Some questions about maintenance and what you pay for(90 Posts)
When my ex left, he would only allow CSA to assess what he lays...and he lays the bare minimum that they have told him. He works full time, and has alot of lucrative self employed work on top...which he doesn't declare to CSA...until they re assess him at end of tax year....so lots of extra income.
As well as that his partner ( who he left me for after lengthy affair) also works full time and has additional self employed work.they live ins small house, tiny mortgage..having left me with both kids and only a part time job, in a large house, big mortgage and bills.
Is it unreasonable that he should be paying towards childcare?
Or do I...as he tells me regularly the money he pays me is all I'm getting, and I should use that to cover childcare costs...( it only just covers it, leaving me next to nothing towards any other costs for the kids, ie: , clothes etc)
He doesn't buy clothes for them or shoes.
Do you or do your exs or your partners who have ex's contribute towards childcare ON TOP of maintenance?
Allnew, great point on cake etc.
Dh ex really thought she had it made: she wanted and was awarded prime residency, therefore receiving max cm, she also wanted to continue to work full-time so dc were put in private schools offering tutoring and activities until 6 pm, for which dh still pays half the costs, on top of v generous cm. she also got him to pay half for summer activities planned for her time with them, half for every damn thing she could think of in fact. Oh, yes, that included services of au pair, too, as she loves socializing and is hardly home during work week. She hates me because I made it clear to dh I was not funding our new life together alone (met 2 yrs after their divorce) and he had better stop pandering to her nonsense. She also had him mind dc twice a week at her place until midnight, on top of eow. Her parents jump in now as dc stay overnight once a week with us instead, and eow.
Sorry, long rant. Dc now 12 and 16, so au pair gone, all extras funded from cm, private school still funded extra, but part of divorce settlement. Her dc reward her selfishness and obvious greed by pushing to move in with us, and yes, we have a simple lifestyle, we don't own bikes, let alone a car! Dc also hate being incarcerated all week, oldest dc already changed schools, younger waiting to follow.
Don't want to offend anybody here, just want to point out there are plenty of b****es on both sides of parenting spectrum and we should not be attacking each other here. Obviously those who are doing well for themselves feel NO NEED TO POST HERE.
I agree thinkso, that isn't what I meant though. You can be fully aware of all the negatives of something you agree to. You "suck them up" because overall it's the best decision - it doesn't mean that you agree with them.
thelioness I'm sure NADM's daughter does not need you to feel her mother's choices are a shame for her
How smug and self righteous to assume NADM's choices for her child are somehow inferior to your own
That's a real shame notadisneymum, not least for your daughter.
"And even if there is a court order which means that by having majority care someone has effectively agreed to that additional "financial burden", it doesn't mean that you feel that having that additional expense is fair. It's still ok to say "yes, but this part of it is not right"
I really don't agree. With every decision comes consequences. Sometimes a great decision has some personal disadvantages - that's what decisions are about, weighing up the pros and cons. Not just expecting the pros and pros
But we're not talking here about a woman who wants her cake and eat it too. It's a man who doesn't want more contact, and is able to earn as much or as little as he likes and he doesn't have to take into account the additional expense of childcare. Same as my ex - he can do whatever he likes and doesn't have to take into account what effect it will have on his children and how they are going to be cared for.
And even if there is a court order which means that by having majority care someone has effectively agreed to that additional "financial burden", it doesn't mean that you feel that having that additional expense is fair. It's still ok to say "yes, but this part of it is not right" - and it far from means that someone who thinks that way is an unwilling parent. The unwilling parent is the one who doesn't consider the childrens' needs and care while making their decisions.
get your head out of your arse and start expecting more
If financial security, assets and a pension are accompanied by such rude intolerance, you can keep it, thank you!
You've made your choice and I've made mine; but you clearly think that I'm somehow letting the sisterhood down by having such low aspirations, and that all single mothers should do it your way, and be supported by their DCs Dad
I no longer have the desire to pursue the things you refer to; I would prefer to give my DD other things in life - but whatever my choice is, I do not expect my DDs Dad to agree or support me to do it.
But a mother wanting majority care but also wanting to dictate how the father pays for this, whilst he really wanted more time with the children, does have a wanting your cake and eating it ring to it.
I thought you meant that she had a point in her argument with me... That's how it read.
The lioness, young well have, but this isn't actually your thread . I was addressing the generic point made by NADM
I'm fairly sure I said a few times down the thread that he didn't want more than what he has as it didn't fit in with his work commitments.
I really do think NADM has a good point there though. Often, courts award residency to the mother based on her wanting majority residency. If she felt she was unable to afford this and Therefore that responsibility would be more equitably achieved with day 50:50, then that ought to have been the goal rather than majority care. Now clearly if the father wants only minimal time with the children then that is a different issue. But a mother wanting majority care but also wanting to dictate how the father pays for this, whilst he really wanted more time with the children, does have a "wanting your cake and eating it" ring to it
Oh please do one. I'm hardly an unwilling parent. Don't be so patronising. I'm pleased you've found some way of supporting your child with you alternative means of earning that doesn't involve doing what everyone else has to. Maybe you should write a book as you seem to have discovered something that the rest of us are clearly too stupid to see. Maybe it's just easier to manage a cupcake empire or Avon round or whatever it is when your ex is willing to take 50/50 care.. I don't know, but back in the real world, I'm not ending up with no pension or assets to leave my dd/ earn income on to put her through uni etc while her dad profits from the free care I would give. Nor was I wiling for dd and I to live on peanuts while, again, he had no childcare issues. It IS a women's rights issue. Woman are turned down for jobs often because if the assumption that childcare will fall on them, or that they'll be asking for 3/4 days a week once their feet are under the table.
