Advanced search

to wonder if it's ever ok for the NRP to not pay maintenance?

(43 Posts)
marysafairy Wed 12-Nov-14 17:10:05

If the resident parent is better off, is it ok for the NRP to not contribute at all? Better off doesn't necessarily mean rich, but a comfortable standard of daily life.

I ask because my second husband and I can afford a reasonable lifestyle raising my kids from a previous marriage. He is the main breadwinner and I earn fluctuating amounts on a monthly basis depending on how much work I get or do. We are planning for the kids to go to uni, and have to save a significant amount for this as they are in their early teens (we're not in UK so won't get student loans).

Their father refuses to contribute, saying that we have more so can bear the burden of bringing them up, and that it wasn't his choice to split up. If we received a contribution, we would have more for savings and luxuries.

We also have to pay a significant amount for the kids to visit him as I feel its good for them to have a relationship with their father, but my husband really is starting to resent this. All polite attempts to ask ex to contribute have failed. I would rather never take a penny from him but this is not fair on my H.

AIBU? If not, if you have any experience or suggestions on how to handle a complete narcissist they would be welcomed.

SolidGoldBrass Wed 12-Nov-14 17:12:36

His opinion is irrelevant. He is legally obliged to pay maintenance for his children, regardless of your current family income.
Set the CSA on the nasty selfish wanker.

Twitterqueen Wed 12-Nov-14 17:13:02

OP it's absolutely fine for the NRP to not pay any maintenance at all - when they take it upon themselves to decide the judge was wrong and the settlement is so favourable to the RP that there is really no need to contribute anything additional to the welfare of their children - ever.

Bitter, twisted and cynical? you bet.

ApocalypseThen Wed 12-Nov-14 17:13:10

I think he should be at least contributing something. If he can't bring himself to help with the children's day to day expenses, he should be putting money into their university fund.

Whatever, there's no way he should be doing nothing.

What a pathetic excuse.

ProbablyMe Wed 12-Nov-14 17:13:57

Nope. He should still pay - he should still want to pay! They're his children!!

marysafairy Wed 12-Nov-14 17:15:27

We separated a few years before I met new husband, and ex has never contributed in all that time so I got used to the status quo. He buys the kids luxuries when with them (usually once per year due to distance) but has never paid any support outside of direct spending on them.

overmydeadbody Wed 12-Nov-14 17:15:30

Of course not, it is never ok.

And he should pay for them to visit him. That should not come out of your pocket shock

DejaVuAllOverAgain Wed 12-Nov-14 17:15:31

Your ex is responsible for supporting his children, emotionally, practically and financially no matter how much money your current husband has.

You don't say what country you're in but there surely there's some equivalent to the CMS (I think it's now called) that you can claim through. If so then I suggest you do that.

WooWooOwl Wed 12-Nov-14 17:15:42

Have you moved abroad away from your children's father against his wishes?

It sounds like he should be paying, and in the vast majority of cases a NRP should pay, but I can see circumstances where it might not be so bad if they don't.

BitchPeas Wed 12-Nov-14 17:19:23

This was my exs opinion, as I earn more than him and live with DP apparently I'm money grabbing.

This went on for 3.5 years until I'd had enough and calculated the backdated Maintence and threatend him with the CSA. I said he can set up a private agreement with me or I can go through them and get a higher rate plus backdated, I gave him 2 days to think about it.

Luckily he isn't the sharpest pencil in the box and tight as fuck, so the thought of having to repay ££££ backdated every month (I have no idea if the CSA actually do this) plus normal maintenance was enough for him to cough up.

What is it with men who think like this? Do they have no pride?

Didyouevah Wed 12-Nov-14 17:19:45

Sounds a bit like my situation. Went from being dirt poor (with him) then splitting up.

I took on the marital debts (can't remember why) and x contributed for a bit. Then he announced he was dropping that portion of his contribution as I was doing so much better than him. He contributes to the children though. I didn't have a leg to stand on, and it still pisses me off now.

I hope his new gf enjoys the loser/Whiney fucker.

DaisyFlowerChain Wed 12-Nov-14 17:22:55

No, you and he should both pay for them. They are not your husbands responsibility and I would be very uncomfortable with expecting another adult to support children that are not theirs.

Re the travelling, if he moved he should pay but if you did then you should pay.

