AIBU to think my ex should pay more child maintenance when he earns £720k a year?

Tbh I don't think he should pay you more, £1,200 a month as a 50% contribution to the raising of one child is a decent amount, it's not really your business what he earns as long as he's helping to provide for his son and he is at a good rate 🤷‍♀️

I’ve just seen that your ex plays sport for a living. In that case, as has been mentioned, he has a different pay trajectory than in most jobs. His pay will peak in his youth, perhaps in his 30s, then it will drop significantly. You can go after more money now, sure, but the additional payment might be short-lived if he finishes a contract and signs a much lower paying one. Just something to think about.

I haven’t RTFT and I don’t know the ins and outs of family law, but I’d be concerned about working P/T because I’m receiving £1300/months in CMS. This won’t be forever (maybe another 10 years?) and soon you won’t have access to your ex’s salary at all. You need to think longterm about developing a career and building up a pension, because once your son is an adult, CMS and child benefit and any other child-related payments will stop and you will have to fend for yourself.

You’re really reaching here just to continue your diatribe.

None of us know the circumstances of the relationship - OP says he ‘walked out’ which most would read as living together. You’ve no idea how long it was before he married the other woman or how long before they had children. The OP might well have discussed children with the father, got pregnant and then he left without warning (likely because he was shagging the other woman by then). So OP should have aborted a baby that she wanted because he left? And not doing that makes her an opportunist. Ok then.

And I really don’t understand this bizarre thing about jealousy. Picture it, a man you love has left without warning when you tell him you’re having a baby. He visits a few times, seems interested but then asks to bring his new girlfriend. You’re six weeks post-partum. Who in their right mind would agree to that? Who in their right mind would suggest it? What kind of woman would think it appropriate to visit her new boyfriend’s baby so soon? Or shack up with a man with a new baby for that matter?

You seem heavily invested in the version of this that paints him and the now wife as perfect, and willing to make up information to suit that. Try telling yourself the story a different way, see what happens.

I think a lot of posters are getting sidetracked. Fundamentally do we think it's OK that one parent pays most of their income on their child or towards their child (eg in housing, or a reduction in salary to keep a job with flexible hours) while the other parent pays less than 5% of their salary towards their child, meaning that their shared child has a significantly lower standard of living than:

• They would have had, if their parents hadn't split
• Their half siblings have

I personally don't think this is ok, and its pretty low to be suggesting the OP is greedy for wanting better for her son. And when it's the other way around, and posters are talking about their partner paying maintenance to their ex, everyone always says good parents pay more than the absolute minimum and pay their share of extras.

From the first post: ‘I was with my ex-partner for four years. We had a son together, but he walked out before he was born. He saw him a few times as a newborn, but I had asked that he didn’t bring his new partner. My son was six weeks old when he turned up at my door with her, even though I’d said it was too soon.’

He wasn’t ‘a friend with benefits’ and the OP never said any such thing.

Definitely not outraged by a stranger on the internet, I just think your responses are horrible and extremely angry about something that’s not really present in the posts. The child isn’t generic, he’s a boy - she said that from the start.

The father left her when she became pregnant four years into a relationship, but somehow you’re making him the victim. i don’t think she’s said anything about being abandoned.

Yep.

Of course lots of kids are fine from single parent families. And lots aren't.

I guess when you grow up with just mum (who wanted you) your only frame of reference is that a parent should dote on you. So by that train of logic if dad didn't want you he's horrible and has abandoned you, not that dad was perfectly reasonable in not wanting to keep the pregnancy with mum. And then trying to reconcile dad simultaneously being the doting parent to three other children.

The difference is, the children that mum doesn't want, simply never happen. So mums never have to answer to a child that they perfectly reasonably didn't want to have. Dad's have too. When all they've done is made the same decision as the mum did.

I sometimes wonder if my old work colleague thinks about this.

It's a taboo subject with her.We just don't mention it. Her childs parentage that is.

He completely legged it, and she never even claimed maintenance. It's because she doesn't want him having anything to do with the kid now.

I wonder if he has a partner wife or more children. He's about the same age as the OPs son just a little bit younger.

Apparently he's never asked about his dad, but he's bound to at some point.Although she's convinced herself, he's completely find just with her and doesn't even think about it on the rare occasions, she does mention it.

Exactly this.

I think she assumed a baby would increase her status and cement her place in his life. Banking on that he'd change his mind when baby was born and suddenly develop feelings for OP and her baby.

She won't be the first, not last. And sometimes that plan does work, for a while anyway.

But she needs to be honest with herself, and accept her part in all this, for what is going to be little fun for her child. It will be shit to see the result of 3 children born of a loving marriage in a successful and loving household. It's none of their fault that OP chose to keep a pregnancy ten years ago when the man didn't want the child with her. You can't play the shit father card, because he's clearly very good with the children he chose to have. It's just too uncomfortable to be truthful and say "only I wanted the pregnancy, and it's both parties right to not want keep every single pregnancy they might have conceived, for all manner of reasons. So actually, no one did anything wrong, your life is different because of the circumstances I chose for you"

I have an old acquaintance who did exactly this.

I say acquaintance, because she is an old work colleague.She was a secretary there.

She had a friends with benefits precisely as this original poster described. It was obvious they were neve in a relationship, it was random, hook up here and there.

She got pregnant though, and as she was in her late thirties, she let slip to me that she had stopped taking her pill and she actually had feelings for him. Last chance saloon to have a baby.

I do also wonder about how the OPs kid suddenly came to existence when you re not in a relationship and you know that. Surely you use bombproof contraception.

He didn't stand by my old colleague as they weren't in a relationship.It was never agreed they were in a relationship.

Basically, he's gone, she didn't see him for dust. I'll hand it to her, though she's working to support the child as best she can. But she also has a long term health condition, which has worsened and their lives are quite chaotic, as she's frequently unwell and too ill to work.

She doesn't dare contact her ex or make a claim to child maintenance. In case he comes and demands contact with the child and she doesn't want that.

She can't really claim abandonment, either given her choices.

He didn't want the child.

He's not abandoned anything or anyone.

He just didn't visit a child he was clear he didn't want but the mother decided to have, knowing this.

Are you one of these women that think anyone who impregnates you is now duty bound to fund you and your child for life, and should be forced raise the child they didn't want but you decided they would be getting regardless. And if they don't they're a "shit father."

Women need to take accountability that with the sole control over whether a child is born, comes the absolute responsibility of the circumstances you choose for that child to be born in too. If those circumstances turn out to be shit for the child, grow up and look in the mirror instead of anyone else to deflect on too.

I get it, of course.She was vulnerable and didn't want it thrown in her face that her ex never had a relationship with her but was quite happy to start a relationship with someone else.

Of course she shouldn't have had to have her in her home.

Any kind of compromise would be when the baby's older and you are able to take him out.He can see the girlfriend, but I don't want to see her.

it was a no, no no way, never and in that order. Then when he did go, she changed her mind and try to backtrack.

I wouldn't have wanted a new woman visiting my baby either at 6 weeks old, do you not remember the post birth hormones? And if you think that's enough justification for him to completely abandon his child then that just shows what kind of immoral person you are.

What did he abandon? OP always lived alone in her rental as she still does. He lived somewhere else. They had some kind of interaction for 4yrs. Perhaps they would describe that interaction very differently.

She falls pregnant. He doesn't want to be with her or raise a child with her. He ends their relationship/friends with benefits/weekend hook ups/who knows what the situation was. She decides to keep the pregnancy as a single woman without the father. Both have done nothing wrong. Both are entitled not to want a baby.

Where's the abandonment? OP assessed the situation and chose to become a single mother. That's her prerogative. She's not abandoned.

If OP chose she wasn't having the baby, would she have abandoned it? Of course not. But because she can choose to have it, suddenly the other party has abandoned her. Again, of course not.

