Page 5 | AIBU to think my ex should pay more child maintenance when he earns £720k a year?

Pashpash24 · 2025-08-13T18:14:37+00:00

I’ll try to keep this as short as possible while giving some back story. 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 took me to court saying she should be allowed to meet him. The court agreed it was too soon and suggested maybe when the baby was older. Because of that, he told me he would never see his son again. I was devastated and said fine, she can meet him, because I didn’t want him to walk away. But he still refused and never saw him again. For six years, he had no contact — no visits, no messages, nothing. The only thing he did was pay child maintenance. It was a decent amount (£1,277.50 a month), and I never asked for more. He went on to have three more children with his now wife. I just got on with life until one day my son came out of school and asked, “I must have a dad, right?” I’d never told him about his father because I didn’t want him to feel abandoned. When he started asking more questions, I texted his dad to say I was going to tell him the truth — I wasn’t going to raise him on a lie. I’d messaged over the years, even sent photos, and he’d read them on WhatsApp but never replied. So I didn’t expect a response this time either. Surprisingly, he replied and said maybe it was time to meet. This was when my son was six (he’s now nearly nine). In the last three years, he’s probably met him in person about 10 times. He calls roughly once every 10 days, which I think is poor — it should’ve progressed a lot more by now. Anyway, to the point. I recently logged into my Child Maintenance account after receiving an unusual notification. It showed his salary: £720,000 a year. I’ve always been paid £1,277.50 a month because that’s what CMS caps it at. He could earn £1 million a week and I’d still receive that same amount — you have to go to court for any increase. Would he be able to afford more? Absolutely. I know it’s a decent amount, but he only pays it because that’s the legal minimum CMS tells him to. I’m self-employed and work part-time so my son can do after-school activities — he’s football mad and trains/plays four times a week. I’m essentially raising him alone; my dad moved 40 miles away, and I have no relationship with my mum. I rarely get a break, but that’s been the reality since the start. I’ve never asked for an increase, but life is much more expensive now. £1,277 doesn’t go as far as it did six years ago, and £720,000 a year is a huge income. To put it into perspective — CMS only calculates maintenance on a maximum salary of £156,000 a year. My ex earns over four times that, but I still only get the amount they’d set for £156k — just over 2% of his actual income. Unless I go to court for a “top-up order”, that’s all I’ll ever get. AIBU to ask for more?

Allisnotlost1 · 14/08/2025 22:27

Littlemrsconfetti · 14/08/2025 20:12

or maybe just doesn't fit your narrative..

Show quote history

😆,👍

Littlemrsconfetti · 14/08/2025 20:12

Allisnotlost1 · 14/08/2025 19:51

Pointless having an opinion if you don’t know the facts.

Show quote history

or maybe just doesn't fit your narrative..

Allisnotlost1 · 14/08/2025 19:51

Littlemrsconfetti · 14/08/2025 19:17

I haven't read all of OP. Just skimmed through. I usually would agree with you but I think OP is being unreasonable. She gets a huge amount and you would think she would have a mortgage not renting with that CMS per month. Or have saved a good deposit for a house.

Life isn't fair and it's really shit it falls on the mother. However OP needs to take the positives from her situation. It could be worse!.

Don't know what the part time comments are about. Irrelevant I'm part time too.

Show quote history

Pointless having an opinion if you don’t know the facts.

Littlemrsconfetti · 14/08/2025 19:17

Allisnotlost1 · 14/08/2025 18:39

Crikey, the bitterness from some of you… I can taste it through the screen.

Whether the father ‘wanted’ the child is irrelevant. He’s here now and by the sounds of it thriving thanks to his mum’s care and hard work, and with help from the financial contribution from the father. That 2% financial contribution that the law requires him to pay. Except, he’s actually paying 0.2% because his earnings are substantially higher than the CMS system accounts for. Not unreasonable then to expect him to pay 2% of his actual earnings. He’ll still have plenty left.

We should all want children to have the best start in life they can, because that benefits us all in the long run. I don’t understand the race to the bottom where, because some of you had children with men with no money, OP must work all hours and have her son in childcare before and after school just so a man came keep even more of the 33k a month he already has. Stupid.

OP I’d investigate this with a family law solicitor and make a decision, and don’t tell anyone whatever you choose because there are some venal mothers out there who’d rather tear you down than see you or your son succeed. Honestly baffling but there you go.