FraidyCat Wed 12-Nov-14 17:26:32

I'm sure I could come up with hypothetical circumstances (not at all far-fetched) where it would be perfectly reasonable not to. People on here always talk about it depriving the children, but if the RP is not on the breadline and not evil the children will not have one penny less spent on them as a result of lack of maintenance, the burden will fall fully on the RP instead. If RP is well enough off lack of maintenance might even have no impact on their lifestyle, the only difference it might make is to how much the children inherit eventually.

Dumpylump Wed 12-Nov-14 17:34:06

Dps ex pays nothing towards his dd who has chosen to live with him. He has decided that he won't pursue her for anything as he earns a good living, and can afford to feed, clothe, and support hobbies for his dd without any other contributions.
He and his ex don't have the best relationship and he just feels that going to the csa would only cause hassle, and that the little amount she would have to give him just wouldn't be worth the grief.
I'm on the fence, as I think she should contribute - as has already been said, I think she should want to contribute - but I tend to agree with dp that the fallout would be such that it probably isn't worth it.

FraidyCat Wed 12-Nov-14 17:37:38

If we received a contribution, we would have more for savings and luxuries.

Exactly my point. It may or may not be fair that you should have more for savings and luxuries, in the context of the whole history of the relationship. I couldn't say, probably not even if you posted 100 times as much context as you've already given.

FraidyCat Wed 12-Nov-14 17:38:58

I would guess that persuading an ex to take on board your idea of fair is going to be a waste of energy, and that all that matters is what the law can compel, or what he thinks is fair, in the rare event of that being more.

NeedsAsockamnesty Wed 12-Nov-14 17:42:03

Of course it is not ok.

NeedsAsockamnesty Wed 12-Nov-14 17:45:05

but if the RP is not on the breadline and not evil the children will not have one penny less spent on them as a result of lack of maintenance, the burden will fall fully on the RP instead. If RP is well enough off lack of maintenance might even have no impact on their lifestyle, the only difference it might make is to how much the children inherit eventually

The security of having both parents committed enough to your welfare that they both financially support you is worth a lot more than just the monetary amount that is paid.

LadySybilLikesCake Wed 12-Nov-14 17:55:51

I had the opposite problem. I became unwell and had to leave the bursaried course I was on so only just managed to get by. Then my ex stopped paying maintenance (helpful, not!). I took him to court as he's not in the UK, but while all of this was going on I became well enough to get a new job and I now earn more than he does. He still has to pay maintenance though, which I'm using to repay the debts I accumulated when he stopped paying. It's never acceptable for the NRP to stop paying. They are still responsible for the upkeep of their child, regardless of how much (or little) the RP earns.

nochangewanted Wed 12-Nov-14 18:00:09

I am wondering if you have moved to another country from ex. Which I would think it was reasonable to contribute towards travel costs if this is not the case go down cms route... I am not suprised new ex feels resentful supporting a child his Dad doesn't

formerbabe Wed 12-Nov-14 18:01:32

Even if the resident parent is a millionaire, the NRP should still contribute and pay their share.

LadySybilLikesCake Wed 12-Nov-14 18:06:14

I think that travel costs are down to the parent which moved?? I'm not certain about this, it's what I've assumed from reading a lot a few threads on here.

revealall Wed 12-Nov-14 18:10:29

Of course he should pay. Even NRP that don't work have £5 a week taken out of their benefits.

However he hasn't had much choice about you moving them away so you should be paying something towards travel, just to be fair.
Does he have any say in what schools or activities they are involved in? I wouldn't say it would be fair to ask for money for clubs etc if he doesn't have choice over this. You wouldn't expect him to do this if you were still together after all.
Possibly a savings account for Uni might be a solution so that he sees his money is going straight to his children?

basgetti Wed 12-Nov-14 18:18:57

Not sure why the OP should go without maintenance AND pay all the travel costs, even if she is the one who moved. That way, not only is the NRP not contributing, he is also actually taking money away from his DCs. NRPs can have often maintenance reduced to help with travel costs, or come to a fair arrangement that takes travel costs into account. They don't just get to opt out of paying support. Well sadly they often do, but they shouldn't.

WooWooOwl Wed 12-Nov-14 18:23:57

If a RP has moved away to another country against the NRPs wishes, then I can see why a NRP would resent paying maintenance. They should still be saving up for their children's future, and making sure they live in a home suitable to accommodate children when they do get to visit and they should provide during the visits, but those will probably be expensive treats when contact is so limited.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: