will ultimately benefit the child.

Petal02 Thu 06-Dec-12 14:31:09

Sorry, but what's a NWM job?

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 14:38:24

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?

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 14:39:56

Near minimum wage...I think?

NothingIsAsBadAsItSeems Thu 06-Dec-12 14:39:58

Petal - I think its a National Minimum Wage job

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 14:42:16

Oh yeh national not near, that makes more sense lol

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 14:50:25

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.

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 14:58:17

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!

PoppyPrincess Thu 06-Dec-12 15:21:17

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]

NotaDisneyMum Thu 06-Dec-12 15:29:25

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 wink

ladydeedy Thu 06-Dec-12 18:51:03

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!

Athendof Thu 06-Dec-12 20:43:19

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.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 20:43:57

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.

Viviennemary Thu 06-Dec-12 20:50:54

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.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Thu 06-Dec-12 20:52:34

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. hmm

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!

Athendof Thu 06-Dec-12 20:54:34

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.

ATouchOfStuffing Thu 06-Dec-12 21:00:06

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?

NotaDisneyMum Fri 07-Dec-12 01:08:56

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.

Petal02 Fri 07-Dec-12 07:46:22

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?

PoppyPrincess Fri 07-Dec-12 08:01:36

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.

ATouchOfStuffing Fri 07-Dec-12 08:08:47

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?
Bit confused.

PoppyPrincess Fri 07-Dec-12 10:00:07

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.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Fri 07-Dec-12 16:37:00

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

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now