I haven't read all of OP. Just skimmed through. I usually would agree with you but I think OP is being unreasonable. She gets a huge amount and you would think she would have a mortgage not renting with that CMS per month. Or have saved a good deposit for a house.

Life isn't fair and it's really shit it falls on the mother. However OP needs to take the positives from her situation. It could be worse!.

Don't know what the part time comments are about. Irrelevant I'm part time too.

Wordsmithery · 14/08/2025 19:08

You need to focus on what's best for your son. The single best thing your ex can do is foster a strong relationship with him, and that's what you should be encouraging. If you start trying to get more money there's a good chance your relationship with your ex will deteriorate and that could well have a knock on effect on how often he speaks to or sees your son. (I'm not saying it's fair but it is a fact.) Don't let that happen.
You've actually got plenty of money, as far as I can see. So swallow your fury and accept that yes it's not fair but life's not fair.
Sorry to sound harsh but I've been there and asked for more (seeing my ex's second lot of kids go to posh schools/have lovely holidays when we were really struggling) and I know how it ends.

YourSnugGreyPanda · 14/08/2025 19:06

MaryTheTurtle · 13/08/2025 22:24

So a woman goes ahead and decides to have the baby and expects the father to pay vast amounts in this case even though it’s clear the father isn’t a father and doesn’t want a child .1200 a month is a bloody fortune

Edited

The father is the father, regardless of whether he wants to be or not. It is just a biological fact and a responsibility.

thismummydrinksgin · 14/08/2025 18:52

I’d ask him, you’re not gonna lose anything. Of course he should be paying more.

Allisnotlost1 · 14/08/2025 18:39

Crikey, the bitterness from some of you… I can taste it through the screen.

Whether the father ‘wanted’ the child is irrelevant. He’s here now and by the sounds of it thriving thanks to his mum’s care and hard work, and with help from the financial contribution from the father. That 2% financial contribution that the law requires him to pay. Except, he’s actually paying 0.2% because his earnings are substantially higher than the CMS system accounts for. Not unreasonable then to expect him to pay 2% of his actual earnings. He’ll still have plenty left.

We should all want children to have the best start in life they can, because that benefits us all in the long run. I don’t understand the race to the bottom where, because some of you had children with men with no money, OP must work all hours and have her son in childcare before and after school just so a man came keep even more of the 33k a month he already has. Stupid.

OP I’d investigate this with a family law solicitor and make a decision, and don’t tell anyone whatever you choose because there are some venal mothers out there who’d rather tear you down than see you or your son succeed. Honestly baffling but there you go.

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 14/08/2025 18:27

YANBU.

Why on earth is CM capped?!

HRTQueen · 14/08/2025 17:41

Its irrelevant how much a child may cost to cover living costs and who are you comparing to

the child/children are expected to live to a similar standard as their nrp of high earners and the nrp should be paying maintenance to this sort of level

its disappointing that so many woman on MN of all places set the bar so low for men to support their children

Hettiee · 14/08/2025 17:26

Countryspaniel · 14/08/2025 09:04

It's his money, not yours! He's paying a substantial amount for your son that more than covers what it costs to run a 9 year old.

Extra if you are honest is for you.

Show quote history

What does that mean? 'To run a 9-year-old'? To what standard? To the standard he has just enough to eat and no more? That he has outings and clubs once a month? Twice? Which should he do? Who decides that?

What if he's into an expensive hobby? Should he stop doing it? Or skip a meal to pay for it? How many holidays is 'enough' - or 'too many'?

What about 'running' a 10-year-old? Or 14? THEN would you decree that the dad should contribute more? They eat more, their clothes and tastes are often more expensive.

People are very shortsighted if they think that putting food on his plate today is the only concern for a child. Saving for high school, uni, help with deposits and opportunities in life need money. And his father is in a position to do that, this isn't just about the next Asda run and an equal share of the electric bill.

OP isn't asking for half his salary, or for him to buy her Northamptonshire. She's simply asking for a fair portion of his salary. If he earned less, she'd get less - but that's not the situation here.

incognitomouse · 14/08/2025 15:02

I'd say he was paying a decent amount to be honest, no kid costs more than that a month, and if they do, you need to get a grip.

Kulwinder54 · 14/08/2025 13:42

Also, how do you know that earnings figure is not just from a one-off bonus? Or is it annual?

