Payments to ex wife. Opinions sought.

[TheWaspFactory]

I'm told this is a good place to get opinions. Don't hold back please ladies...

I have a six year old son to my ex wife. We have been separated for about 2 years now and are on cordial, if not friendly terms.

He lives with her and I see him every other weekend.

I currently pay a considerable sum every month to my ex by way of child support. This amount is much more than I would pay through a CSA enforced agreement. I actually suggested this amount as I want the best for my son.

Living and financial arrangements have been agreed between myself and my ex wife informally.

I should point out that I'm by and large happy (well, satisfied maybe) with the concept if not the execution of this plan. Ideally I'd like to have full time residency of my son but my ex wife has made clear she doesn't want this to happen so for the moment, this situation is probably the best for all concerned.

However, I've an issue with the amount I pay and how it is used. I pay this cash for the benefit of my son - not my ex wife. I neither care nor know how she supports herself. The thing is I'm not convinced she is actually spending this cash on my son.

Would I be unreasonable to ask for receipts or some kind of evidence of where my money is going? I appreciate that a significant amount of this is rolled up in to my ex wife's living costs (housing, etc) which can't be separated from supporting my son and to be fair he's not exactly going hungry but I end up buying him most of the stuff I expect my monthly payment to pay for. For example, I end up buying the vast majority of his clothes when he's with me, most of his schooling expenses (trips, uniform, etc) are paid by me, toys - again by me. All the material things end up at my ex's home.

As far as I'm concerned I'm supporting my son - not my ex wife. This money is meant to pay for him, not her handbags and holidays.

I'm tempted to tear up our agreement and go down the official route. As I'm self employed the amount the CSA would specify would be a fraction of what I'm paying now. The balance I could put in to a trust or similar for my son when he's older.

However, before I do this, I thought the receipt idea might be a fair push to actually get wife to spend my money on my son.

Opinions please? I appreciate that this may not be a "popular" post but thought a view from the "other side" might be enlightening...

You are right, Xenia -- the resident parent gets nickeled and dimed to death. It's not the boy scout uniforms and the haircut every three months that do you in, it's the Christmas collection for the school, the boxes and boxes of breakfast cereal every week, the lunchbox bill, the bar of this and the packet of that. And the dinners that their friends have here when they stay over, etc.

I would have a pile of receipts ceiling high if I had to prove where the measly amount I receive for four resident children goes. And even with the oldest pretty much putting herself through college, with scholarships and loans and a full time job, and the next two earning through odd jobs and babysitting, they still need underwear, toiletries, and they are capable of eating a whopping amount of food.

And full time care for children greatly reduces your work options, even if they're older.

you need to push to see your son more.

you are paying your ex too much. Arrange to pay her less and see him more.

No wonder so many people are marriage shy if they get shafted like this if they split.

She leaves him for someone else, she gets the house , residency of the child, he pays her about 30k a year.

Wasp, best of luck. you are currently being taken for a ride

its no use going on about how the resident parent gets stuck with the day to day costs.

non resident parents do know this (as do second wives - we are not all childless, child hating, step mother caricatures!)

the OP wants to see his son more. he wants to have more time with im. in which case the day to day costs would be more equally shared anyway.

my dh would also have loved to see his children more (3 court cases later, and we got a reasonable amount of contact. when the ex went along with it).

dh also pays a lot of money (as he should, no gripes form me about that) in maintenance, spousal maintneance, school and university fees.

all as it should be.

BUT he is not the only one who should be paying out for his children. they have another parent too. and "saving up" the costs so that they are mentioned when the children are visiting is mean-spirited and money grabbing. but it occurs a lot. little things, like suddenly extending contact time because the dc are off to see friends in Scotland afterwards, and if they stay here one more night it means that dh gets to buy the rail tickets (and yes, doen for exactly this purpose, because time and again it then transpires that the dc "have" to go home first for something anyway - usually just after the ticket situation has been sorted! to refuse makes dh look penny pinching. to agree all the time (and this happens whenever the dc have an expensive trip lined up) means being taken for a ride)

He has yet to explain how it comes about that he 'ends up' paying for the scout uniform and haircuts. There's no indication that these expenses are forced upon him, and no indication that he is faced with any sort of situation where he either pays/ buys or his DS goes without. He may feel his exwife won't pay for the scout uniform or get the boy a haircut, (he may have noticed the boy is lacking a new scout uniform for instance) but he doesn't know this for certain, and he can't find out until he stops paying these extra expenses, stops getting anxious (or whatever feeling he's basing his spending on, the desire to put on a show of expenditure for the DS, for instance) and lets the exwife get on with it, and observes how things work out. He seems unwilling to let her deal with things without stepping in to 'rescue' his DS, and then moan and feel put upon. Does he get some sort of shopping list every two weeks? Who is telling him to spend this extra 200 a month? What child needs 'a few pairs of shoes' when he visits his father? Or a Nintendo game?

