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.

[Ladyanonymous]

Feels the kids are going without

[hairytriangle]

both parents decide what 'decent' is.

[hairytriangle]

Jesus christ, ladyanonymous

[ChocHobNob]

Does 85% of a parent with care's income go directly on the child all the time? When the parents were together did they ever spend that much? If we're including housing costs and food ...

A percentage of the non resident parents income goes toward providing a home for when the children come to them. That would increase the 9% somewhat.

If they don't see their children at all or provide for them in any other way than the minimum maintenance amount, it's a different matter, but not all non resident parents are the same.

[colditz]

So if the resident parent has provided a decent standard of living for the child (as the majority of resident parents do) - should the non-resident parent then feel free to contribute nothing at all?

[colditz]

So, because while the parents live together, they spend less than 85% of their JOINT INCOME on their children, the non-resident parent has the right to go and earn as much as s/he likes and never ever increase the standard of living of his own children?

Would you do that to your children? Would you earn 45 grand a year and leave them living a 12 grand a year lifestyle, just because that's what they had when you lived there?

Why must all children of single parents be treated as somehow lesser than those who have both parents living together? Why should a parent eat steak while his/her child eats mince? Why should a parent buy designer jeans while the child's resident parent scrounges charity shops for the child's own clothes?

As for the cost of housing .... can you not see that 2 nights a fortnight is not the same as every night? temporary solutions can be applied to temporary situations. They can not effectively be applied to long term situations.

Why, why, why would anyone see their child go without the things they can provide, and why would parents of all people be defending this action? Don't you all do what you can afford for your children? Why would you be released from this obligation when you don't live with the child full time - they are still your child!

[ChocHobNob]

You seem to have assumed I'm of the same opinion of others you've got annoyed with when I was simply answering your question about the 85% and 9% spent on the children. I don't see how a resident parent always spends 85% of their income directly on a child. Unless you are including ALL housing costs in that as directly for the child, when in fact, only a proportion is for the child as a single parent would need a roof over their head, bills paid and food to eat whether they had a child living with them or not.

Yes the costs of having a child with you 5 nights a week may be more than 2 nights a week ... but the fact of the matter is a non resident parent may still need that 3/4 bed house, heated and kitted out for their children even though they are not there every day. If the non resident parent was having the child sleep on the floor in their room when they visited, there would be and often is on internet forums, uproar that the non resident parent doesn't have a suitable house to accommodate their children.

Also some resident parents restrict the time the children are allowed to stay with their other parent, even though the parent would kill for more time and still complain they have to do the majority of the parenting and hard work.

I don't agree with a man earning £200.000 a year, paying just £200 a month for the upbringing of his child and nothing else. That's very unfair on the child. But people who have encountered rubbish ex's and non resident parents seem to assume all are the same and I think that's unfair. Not all only pay 9% of their income and nothing more. (Not sure where the 9% comes from anyway, unless they have other children in their household who are being taken into account as well, have the child overnight, its a private agreement or an old CSA case, because the normal lowest percentage is 15%)

[colditz]

I was suggesting the parent sleep on the floor and allow the child to have the bed. I thought I'd been relatively clear on that point, but maybe not.

And I stand by what I say, that a parent should provide what they can.

my ex gives me 20% of his income, it's only £40 a week but h doesn't earn very much. When the children stay with him, they sleep in a bunk bed in his room. I made MASSIVE accomodations for him to see the children because until recently, he lived in a scutty bedsit where I wouldn't allow them to go because I knew for a fact that there was a convicted paedophile living there.

I couldn't honestly say what percentage of my income I spend on the children and meeting their needs. I know it's more than £40 a week, but I have a little more money than the ex anyway. We still have a frugal life - but BOTH my children's parents are skint, or course they are going to have a frugal life. I don't intend to ask for more because he is giving me what he can. He doesn't live a high life either.

Children aren't pay per view though. He should see them whether he pays or not and equally, he should pay whether he sees them or not.

[porcamiseria]

agree with colditz

[shimmerysilverglitter]

Also agree with colditz.

Thank goodness I have an ex who seems to as well.

[Ladyanonymous]

Agree with colditz

[ChocHobNob]

LOL I agree with you too in that respect, again, I never said otherwise. Of course both parents should pay towards their children. I think its very difficult to put a percentage on it though, which causes problems.

Does your ex just pay £40 a week towards his chilren's upbringing though? He pays a percentage of housing for when they're with him, feeds them, if he takes them anywhere, if he buys anything for them when they're with him, toiletries, clothing perhaps, toys?

Good for you being ok with him having his children sleep in bunk beds in his room if that's all he can afford. Sadly i've seen plenty of resident parents complaining the children don't have at least their own room and threatening to stop their children visiting as a result.

[colditz]

he doesn't pay a percentage of housing as actually the housing he has is, strictly speaking, only adequate for him and his girlfriend.

He does not buy toys. he does not buy clothes. He does not even buy food - I provide the lot. I provided the bedding and I provided the deposit for the flat in the first place.

Not all non res parents are feckless tossers, but equally, not all resident parents are money grasping whores, and to be treated as though we are when, in fact, we are making a perfectly reasonable request is impossible to tolerate..

[Boltonbarb]

Why does it always come down to how much the ex earns??? £300 a month is more than enough. Stop being greedy.

Stop using fathers as a meal ticket. Where if your self respect 😡

[Lethaldrizzle]

If you don't need it then no and also you have the real prize which is the kid

[user139328237]

The 'kid' in the original post is now an adult...