This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
CSA and their stupid rules(34 Posts)
No doubt this has been done to death, there is nothing anyone on here can do about it but I just feel I need a rant!!
My ex-husband was made redundant 5 months ago and got approx £60k. He now no longer has to pay maintenance as he is unemployed. However, he lives with a woman who has three children who he is obviously supporting.
It makes me so cross that he is happy to support someone elses children when he won't give even a small amount to his biological child. Just because the law says he doesn't have to, you would have thought he might have felt a moral obligation.
I know people will say "oh but that money will have to last him until he finds a job". But I have heard him on the phone to DS telling him about all the things he is spending it on so he is hardly being careful with it.
Phew, rant over Has anyone else had a similar experience that they would like to have a good old moan about?
Well he's not really supporting her either now as he's out of work. Bet she has a few issues with him too.
How is he supporting her children if he is unemployed?
Does she work? If so it is likely to be her supporting him, not the other way round
Im guessing he's supporting her and her kids by having £60k to splash?
I knew it would be about this when I read the title.
It does indeed suck.
Not sure what if anything you can do about it though.
Also £60k is a lot of money. That's 2 years on above average salery
Yes he has to live off that, but part of his living expenses is paying towards his childs upkeep. Its not like he is living off jobseekers allowance.
In these circumstances being unemployed shouldn't be a reason not to pay child support.
How do you actually know he's supporting her children. It is possible for women to support their own children, and she may be receiving maintenance from their father. Just because he has cash in the bank doesn't mean he is supporting her children.
p.s.If he got £60k redundancy he won't have £60k in cash as half of it is taxable. Also to get that much he must have had a fairly high salary, so replacing that will drain the redundancy pot pretty quickly. Won't last more than a year I'd have thought
Whether the op works or not is irrelevant.
Even at half that amount there is no reason for him not to pay towards his child.
I'm not even thinking of him supporting his partners children. I'm thinking of why on earth he isn't supporting his own when he has the funds to.
I'm allowed to ask a question Amberleaf, whether or not your feel it is relevant . This is a public forum after all
Yes, of course you can.
But I can also point out that IMO it isn't relevant.
It might be very relevant to how the OP's ex perceives the situation though. So might various other facts that we have no knowledge of. Who got the marital home, financial settlement, who was lumbered with debt etc etc etc etc. None of this might be relevant to YOU, but this isn't about you, it's about the OP and her ex. There could well be factors influencing his decisions that we do not know. So whether or not you think these facts are relevant or not is itself irrelevant
What gives you the impression I think it's about me ?
Im giving my opinion, you're giving yours.
But whether the OP works or not takes nothing away from the fact that they are both responsible for their child.
If he isn't making any financial contribution, then it is all falling on the OP.
I wasn't giving my opinion, I was asking a question.
And you don't actually know if the OP is making any financial contribution to the children or not at present.
Whether she works or not shouldn't be relevant to how the OP perceives the situation. The non resident parent should provide for their child. Whether they're working or not, whether they have redundancy money - whatever. The fact that he's not offering some of that money for the upkeep of his child says a lot about him as a person.
OP - you have my sympathies.
It might be extremelly relevant to how the OP's ex perceives the situation. He may, if the OP does not work, feel that she should also be contributing to the childrens' upkeep. Who knows.
So if the OP doesn't work then she's not contributing to her child's upkeep? What, the state are paying?
Oh I am in exactly the same position!
Watching with interest.
My ex has spent a fortune on his new house, new car, luxury holiday etc, yet cant afford some food shopping money for our children.
It makes me really sick.
Yes very possibly Peppa. We don't know if the OP works or not. If she doesn't, then clearly yes, it's only the state financially contributing at present.
Interesting thread. Think allnewtaketwo has some good points.
It must have been a fair old amount of maintenance so I see why Op is upset. However not convinced she has right to the same amount now. I also can't see how the CSA can assess his (and others) redundancy packages. It would be like her divorcing all over again and that takes time and money.
(I'd also want to know how Op knows he got 60K. They must have had a chat about maintenance to know this much).
On the other hand makemineamalibuandpineapple have you asked him for anything/private arrangement? He should give you something even it's if by way of school trips/clothes/food shopping etc.
I suppose its just down to morals really.
Some NRPs will pay because they have to and if there are any circumstances where legally they don't, then they wont.
Then there are NRPs who will pay regardless of loopholes, because it is the right thing to do.
Irrespective of any current DP/DW and any children she may have.
I can't really understand why redundancy pay isn't included in CSA rules. After all, it's supposed to cushion you whilst you look for a new job - surely that cushion should apply also to those you support?
(£60k is a lot btw - I got £1500 when I lost my job. He must have been well paid, and/or have very generous employers)
And yes, morally, the OP's ex should contribute some of the money to her and the DCs, though she's no proof that he's "supporting" the new girlfriend and her kids, as he could just be using the £60,000 to retrain, or to pay his own way whilst he looks for a new job.
If he sees DS and has him in his home then he will be financially contributing to some degree.
His previous maintenance payments I would guess were very high. Hopefully the OP has kept some aside. Very highly paid positions are often volatile, particularly in the current economic climate.
He is a nob. But as long as he's being a cash cow for some other woman and her kids, there's not a lot you can do.
I'm not sure you can conclude he's supporting his new partner's children, but given the lump sum I do think he would do the right thing to pay his own DC even a token amount. DH still paid his ex when took two years out of employment to retrain (essentially I paid it, but not at all grudgingly, as it seemed pretty unfair on his ex to get peanuts, even though she's not badly off).
Im in the same boat ladies
EX has quit his job after coming into pound;40k so doesnt have to pay maintenance anymore, but also lives for free with his nan and is spending his money on cars, clothes , lads hols , festivals, etc but apparently thats fine that he can do all of that but not support his son , it makes me angry because if us mothers did that we would have our children taken away not that we ever would.
And just to add to the is OP working or not discussion ... I am not working my son has a disability and needs my one to one care but please tell me how that means its ok for the dads to live the high life and for the mothers to struggle and for the record im not claiming disability for my son as i dont think i should receive money for him having a disability
Please login first.