Get your head out of your arse and start expecting more.
lioness Men and womens rights aren't the issue - its the DCs rights that are paramount.
If a court has judged that the best thing for your DCs is that you are their primary carer, with regular contact with their Dad, then how you each achieve that is (imo) your own responsibility.
Its clear that you resent the financial burden that the court order has placed on you. If your solicitor had made it clear in court that you weren't able/willing to provide the care for your DCs that CAFCASS were recommending because you are committed to your career and the financial implications were too excessive, then I'm sure that the order would have been different and care would have been more equally split - courts rarely place DCs in the primary care of an unwilling parent.
To me, this isn't about tarring anyone, good dad/bad dad/home wrecker etc and I think (although your story is horrible deserve) that talking about specific dads doesn't prove anything about other dads or how fair or unfair things are for separated mothers.
It is widely accepted by people who believe men and women should have equal rights, that in a relationship where both parents are working, the cost of the childcare that is necessary falls on both parents and not just mum. So where there is a separation I see no reason why mum should be required to either pay the full amount, or have to take the decision to halt/ hinder her career and financial security in order to reduce childcare costs, while dad continues to work scot-free. It is a complete nonsense.
They both wrecked our marriage - the circumstances of the affair starting would out me to easily, so enough said on that.
He made his choices and my views on that are for him and me.
I have not spoken to her for 2 yrs and have no wish to. I want my DCs to see their Dad - which he fails to do, that is again his choice but he is influenced by her. I would like the lies to stop, the histrionics and the cruelty to my children. I would like some financial responsibility, not influenced by her. I never slag her off to the DCs, ( believe me eldest over heard me on the phone to my Best friend calling her the whore - I was then asked why she was a whore!) it brought me up short and since then have been exceptionally careful.
When the Ex gets slagged off by the steps and the one who left ( be that male or female) it really annoys me. We still have mutual friends, so am well aware what is sprayed around. eg, I was allegedly sitting outside her house all evening and follwoing her in my car - told to a mutual friend - problem was I was sitting with said friend 120 miles away in my own house!!!!
theydeserve you've clearly had a really dreadful time, but please don't let this distort your judgement of other people's situations. Don't tar us all with the same brush.
DS's dad pays the bare minimum CSA (when they can get it off him!) and nothing else.
JumpingJack is absolutely right. Best thing to do is not assume to know his income. If he buys a new car it doesn't mean he's in good money, he could have a new partner with a good wage. And that's another good point, new partner's earnings are irrelevant. The nrp could be working in McDonald's and his partner could be a doctor, but maintenance will only reflect his earnings and not hers.
one thing i would say is dont assume you know what his finances are like. my dp's ex assumed his earnings which changed since they had broken up and presented him with a request for x amount a month extra based on csa. she was way off what he earns. his new partners earnings have nothing to do with it.
They deserve -whatever she is guilty of, she did not wreck your marriage. Your ex husband did that
notadisney - at what point did I say an au pair was essential. For me as a single mum this would the simplest option and the one I felt gave my DCs the best security. The choice of juggling child minders, nursery, school etc and we had a spare room.
petal02- as to why new/second wives are given spiteful titles - let me clarify a few points on the step mum in my DCs life. I am aware that not all step mums are evil, my friend is a fab step mum and the relationship she has with their proper Mum is fantastic.However, lurk in the step forum, which I do to give me an insight to workings of the other sides mind - then there is constant theme of bad real Mums, no discipline, horrible DSCs, thieving stealing exes wanting more money and I deep ingrained wish in most threads that the step children did not exist.
1. She was my friend before.
2. She continued living with her partner and 2 DCS for over a year, telling her EX things were going well and to all around her, including her family - they thought it was great.
3. He found out and kicked her out - prompting after a year for my EX to move out of the spare room and into house with her.
4. She proceeded to text me to tell me EX was upset and about to do something - he had DCS at the time. Would not speak to me, continued texting saying she was coming to save him and would not tell me where he was but he was suicidal - I get hold of him, he is in his car, crying. REsult: I can not trust her or him with either DCS
5. She phoned up my work and made an anonymous formal complaint about me - result me suspended without pay!
6. She texts me to say eldest DC v wheezy can she give ventolin as EXH ignoring and she wants the best for the DCs.
7. My DCs are allowed no toys, clothes or evidence of their existence in the new house- it all comes back for me to wash, look after etc.
8. He has cancelled contact time at a whim for her - how do I know. He paid for their meal out on our joint bank account which is still active for paying the mortgage!!Two distraught DCS who had not seen Dad for two weeks.
9. More lies that I can not even begin to start on.
10. Tells my EX that I should pay for everything - excellent. how about getting off your serene backside and do some more work yourself.
11. This is the third marriage she has wrecked but the first with children involved
12. Latest trick : as one of my parents died a horrible painful death at the end of last year and EX was v close to my mother despite everything, she claimed to be pregnant and suffering first trimester ailments as the funeral etc was planned. On the one occasion she saw DCs, she managed to tell them she was pregnant - they were having enough turmoil in their life with out that timing. Result: 2 distraught DCS and v confused
13. 2 weeks after the funeral - she "miscarries" - fortuitously has D&C whilst EXH on a business trip. I had this confirmed by a mutual friend who she let slip to after a drunken night out!!
So I will call my DCS, step every name under the sun, but never infront of them
I am also aware my EX makes the choice to put her above his DCS which is inexcusable, I can not change their father but I can wish her every evil painful retribution known to man.
<<ponders to self>> which is worse, a new shag or an old shag
Join the discussion
Please login first.