She's not to blame for being abandoned because she wasn't. She is responsible for choosing to have a child without a present father when she equally could have chosen not too, but that's not right or wrong, that's just simply the choice she made.

Exactly.And although people don't believe those who say their lawyers, I actually am. Been a while since I did family law.
so I add that disclaimer.

It would be a very odd order indeed for a court to make that the dad's girlfriend or wife wasn't allowed near the baby, ever. I think you quite rightly say the judge probably ordered that she didn't have to allow her in her home. She has the absolute right to deny entry to anyone to her own home. But when the baby was 6 weeks olds, the dad could hardly take the baby away from mum to spend time with him and the girlfriend.

That completely frustrated any integration of her son to his father any new step mother, because she wouldn't allow the new stepmother near him. She had total control of the situation. The baby can't be taken away from her because he's too young and she got at her own way that he comes alone without his girlfriend. It backfired big time though.

So that meant his girlfriend was never allowed to see the baby.And he was perhaps uncomfortable, spending all this time alone with his ex and the baby without his girlfriend, now wife, there.

The baby was utterly oblivious, as you say, and I picked up on that. It wasn't trying to introduce a new partner to a three year old or a six year old. If she had wanted to encourage a relationship, she would have allowed occasional visit by the ex girlfriend and not gone to court over it.

There is now a very tentative relationship in place and she wants to jeopardize it again by demanding more money.

She's got it all her own way. Her child to herself his girlfriend out the picture kid barely knows his dad and regular maintenance.

It's meant to be money for the child, but she's using it.So she doesn't have to work.

I would think very, very hard before dragging him back to court to demand more money.

Yeah, see.It's a nice thing to believe that the mother would actually have welcomed her son going their fifty / fifty in being taken away on holidays. We all know that's probably not the case. Quite a high proportion of women, when there's a breakup, never want their child to see their father again. At this point, the baby was a few weeks old.He hadn't had a chance to prove himself either way.

She banned her ex-partner bringing his girlfriend to visit the baby. She wouldn't allow it even once, maybe if she had none of this would have happened.

I think she likes having all this money whilst not having to deal with her son going there. She gets the best of all worlds. Like it or not, that money has enabled her to only work part-time. Well, she better make a plan for the next 9 years.Because that will be on the horizon pretty quickly and she'll have to cope with that loss and income.It is never, ever a good life plan to rely on somebody else's money.And anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that.

I thought the same

The description that the judge agreed his wife wan not to be near the baby is misleading. The judge can't force OP to let anyone into her house. But that's not the same thing. So it was maybe agreed the wife couldn't attend her home. Dad then said, there's no genuine reason wife can't come, she's going to be as much of this child's life as I am from day 1.

OP simply didn't want her there out of jealousy. It wasn't to protect the child, or any child related reason. As you say, a 6 week old is oblivious. It's all about OP here.

Dad wasn't up for this nonsense. OP tried to backtrack then, realising that the swaying power and control she thought she'd automatically have as "I'm the mother of his child" was actually zero. If she truly thought the wife shouldn't be there, she wouldn't have back tracked at all. That's very telling.

If she goes for more money, whilst choosing not to work when she could, whilst it's already shown her child is more than provided for, already receiving maximum CMS, she's got little chance.

What she will do, even by applying, is piss off a man and his wife who've already shown their tolerance to this situation when OP starts making demands that she feels entitled too. A very fragile relationship with little bond exists between this child and the father, and I also think, going after more money is going to result in a "fuck you" response.

If there were more of a bond then it could be a "fuck you" he'll stay here more of the time and you'll get less maintenance. However, 6yrs of NC, 3yrs of seeing him once every 4mths or so for a few hours in amusement arcades. That's not a child that he wants to integrate at all. So it will most likely be "fuck you" don't contact us again. And they will let him know why when he undoubtedly comes angrily looking for answers as an adult.