There's a lot of language in Wasp's posts indicating he is, despite his protestations, very angry with his exwife. He uses terms like 'nuclear option', 'feeding a spending habit'. He changes his tune when ill-advised words are pounced upon, like 'nanny', or 'tweaking his income' -- no, he has no intention of hiring a nanny or hiding his income; he's going to improve his accounting "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion if you will." and work only when the DS is in school (yes, good luck with that, Wasp. You'll work when your clients want you to, actually, if you have clients or customers...). There is a lot of aggression behind the term 'entitled to', used early on. And despite claims of not using the child as a source of information, how else would he know that his wife's family help out sometimes, financially? How would he know her work arrangements? How would he know the new handbag (gasp, a new handbag) wasn't a gift from someone? He has been keeping track, noting details, fuming from a distance.

The very idea that he could consider going for full residential custody and hiring a nanny for the DS, thus depriving him of his mother's care and substituting paid help bespeaks a desire to use the child custody issue to punish his ex in some way. Yes I know he backpedalled when challenged and claimed it was a throwaway remark, but there's more to parenting than having a child under your roof as opposed to someone else's roof 24/7. The constant use of the term 'my boy' and occasionally 'my son' is rather possessive. He's not just OP's boy. The child has a mother. It's 'our boy', 'our son'

There are hints about the possibility of the exwife turning nasty (not nice to imply this about an ex unless there has been prior experience of this kind of behaviour) if Wasp dares to approach her for a change in the custody arrangements, but he was very gung ho about the idea of requesting receipts -- so not coming across here as someone who anticipates other people's reactions well, and he doesn't seem to understand at all the idea that once money is out of his hands and in his exwife's it is actually no business whatsoever of his what is done with it. If the child is generally well cared for, that's all that matters. The rest is what he himself feels.

Hi,

I've come back to this thread because I was thinking about it the other day and I've literally skipped through to read your posts so I'm not really responding to everyone!

I'm a single mum and my xp left me for a girl 10yrs younger than I, when my son was 6mths old, I had a lot of animosity towards my ex for obvious reasons. My feeling is that its not really the money that is the issue with you, its the access, and quite rightly as you really should should be seeing him every other weekend ideally.

Please try to be amicable, once you pretend you can be friendly believe me you can almost believe its real.

Try to forget about the money, as everyone says there will be lots of things that children need that you won't be seeing. But please just try to have an honest chat about seeing your son more. Once she sees you are being nice to her on a regular basis you can talk about things, like access.

This is for your benefit being nice that is, you will never get what you want by going through a solicitor, just have to try to talk to her.

When you next drop your son off try to have a friendlier chat, it might take time but it is better than carrying on with this animosity.

Good luck

The child lives with his mother and Wasp sees him 'every other weekend', according to his OP.

oh doh, sure I read in one of his posts that he was only seeing him once a month.

Wasp, I have not read all the pages & this may have been said already, but unless your lad is actually in need & deficit of things that will give him as balanced a life as he can have with a split family, then you really have no cause for redress. As unfair as that sounds, & it probably is.

It may be true, that his mother doesn't spend the money you provide in the way which you would, but your lad is living with her, & unless she is remiss in her duties, it's tough I'm afraid.

Not that I agree with how she may be spending the resource, but the important thing to focus upon is the development & welfare of your son.

Again, that is tough on you, but the hard reality I fear. How is the relationship between you & your son, & your son & his mother?

Any financial restriction may lead to friction between you & his mother, and your son will suffer to a lesser or greater degree.

There is an old saying, the sun shines equally on the righteous & unrighteous. To deny one, for whatever reason will also deny the other.

I don't envy your situation. It may be true that your generosity may not always be possible.

Perhaps discussing that prospect with your ex wife may open up an opportunity for you to broach the subject.

It is a tricky one though & I wish you all the best with it.

Wasp, whatever your protestations, it's clear from your posts that you do resent your ex and you are trying to score points.

Put your feelings about your ex to one side and focus on your son. Attempting to punish your ex will only hurt your son. Are you really so bitter that you would do that?

If you are determined to force the issue, despite having entered into an agreement entirely voluntarily, then go to mediation. Be a grown up and take a grown up approach. If you see a solicitor instead, you'll end up spending money on legal fees instead of on your son.

