To feel resentful over paying child maintenance

I know your son will suffer, but tell his dad all school expenses will be for him to pay from CSA payments. When you think how much food and school lunches cost and you will be saving that expense it won't be as much as dad thinks....
Bet he claims child benefit as well.
You need to see you had to do this so now he can.
Tell your son you will be paying for his treats and be the Disney mum for a change. Get him a bank account with a card and pay him some pocket money like £20, so you know only your child can spend it...

Hi OP. I totally get it. When your son does move in with his dad, if you haven’t managed to get an house exchange I would not be paying for uniform or anything like that. It can come out of CMS that his dad gets like it had to when you had him for longer. If you know he’ll manage and DS won’t suffer then that’s the only money that should be changing hands just like it was for you. You make sure he has what he needs when he’s with you (if that’s the weekends then that won’t include school uniform or school lunches) he can take on paying for trips etc, and he’ll struggle with that (currently paying a high school trip off for my daughter to NY which is over 2k!) he’ll soon realise how much money it takes to raise a child and might change his attitude toward you. My kids are 50/50 between me and their dad and have been since we split 6 years ago, and even though their dad earns a hell of a lot more than me we still pay for everything jointly (trips, tutors, extra curricular etc) and we both make sure they have everything they need at both houses so they aren’t lugging things back and forth. It works for us and seems the fairest way to do things. The way it’s been for you the last 8 years doesn’t seem fair at all 🙁

Hear hear. That is what matters and his behaviour is infuriating. I hope your boy gets fed up with his dad and comes back to you soon.

She's a productive, taxpaying citizen who is just as entitled to housing security as anyone else. HAs are not just for indigent people.

We will have to agree to disagree, as you suggest.

There is talk of 'need' as if the people being evicted wouldn't need a home, sorry, a resource. Where are they going to go? Or do they not matter?

I think that’s exactly what they are suggesting and I agree. A social home should, given the scarcity of that resource, be for those with the greatest need and not a home for life, even if/when you no longer need it.

i’m astounded anyone could fail to see the issue with people who don’t need it, holding a resource so that those who do need it are unable to access it, but it seems a fair few people hold that view so it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree here

Well, then so long as OP is complying with "the system," and she clearly is, everyone needs to mind their own business about her housing situation. Support isn't only for people who have made total messes of their lives.

It's not their home? Of course it's their home. I cannot believe you're suggesting that someone's home should become a temporary stop gap until someone with a greater 'need' comes along. The original purpose of social housing was to give people stability. You're suggesting that no-one should have that stability - because someone else might come along who 'needs' it more.

People complain about the insecurity of private rentals yet don't seem to want tenants in social housing to have that security either.

If your son is going to be living half the week with his Dad and the rest with you, why does there need to be Maintenance in place? Is he paying you anything for the days you’ll be having your son?

Why can’t you both feed your child, wash his clothes etc when he’s with either of you and split any other costs for him 50/50.

Whomever is in charge of the list for social housing—they obviously have a system in place, and I am not privy to it.

Who gets to define "need"?

I do think it's shit that you are expected to pay three times more in child support than your ex has ever paid you, especially as he could clearly afford it, but just decided not to support his kid so he could buy designer clothes. On the other hand, though, paying him £450 a month is a LOT less than it costs to take care of a 12-year-old boy. My teen son costs me about £450 a month in berries and yoghurt alone! (I am joking...mainly). If you're definitely going to do this and let your son move in with him, then I think you just have to try and rise above your irritation for the sake of being sure your son is looked after properly.

It’s not “their” home, though. It’s social housing, which is issued based on a list, which is prioritised based on need. There is a flaw in the system when someone who no longer has that high need is essentially blocking the person at the top of the list per their needs from using the government-owned asset.

Do you have personal experience of social/council housing or are you looking at it from a 'good of society' viewpoint?

Your are suggesting that people give up their homes. Would you give up your home for the 'greater good'?

I find it bizarre that the person with greater need is unable to be helped as the person lesser (or no need) retains the asset that should be used for the best social good.

I absolutely agree with a pp that there is not enough social housing. I think given the limited resource, that resource should go to those in need.

Of course they need it - where would they live if they gave up their home?

The original purpose of social housing was to provide stability. I find it bizarre that people think someone should give up their home and stability for someone else's perceived greater need.

You missed that bit where he hardly paid anything for years resulting in her ending up in debt.

Why would someone who no longer needs something that it meant for those more in need give it up for those more in need?

fuck me, does that question even need to be asked?

It’s not shocking at all. This is mumsnet, where a man should pay more than the cms amount or he’s awful, but a woman should avoid paying it where possible as he’s awful for expecting it.

@MustWeDoThis "If you share the custody 50/50, you don't need to pay any child maintenance. What's more - His wife/GF should have been paying you CMA all these years. Child Maintenance should have asked her for an attachment of earnings and she would have had to cough up on top of husband. You could look at having that backdated."

Er...no. That's not how it works, a deadbeat dad is a deadbeat dad. They don't come after their partners for maintenance

Sons don’t need their dad more suddenly when they hit their teens, that’s nonsense. Strong male role models sure and he can still see his dad the same amount he currently is, which sounds like it’s fairly often.

I personally wouldn’t let him move there. You’re in London so I’m assuming there are good transport links to his new school? Many kids have to travel a fair amount to get to school and trust me, kids in rural areas sometimes walk for miles to school so your DS will be getting off lightly hopping on a couple of tubes or whatever.

I wouldn’t want to pay my ex 3x as much in CM as he has ever paid me either so figure out a way for DS to stay with you.

And when she gets to the point her kids are older and she's earning decent money, will you kick her out? Will you put her back into an unstable net income bracket so that by the time she gets to retirement her rent will eat into her state pension and she will be in absolute poverty for her elderly years.

Or will you support the building of new social housing to prevent some of the private sector greed that is exploiting your friend?

It works both ways. What's good for the goose...

No - Son's don't need their Dad's more. I think that's quite sexist to say. What happens to single Mum's where the Dad has never ever been involved? My husband was brought up without a Dad and he is like gold dust when it comes to men being angels.

If you share the custody 50/50, you don't need to pay any child maintenance. What's more - His wife/GF should have been paying you CMA all these years. Child Maintenance should have asked her for an attachment of earnings and she would have had to cough up on top of husband. You could look at having that backdated.

This is so unfair . You have no idea what her outgoings are and situation - no housing association would ask her to leave earning that amount - the son may well come back anyway. £65k is a decent salary bit it’s not very wealthy in anyone’s eyes. Private rent is astronomical and that’s without finding deposits etc. This mum has raised a child alone, worked and progressed her career and is contributing to society by working , paying huge taxes and raising a child for the future. It’s always the women that get bashed in these circumstances it’s so unfair.