God knows what she's going to do in 8yrs when it all stops anyway. If he loses his job next week, next year even, what's her plan then? That should be the the pressing concern. She relies on this to fund herself. Not to cover 50% of a 9yrs olds living expenses. It's funding her part time work status.

The only relevant thing about the relationship is that it has a child.
The OP gets just under £300 a week for their DS.
The usual argument is that the NRP should be paying the same as the RP.
So the child in this case is having just under £600 p/w spent on him.
Ignoring housing which the OP would pay for anyway.
What realistically are the financial needs that are not being met?

So he's fine to abandon his son and we can just blame the woman for that? Would you abandon your child for the same reason he did?

I agree.

You don’t need more than what he’s giving you, unless there’s private schooling etc.

Honestly OP, that’s loads. My sister had £50 a week for hers.

Erm, I am calm thanks?

And yes this is someone's real life. That of a little boy, who's mother has made sole decisions that will affect how he grows up, and is already seeing the ramifications of that.

She'll go for more cash. It's her son that will feel the real cost.

Maintenance would not be nil if he had the child 50/50, it would still be a substantial amount but then the child would also be benefitting from his dad's money while at his house and probably going on holidays with them. I can't blame op for not wanting the new woman to meet the baby straight away, it was the dad who then had a strop and refused to see his son for years and still makes no effort.

If I was you I'd absolutely get all you can get. He's been a total deadbeat father to your son and why shouldn't you be able to take him on holidays and provide experiences for him when his dad earns that much money?!

I also totally understand why you're working part time, people who work FT are always bitter when someone works PT for their children's benefit.

He wanted to bring his new partner to meet the baby when he was 6 weeks old. The court decided it was too early (so she says) but I'm not so sure.

At that age the child would never not have known dads partner and she would have been there since he could remember. There would be no adjustment period or awkward introductions. She'd be part of his life almost from day 1.

They were hardly going to take the new baby away from her for extended period but just that dad's girlfriend was coming to some of the visits.

The OP didnt want his new partner to meet their baby so the consequences are he and his now wife aren't a part of the child's life.

Not having him around has hugely benefitted her financially because if he'd been in their lives the child would be staying overnight and the maintenance would be lower or nil if it was 50/50.

The OP has had the benefit of this money without ever having him around or negotiating contact. Most women would be overjoyed with that amount of money without having to deal with their ex. She's still not happy though.

You have any idea how many women would be happy, not having to give over their child, 50% of the time to a useless dad and getting all that maintenance.

I would be very careful of rocking the boat, given that if she demands more money and takes him to court for it, he might decide to formalise the child arrangements. He might suddenly look to want to see his child a lot more often and integrate him into his life. That might result in him, having some overnight's days, which would actually reduce maintenance rather than increase it.

In any event, she needs to sort herself out because when he's 18, this maintenance is going to end and she'd better have a game plan for supporting herself and getting a pension, because she's entitled to none of his money once her child is an adult. If the child goes to university, the dad will be paying the fees and the whole fees directly to his son not to his mother.

For some reason, she is unable to work more hours because she has one child who is nine. How does she think everybody else does it. The only person in this arrangement who doesn't think they should have to pay for their child is his mother.

It's easy to spot a real lawyer on here. They're the measured ones telling OP she won't likely get what she wants - that's because they know for real how hard it is in practice. Theory is one thing, but practice is quite another. Any lawyer knows that.

It's so funny all these people saying, I got a top up order so she should get one..Do you think lawyers have never had clients say to us "I know somebody who got it so why can't I." We hear that kind of thing every other week. The stock response to that is: just because you know somebody who got it doesn't mean you ll get it different circumstances different Judge, different everything.

The real lawyers arent the one's looking up top-op orders on Google thinking, just because they exist, they can get one for themselves. Lawyers don't do that. The actual lawyers are easily spotted by being measured and realistic as they are in their careers. They don't post sensational things telling people to drag them through court, to get much more money, and they'll definitely get it cause they knew someone who did.