The relationship with your ex is over. You cannot control her any more, however much you resent this and however bitter you feel. Concentrate on your son.

And if you mention handbags in front of a judge, you will be laughed at.

TheBest -- I was saddened too. Your child had, and still has, a right to that money. No court would listen to that receipt nonsense.

Holy hell ladies!! I was warned about the kind of vitriol I could expect on this site but I didn't quite believe it! Is this mumsnet or the all-men-are-assholes-bitter-ex-wives-club??? I could only read two pages of comments before I was overwhelmed by the nastiness!! 80-90% of comments are about what a prick he is for even daring to have these thoughts for goodness sake!

There's a lot of prejudice towards men when it comes to parenting, they are automatically the bad guy. Custody arrangements are nearly always in favour of the women even if the father wants the children. They just have to suck it up. Did you notice he said he wants his son to live with him full-time??

I noticed a lot of you on here projecting you own issues on to him too. You're passing judgement based on your own assumptions, NOT on the original information that was provided. Take a good hard look at youselves.

My advice is go the official route and maybe put some into savings as you suggested and pay for things for him like clothes, shoes, school fees, after school activities etc,- stuff that you can pay for yourself so that you can feel like your doing whats right regarding his cost of living while knowing your money is not going towards new handbags and such. Good-luck!

It's not all anti men. I spend time always supportingthe right of both parents to see children, not to play at it at a weekend but day to day cleaning of unifroms, clearing up sick, day in day out proper care and if men were forced to have children 50% of the time after divorce as a starting point then that would help mothers and fathers, particularly mothers like me who work full time.

(My ex doesn't pay anything nor "help" never mind play a full part - his choice - if he didn't have those and other deficiencies I would not have divorced him so all those issues about who pays what are removed)

On the advice on this thread, this man pays reasonable sums although some court orders like mine which say I pay school and univiersity fees for 5 whoever they live with etc etc make the sums he pays pale into insignificance, but it's all relative. I said that if he changes thing he might find all contact is stopped which is the practical reality for many parents, including some women as the courts do not enforce contact orders properly. That again was women wanting to help men - I would prefer the law to say if you breach an order the child goes to live with the other parent and/or in extremis the mother is jailed. We are not all anti men but I do think non resident parents lose their prior kowledge of the day to day cost in terms of time, less income and simple daily requirements for money and things that children bring with them.

If you have proper shared care then both parents are resident. They shoudl also change the law so those with 50/50 care split child benefit 50/50 (and tax credits where you earn so little you qualify for them, never something I've been able to have).

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a mother and father split, one retains full custody but has only a low-paying part-time job, and the child maintenance is spent entirely and only on the child by a rich father paying over the odds. A scenario in which, as Wasp says, the money goes entirely to the son's upbringing and not at all to his mum's lifestyle.

Wouldn't that mean that at dinnertime, the child is eating better than his mum? That he's wearing designer clothes and his mum's wearing op shop tat? That although the money's there for him to go on a summer holiday in Brittany, his mum can't afford a ticket over to accompany him?

That doesn't sound like a brilliant lifestyle for the son, really.

The CSA rules just say 15% of after tax income for one child subject I think to an upper cap although wealthy people tend to agree different deals.

One reason my exhusband's lawyers wanted so much of my assets (I think he got 60% of our joint assets for a clean break) was so that when the children were with him he could treat them to the same standard as when he'd been married to me (the fact he then virtually never chose to see them kind of made that argument rather pointless.

Xenia. You regularly advocate 50/50 shared care and no one seems to agree with you. I don't think most people want to do shared care, and think that this man should pay his money, accept his poxy access and stop whining.

Shared care can work very well indeed, IME. Lots of people I know do shared care. But they all have one thing in common: they have plenty of money for both parents to live in family-sized accommodation with a comfortable standard of living, and the two parents live in close physical proximity so that children's routines/schools/friendships are equally accessible from both homes.

the problem with shared care form the outset, is quite often one of finances, as Bonsoir says.

when dh split with his ex, he would have loved shared care.

but his payment order (voluntarily agreed, btw, not one he was forced to pay!) was for about 75% of his wages at the time. his ex got the house (nice, 4 bedroomed, desirable part of London) mortage free, a reasonable whack for maintenance, spousal maintenance on top, plus all school fees paid, as well as wrap around care fees/childmender costs - at one point, even taxi costs to take his daughter to school (ex drives, and had a car as part of settlement)

this all meant that dh, while happy to pay for his children, had no money left to find anywhere to live - let alone anywhere with space for children too.