Kulwinder54 · 14/08/2025 13:38

Why don't you instead ask your ex if he can set up a fund for university costs, which can only be accessed at 18?

vivainsomnia · 14/08/2025 13:24

The fact that the maintenance payments were arranged via CMS speaks to the fact that this man only wants to pay the bare minimum. He won’t even have him overnight. How likely do you think it is that he’s going to cough up any more indirectly ?
In between paying extra towards a saving account, university fund, transport, etc....and paying more directly to OP via court, he might very well be advised the former. She won't know until she asks.

Also, let's not forget that he has three more children AND that he needs to invest fir his future because he won't be a football forever and one injury and it could be over. He'll be able to afford the best solicitors too.

He earns £33,000 a month and you expect OP to match his contribution. Don’t make me laugh. She has the responsibility of full time care for her son with no practical help, and works to accommodate that
No, not matching in total amount, but not expecting all her son's costs to be solely his father's responsibility either. Full time care doesn't equate no financial responsibility.

MrsSkylerWhite · 14/08/2025 12:19

NoSoupForU · 13/08/2025 20:22

I think you're unreasonable, yes, because you aren't seeing it as the cost of raising your son, you're seeing it as something you should be entitled to in order to live the lifestyle you want to.

It doesn't cost more than £1277 a month (plus whatever your contribution would be) to raise a 9 year old.

You aren't unreasonable to ask but you are unreasonable to feel entitled.

This.

HopscotchBanana · 14/08/2025 12:15

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 14/08/2025 12:10

We have no idea where the savings came from. Could be from a grandparent/ an inheritance or anything else. The 320 a week wouldn’t have covered the full time childcare costs let alone anything else

Show quote history

Childcare costs are temporary.

And maintenance isn't supposed to cover "full" anything. Mum actually has to support her own child too.

HopscotchBanana · 14/08/2025 12:13

Iamnotthe1 · 14/08/2025 12:01

The fact that the maintenance payments were arranged via CMS speaks to the fact that this man only wants to pay the bare minimum.

Or they wanted a clear and separate structure for payments. The 'bare minimum' argument is a bullshit one pulled out on here as an emotive language-based attempt to criticise the non-resident parent.

In this situation, this man's payments are covering 135% of the entire average cost of raising a child from birth to 18. If you said that he is financially responsible for half of the cost of raising that child, he's currently covering nearly 3x that. Between his payments and child benefit, the child's mum will be covering very little to none of the financial cost of raising him, hence why she can get away with only working part time. Would you accuse her of a 'bare minimum' contribution?

Exactly this.

No, mum's a hero, for sole parenting a child she alone chose to have on the understanding she'd be doing the sole parenting. And now wants to claim "unfair" at what she's chosen for her child because of course there's a huge disparity between someone's actions around three children they actually wanted and the one she decided they were having regardless.

Your body, your choice, your consequences

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 14/08/2025 12:10

vivainsomnia · 14/08/2025 10:06

Should the father not pay for the boy to have educational or enriching experiences because that would mean OP ‘benefits’?
He is already doing this. It doesn't sound like the saving she is able to put aside to build up a deposit for a house comes from her part-time job.

The child is 9, its now she should be increasing her hours not the other way around. He already pays for his son to have better food and better experiences, its OP who is not matching it anywhere close with her income.

We have no idea where the savings came from. Could be from a grandparent/ an inheritance or anything else. The 320 a week wouldn’t have covered the full time childcare costs let alone anything else

Iamnotthe1 · 14/08/2025 12:01

The fact that the maintenance payments were arranged via CMS speaks to the fact that this man only wants to pay the bare minimum.

Or they wanted a clear and separate structure for payments. The 'bare minimum' argument is a bullshit one pulled out on here as an emotive language-based attempt to criticise the non-resident parent.

In this situation, this man's payments are covering 135% of the entire average cost of raising a child from birth to 18. If you said that he is financially responsible for half of the cost of raising that child, he's currently covering nearly 3x that. Between his payments and child benefit, the child's mum will be covering very little to none of the financial cost of raising him, hence why she can get away with only working part time. Would you accuse her of a 'bare minimum' contribution?

HopscotchBanana · 14/08/2025 11:46

Rosscameasdoody · 14/08/2025 10:32

The typical MN position on women introducing new partners to their children seems to be don’t do it until they’re an adult. Why do you think it should be different for a man ?

