To wonder if I should hassle my ex to give me more money?

[TrickyTeenagersMum]

My ex gives me £300 a month to support our son, who is primary school age. He (my ex) is well off in a job that - I'm guessing - pays around the £45k mark. Ds is his only child and he is single.
Do you think that's a reasonable amount for him to pay - what do other dads in this position give? We've never been to court, CSA or anything. I work and am remarried. I'd be really interested to see what you all think.

I do not understand the "I get less so consider yourself lucky" or "it doesn't take that much to raise a child" arguments.

Surely any father worth his salt would want the best for his children and would be more than willing to support his child to the best of their abilities. Frankly just because some of you had children with fuckwits doesn't mean anyone who didn't are greedy.

Wouldn't it be fucking wonderful to be an absent father instead of a resident mother?

her gets 92% of his wages to blitz on himself and whatever he chooses to pay for.

And when the child's mother, who has the child for all but 6 weekends a fucking YEAR, dares to question if her child's father could POSSIBLY see fit to lifting his own son out of what is a paltry amount, she is called greedy and told she should feel lucky.

LUCKY because her ex hasn't turned out to be a complete twat? Lucky because she gets to pay the majority of the running costs for a child who is 50% someone else's offspring?

The only LUCKY thing about the situation is the time she gets to spend with her son.

A child's parent should provide everything they can. If the OP earned 45 grand a year, yet budgeted what she provided for her son down to £300 a month, we would call her, um, selfish and greedy.

Women CANNOT FUCKING WIN. If we complain about absent parents getting off too lightly, we are called greedy. If we were to pull the same selfish little stunt ourselves, we would be called greedy. We are greedy whenever we ask for more than a bread roll and a pity shag, so we might as well take what the law says we can have!

Actually, I don't think you can go through the CSA anyway due to the court order, so it's irrelevant. It would be a variation of the existing court order if it was made before March 2003.

Well said Colditz.

I can't believe OP was called greedy on here. It beggars belief.

You shouldn't choose to spend a lower amount of money than you can on your child. Even if 90% of what you are spending goes into a savings account, why would you CHOOSE to give your son a much lower standard of living than myself.

To put it in context - it's like sitting myself down with an organic lamb chop, artisan bread and a home grown mixed leaf salad, and sitting my son down with a doner from the local kebab shop. Adequate - maybe. Ideal - not by a fucking long shot.

Nobody here would do that - why are fathers allowed to do that?

I do not think you are being greedy but my ex does not pay anything even with the csa involved and he is on about that wage.

I think you should be happy and maybe push for him to have your child more if you want a break.

Be pleased you get anything.

twopeople Surely any father who doesn't choose to spend money on his child is a selfish tw@t though?

I take the point that he might choose not to spend 2k pcm on his child but the sums we are talking about here are paltry - £300 pcm wouldn't cover the DC's food bill let alone clothes, after school activities, trips etc nevermind the serious stuff like school fees, the fact that you rarely have a choice but to run a car and the (cheaper) 1 bed bachelor pad isn't such an attractive option if you have a child or two living with you....

It doesn't depend at ALL on whether the mother is struggling or whether she isn't. Why should the child have a lower standard of living than his father? Why?

So if you had a baby with say Paul Mc Cartney for example would you still be happy with £300 per month on the basis that £600 per month is more than enough to bring up a child and Mrs Smith down the road only gets £200

Why should one parent have to give a higher percentage of his or her income towards the children than the other parent?

If you factor in the cost of a two bedroom house - that second bedroom should be half paid for by the father. The child's toys - should have been half paid for by the father. The higher water bill, the higher electric bills, the need for more food, the clothes, the calpol, a baby sitter for every fortnight as he chooses not so see his son as often as that, the loss of earnings of the mother because of the father's lack of commitment to childcare

Why should the mother have to sacrifice again and again and again, from every part of her life, while the father pays 8% of his income for 24/7 high quality childcare?

twopeople I disagree totally that it depends whether the mother is struggling.

My point was that £300 pcm wouldn't cover my DC's food bill for a month - I appreciate that some people have to live on much less than that but why should my or any other children whose fathers can afford that sort of contribution be entitled to anything less?

colditz you put it so more eloquently than me...but these threads just make me see red: why oh why oh why do some woman value themselves so little and why as a society do we permit that to happen?

It's a joke - only not a very funny one.

The father lost his rights to an opinion the day he walked out of his child's life, the maintenance is paid to the mother to spend on gin and fags if she wishes but in 99.9% of cases every penny goes on the child.
If he wants a say then he spends time instead of money on the child, a father with 50% residency wouldn't be paying anything at all i'd imagine.

colditz what a load of utter, utter, utter bollocks.

So what does a child actually need?

They could survive adequately on beans on toast, bananas and veg stew if they had to but frankly why shouldn't they have steak and raspberries, branded cereal and the occassional dinner at pizza express given their father is no doubt not scrimping by on the value ranges?

mamatory what another load of utter, utter bollocks. If a parent leaves the mother/father of their child, and leaves the home, they do not lose their rights. Neither does the child. The child has a right to know and love both parents, without regard to financial contribution.

Any parent worth their salt would do everything possible tokeep that contct, as a minimum. going.

I am really sick of hearing about mums who blackmail their partners. I hear it it over and over again.

he doesn't pay, so he doesn't get access.

Sick.

The child has a right, even if the adults can't get on.

And of course children don't need ballet lessons or football club, felt tip pens and colouring books, nice birthday parties and hair clips or an extra pair of party shoes but again why the hell shouldn't they have them when their fathers earn more than enough to provide these things?

Again I will repeat the point that any decent man provides these extras where he can afford them, because they are his children and he wants to do his best by them.

hairy I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated withdrawing access where the non resident parent doesn't pay - or have I missed it?

I agree with your second para nancydrewrocks but would add that if a mother can afford them, she provides them too.

I know too many mums who think it's fine to bleed their ex dry, whilst living off the proceeds. Just highlighting the other side of things (not accusing the OP of this)

nancy there is a post up there about a father losing his rights the minute he walks out on his child.

She is not greedy, some families can live with very little money, others, their lifestyle demands them to spend more. The idea of child maintenance is for the lifestyle of the child to be maintained as similar as possible as it was before the split, whenever possible.

I think that 300 is about right for that salary if your son is spending at least 2-3 nights a week with his dad. Otherwise he may need to pay slightly more, the question here is... is it worth the hassle? I guess that the most you would get ie. in the case that the child was with you 100% of the time may only be worth the fight if you don't end up using having to spend all that increase in money in solicitors fees.