by the time he could afford somewhere, 5 years later, his ex argued that they shouldn't upset the status quo, and that the children's lives would be disrupted if they saw him any more than the paltry every-otehr-weekend-and-2-weeks-in-summer that he had managed to fight for. so she managed ot engineer the whole situation to her advantage.

so, unless both parents are fully agreed that shared care is the weay to go, then it won't work. dh's ex could, and should have trusted him to make sure that her and the children did not suffer in any way, without absolutely fleecinghim and making it impossible for him to have anything approaching normal contact with the children (dh stayed with friends for years, who were always happy to have the children visit, but obviously not the same as having his own place)

And never let your wife be a housewife and always marry someone who earns more and make sure you work full time otherwise when you divorce you can lose your chidlren. It's not rocket science but too any people find it convenient when married to have a housewife/husband/slave and then on divorce they are cross the spouse doesn't earn £100k and is happy only to have the chilren alternative weeks. They must be a bit thick not to think through the consequences on divorce when they agree someone can give up work or they choose someone who will never earn more than £20k a year or it suits their ego to marry a lower earner perhaps. They pay the price on divorce then they repeat the mistake again and often a third time. They never learn.

my god i never realised quite how bitchy women could be til i joined this site. Why do you all see red at anything the guy says?! Why would it be wrong for him to have his kid and hire a nanny for assistance?! Why would it be wrong to want this in the future when his wife might let him?!

Here is a guy, one of the bloody good guys who actually supports his child, maintains contact, loves and cares for his well being! how many just vanish into the frigging sunset!?

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder where his money is spent if it is more than the CSA would determine appropriate and if he feels the kid is still wanting for basic things.

OP, go down the CSA route, put money in savings, and treat him when he is in your care. I know of a case where the dad was paying £1k a month and STILL having to pay for school clothes, trips etc on top of that! Structure the payments and the arrangements.

good luck.

Tell me about it coral! I avoid these sorts of threads. NRP dads and step-mums are evil RP mum can do whatever the hell she likes!

I'm in a really awkward difficult situation with my stepchildren (not them themselves, I love them and they love me, they even make it clear they prefer me to their step-dad - but then their family prefer OH to their step-dad) and one place I will never ever ask for advice or even vent to is MumsNet!

god, this is terrible and I am total sympathy with the dad and can understand his feelings (and those of other dads).
Where the money ends up is always an issue. His children would come to our house in shoes that were too small, causing blisters and soles falling off them. he would always buy them new shoes and trainers. i dont think exw ever bought them shoes. He too was paying a rate agreed privately upon divorce. His earnings have dropped drastically since then (self-employed and his line of work is not so popular any more). He still pays the agreed amount though - subbed by me (I am the higher earner) - I dont mind though at all, as long as the kids are ok.
exw has a low paid but full time job, gets the child maintenance, child benefit, has the marital home with no mortgage, car paid for, all contents of the home.
Buys absolutely minimal amount of clothes (one pair jeans per child, possibly two t shirts each).
Never ever took them on holiday even in this country (though she takes 3 holidays abroad each year when we have them for school holiday time). We take them on holiday with us.
She spends 3 or 4 nights a week in the pub and taxi there and back each time, and smokes. Boys would have a frozen pizza for tea which they would cook themselves.
Personally I cant see that the several hundreds of pounds a month she was getting was really being spent on those children (heating, lighting etc all considered). And I honestly dont think her own earnings would give her the lifestyle she has managed to enjoy.
I'm just stating how it is (will no doubt get a barrage of backlash on here, but hey!). The money is for the benefit of the children.. as some of us have been saying.

YANBU- I would want to know how my money is beinng spent- at least for the ;arge purchases etc

Pay your wife the minimum maintenance or pay her more, its your choice. Asking for receipts is outrageous though - she's not your employee.

Clearly if you can have an amicable relationship with your ex then your child will benefit hugely from this. If achieving this has a financial price then only you know what value it has to you.

"Here is a guy, one of the bloody good guys who actually supports his child, maintains contact, loves and cares for his well being! how many just vanish into the frigging sunset!?"

This is the problem, right here, in black and white. The bar is set so very low, so pitifully low, that any man who pays at all, who sees his child and has an interest in him, is fawned over as if he was some sort of bloody saint.

There is no such thing as a perfect parent. And paying enough to keep your child well is what you should be doing if you can afford it. It doesn't make you perfect. It's not a mark of sainthood. One man posts here that he pays quite a large amount for the care of his child, moans and whines about his exwife's handbag habit, fails to explain how he 'ends up' spending extra, and anyone who thinks he's being unreasonable for asking for receipts and unreasonable for failing to understand that it's not his money once it's out of his hands, is therefore being bitchy?