The hypocrisy is palpable on this thread. OP’s partner left before the baby was born. Threw a strop because the courts agreed with OP that it was too soon to introduce a new partners and even though OP relented he didn’t see his son again for six of his nine years.

How do you all think OP would have felt having been abandoned while pregnant and then having a new partner rubbed in her face six weeks post partum - and depending on timescales, being presented with the very real possibility that he’d been cheating with her while he was with OP ? Not to mention knowing that this woman’s children had the same father as your own son, but were benefiting from his wealth in far more ways than him? I’d bet the farm that there’s not one of the posters here who wouldn’t have felt just as bitter and resentful.

And now she’s watching a poor relation scenario unfold for her son. Yes she’s getting more than most on CMS, but ask yourselves why she had to use them - why didn’t she and dad come to their own arrangement? I think the likely answer is because he knew he would pay the bare minimum via CMS.

I think the amount in payment should be reviewed - it’s been the same for the last six years, during which time the cost of living has increased massively. Dad’s other children have benefited from his ability to cope with increased costs, why shouldn’t OP’s son be afforded the same ?

Show quote history

Because OP chose this for herself and her child.

All this fucking dramatics about her being "abandoned". He was just a boyfriend she didn't even live with. She found out she was pregnant. I presume that's why they broke up. Maybe they broke up and she found out she was pregnant shortly after.

Her boyfriend who she didn't even live with, decided he didn't want to be with her.

Knowing all this she kept the pregnancy. She's no victim here, this didn't happen to a poor little woman who has no action over her own life. She chose this situation. Then with a father who already didn't want the child, started making demands about who she thought he could see his own child with, out of jealousy. That backfired and the father who was already not wanting the situation thinks, cool, you're not bullying my wife out of the picture, she's going to be around every day, and you want to be difficult from day one? Nah, I'm out. I was willing to try, even though this wasn't my choice, and no, you couldn't help yourself. You can bet your bottom dollar if it wasn't his future wife, OP wouldn't have been trying to stop it.

Yeah it will be shit for her son watching the other children he wanted to have and raise. OP made that call for her child and now wants to make the situation she actively knew would be the situation, the dad's fault. He gets to lie in the bed his mum chose for him.

Dad is doing exactly what OP signed up for. In fact more than, because he wasn't going to have anything to do with the child at all.

Rosscameasdoody · 14/08/2025 11:00

vivainsomnia · 14/08/2025 10:06

Should the father not pay for the boy to have educational or enriching experiences because that would mean OP ‘benefits’?
He is already doing this. It doesn't sound like the saving she is able to put aside to build up a deposit for a house comes from her part-time job.

The child is 9, its now she should be increasing her hours not the other way around. He already pays for his son to have better food and better experiences, its OP who is not matching it anywhere close with her income.

He earns £33,000 a month and you expect OP to match his contribution. Don’t make me laugh. She has the responsibility of full time care for her son with no practical help, and works to accommodate that.

SecretNameAsImShy · 14/08/2025 10:54

Just plugged £720k into a salary calculator. Assuming he is paying 5% into a pension, he is taking home around £33k a MONTH! FFS, yes, I should think he can afford more than £1,277 a month but whether he will or not.......

Rosscameasdoody · 14/08/2025 10:46

vivainsomnia · 14/08/2025 10:12

Op wants the father of her child to financially support him rightly so
Which is already more than doing. Again, there are other ways he could help financially than just handing even more cash to the mother of his child who was fine giving up a full time job to do a few hours of cleaning jobs.

The fact that the maintenance payments were arranged via CMS speaks to the fact that this man only wants to pay the bare minimum. He won’t even have him overnight. How likely do you think it is that he’s going to cough up any more indirectly ?

The CMS order hasn’t been changed for six years during which time there has been an explosion in the cost of living, so OP is right when she says it doesn’t go anywhere near as far as it did when it was first ordered. All of the talk about OP benefiting from the money is nonsense - the standard of living the child will have us allied to the income and outgoing of the household as a whole.

And OP says she is self employed and worked full time. She now has a cleaning business during school hours so that she can be there for her son. Why are you so intent on kicking a woman who’s clearly doing her best for her son, on her own with very little practical day to day support ?

ProudCat · 14/08/2025 10:39

So that's his 'take home' ...

You mentioned that you couldn't afford to see a solicitor, perhaps try a local uni and see what their 'law clinic' says, i.e. their law students will work as part of their training and you don't have to pay.