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.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

Both made the child so both should support it. So if the father is contributing £300 a month the mother should and even £300 a month alone is more than enough for one child. Factor in the CB and tax credits and its even higher.

I personally wouldnt ask for more, regardless of what he earned.

[hairytriangle]

That's a sensible post Orangerie

[nancydrewrocks]

hairy I took that to mean he lost his right to make decisions on how to spend the cash and I am inclined to agree re the small things e.g. whether I buy my children raspberries or branded cereal (this is all hypothetical since I am not separated)!

I suspect there are many many more woman getting a shit deal from their ex's than fathers being bled dry. I mean £40 pcm FFS

[hairytriangle]

Do you have any stats to back that up?

I agree that there are lots of single parents (men and women) who don't receive sufficient contribution.

I also know that some non-resident parents have a cap on what they are expected to pay due to their benefits or health issues which mean they can't work.

I would agree that £40pcm is unbelievably low, for someone earning a good income.

But I would also advocate single parents getting work too - to raise their kids' standard of living. I do know of many who simply rely on benefits and their child support payments.

[hairytriangle]

I'd also say I wouldn't agree that he lost his rights on the choice of how the money is spent. ideally parents would agree on lifestyle choices like diet and health etc, although I know many parents just can't get on well enough to do that, which is realy sad.

I am just making the point that there seem to be a lot of people (in my experience) who use the child support issued (and worse - access to the child) as a tool to get at the non-resident partner, whom they have been left by.

[mamatomany]

Our situation is different in that my DD's father has never laid eyes on her so he has no say in any decissions madfe in her life at all.
But the fact is that the money paid is paid to the mother to do as she chooses with it and what she chooses to spend it on is none of the fathers business.

[mamatomany]

I meant he looses his right to decide how the child is brought up day to day, if that is important to him then he should have 50% residency, i've never known a divorced man apply for that ever, too much like hard work.

[SomeGuy]

What job does he do? It's a bit silly speculating about his salary isn't it - if it's less than that you'll look daft, but it could also be much more.

[nancydrewrocks]

Nope I don't have any statistics to back that up hence my use of the word "suspect" .

Certainly what you see on this thread is many woman saying how little financial support they get and not one suggesting that access be used as a blackmail tool.

I also think the the argument that once tax credits are factored in the mum is doing well is a bad one - where the fathers can afford to they should be forced to support their off spring rather than siting idly by whilst watching the state do it for them.

[ChocHobNob]

"a father with 50% residency wouldn't be paying anything at all i'd imagine."

That's incorrect. The CSA will still chase for maintenance. They just get a reduction. Have a play with their calculator. Even if a non resident parent (not always fathers) have the child 50% of the time, they are normally expected to pay something ... and get no child benefit as only one parent can receive it.

"if that is important to him then he should have 50% residency, i've never known a divorced man apply for that ever, too much like hard work."

Join Families Need Fathers and have a read of some of the father's plights on there to gain 50% contact and residency of their children.

I think it's very unfair to say a father gives up their right to choose how their child is bought up day to day when they split with the mother. Many men would love to have their child still live with them, or even 50% of the time and many don't have the choice as the courts are still biased towards Mothers. There are some right pains in the arses of fathers out there, but it's unfair to tar all with the same brush. There are some really crappy Mums out there too who walk away from their children and neglect them/

[mamatomany]

I guess we can all only speak as we find chochobnob and my experience is not of men fighting to see their children but of men being dragged to court, parking around the corner in their BMW 5 series, walking into court dressed like they've slept rough for a month then going home to a £650k house having been allowed to pay £5 a month for three children (my friends experience not mine).

[colditz]

Why is my post utter utter bollocks? Because it somehow is fair that one parent pays 9% of his income towards their son, and the other parent pays 85% of her income towards their son, and her asking for more is deemed greedy?

[hairytriangle]

colditz your post was over emotional and aggressive, and I didn't agree with your sentiments.

[Ladyanonymous]

No father has any right to have a say on what his maintenance payments are spent on. The woman is trustworthy enough to bring up his fucking child without him .

The maintenance thing works both ways. My ex has threatened not to pay the maintenance knowing I need it that day to pay the mortgage because he (actually his bitch of a GF) hasn't got her his way about something.

[hairytriangle]

lady ffs of course he has a right - and a responsibility to have a say in his child's upbringing! Mums and dad's have equal parental rights and responsibilities! If a two people have a child together, despite whatever their differences are, both have a duty to their child! If one is being an arse, it doesn't make it ok for the other to be an arse too - it works both ways.

[Snorbs]

"if that is important to him then he should have 50% residency, i've never known a divorced man apply for that ever, too much like hard work."

You know such a person now because that's what I did. Admittedly I didn't get divorced from my ex as we weren't married but after we split we did do 50/50. But, as I wasn't the one getting the child benefit then I was still obliged to pay my ex child maintenance, albeit at 50% of the full rate.

I've actually got both my children full-time now. Doesn't seem too much like hard work to me. It's screwed my career but it's still bloody marvellous.

For what it's worth, in the three years I've been full-time dad my ex has managed to accumulate about £1,000 in arrears for the child maintenance she should be paying me. That's not bad going considering that, most of that time, she's only been down to pay £5 a week. It's not only absent fathers who can be feckless and selfish.

[hairytriangle]

you can't generalise that "the woman is trustworthy enough to bring up his fucking child wihout him"

I know women who have stated 'if you don't pay/buy this this and this, then you won't see your child"

and spend weekend after weekend in the pub/clubbing, whilst sitting on the dole and taking money from the father.

[mamatomany]

and spend weekend after weekend in the pub/clubbing, whilst sitting on the dole and taking money from the father.

Replace the word father with benefits and there would be bloody uproar lol

[hairytriangle]

lol

[colditz]

Aggressive is a state of making threats, using threatening language. I have not done this.

Nobody has answered why it is fair for the non resident parent to pay 9% of their income towards a child's upbringing - they cost more than food remember - and for the resident parent to pay 85% of their income towards the child's upbringing.

maybe, just maybe, it's because I'm right, and it just isn't fair.

[hairytriangle]

colditz that's not my definition of aggressive. I took your post as aggressive.

"women cannot fucking win" and the other use of expletives is aggressive language.

anyhow, we are seriously off topic here....

I will answer your percentage question: it's not about percentages, it's about a decent standard of living for the child.

[rotool]

I applause colditz, why should a woman pay 85% towards the cost of bringing up a child, even if she gets married again it is still the responsibility of the father to pay for the childs upbringing not the step-father.
Too many men get away with paying little or no money, he should at least increase your money with inflation.

[nancydrewrocks]

Hairy - who defines what "decent" is?

[Ladyanonymous]

Erm - I have no say at all what goes on in either of my exes homes.

Why on earth should either of them have a say in what goes on in mine or what I spend my money on?

As long as their children are loved, fed and cared for properly they can both take a running jump unless its something "big".

I have no say in how much they give me or what they spend their money on or how often they have their kids or "babysit" or whether they move miles away so their kids can't see them .

If he doesn't like the way the mother is bringing up his kid and he feels the kids is going without/in danger then go for residency or call SS. Otherwise they can shut the fuck up, piss off and let me get on with it.