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...

Does she work?

How much do you give her each month?

Need to know both to give an opinion.

This is still rumbling on. Wow.

MathAnxiety, I'd like to thank you for your amazing insight and clarity in to my mind and thoughts. You're right, I've been fooling myself and your interpretation of my hugely complex and emotionaly fragile situation based the thousand words or so I've posted here has made everything clear. Thank you.

Given your amazing ability have you ever thought of a career as an agony aunt? I hear the Daily Sport are recruiting?

oh, and I don't accept the money I pay every month is "hers" - if it were mandated by the CSA then perhaps but given it's a discretionary payment by me then I have every right to know where and how it is being spent.

And I feel I've explained quite succinctly how the I'm spending the extra every month (at least not without broadcasting my real life identity). If you chose not to accept this then fine - perhaps you would like me to provide receipts?

Moving on and I've made progress. I'd already decided that my position was intolerable. Thus earlier in the week I summoned up the courage and had a chat with my ex wife. I basically brought up that I wanted more access - from chatting to my solicitor (and what I've read here - thank you!) I explained its usual for the non resident parent to have much more access than I do at present. This went predictably badly - apparently I'm lucky to get what I do at the moment. She was also vociferous about the money I give her - seemingly I'm not to use any increase in contact as an excuse to reduce the payment. All quite depressing really - I hadn't even planned to raise the subject of money until I had secured more access. I had actually hoped we'd be able to have a more rational conversation than we did but never mind.

However, after much discussion and negotiation the upshot is that I get to have my son for some weeks in the summer break. This is fantastic news and has made my happier than I have been in a long time.

I also feel much more confident about my situation now. Like Xenia says there is always the risk my ex could refuse any and all contact regardless of any (possible) court decision (and truly this does keep me awake at night) but I feel that the money is a "big deal" to her - I feel much more confident I'll be able to force the situation should I need to.

However, thank you all for the insight and advice. The advice you have given has made me think long and hard about what I should do and I doubt I'd have made the progress I have without this thread.

Bravo for you! I wish you well and hope you have a fabulous time with your child this summer.

Good luck to you, Wasp Factory. Hmm, I think the attitude of your ex during the 'chat' was rather telling. However, I wish you a super summer in those extra few weeks with your lad.

Wasp, it ain't a discretionary payment any more than household bills/clothing/food etc. etc. etc. would be if your son was living with you. You are his parent, you have to contribute to his upkeep. The fact you have agreed it without involving the CSA doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Given you are divorced or separated, you no longer have any right to nosy into your former wife's/partners' finances (if you ever did in the first place - I don't go snooping into dh's bank statements and he doesn't snoop into mine although obviously we discuss joint expenses).

Btw, you aren't some kind of hero or brilliant Dad because you contribute to your son's living expenses. You are just a normal parent. That's what normal parents do. The fact that a substantial proportion of non-residents parents try to evade their responsibilities makes them shits, it doesn't make those who do pay special.

it is discretionary in that he has chosen to pay more than, by the laws relating to CSA payment, he is required to.
You are right in that he does have to contribute to his child's upbringing - as does the mother.
I am not sure why you cannot be open about finances with your partner? You obviously have had a bad experience edam.
In the same way that we share responsibilities as a couple we share money too and decisions around what to spend it on (or save, when that is possible).

That's great Wasp - enjoy your time with your son.

He has agreed to pay an amount relating to his income and now resents that agreement that he freely entered into. Paying more than whatever the CSA would assess doesn't make him a saint.

Btw, don't know why you assume there's anything wrong with the way dh and I choose to arrange our lives. I was just pointing out that even when you are married you are entitled to some privacy, when you are no longer married you have absolutely no right to snoop into your ex's financial affairs.

Finances aside, Edam what is your opinion about Wasp getting more access?

he has freely entered into it, therefore presumably freely entitled to change it. I dont see any claim anywhere that he's trying to make himself out to be a saint, he's stated the facts of the arrangement that he has.

Nope, one party to an agreement isn't free to back out at any time especially when it's about supporting a child. You have to negotiate the terms of any agreement with the other party.

Access is a separate issue. If he wants more access and his son would like more access, that's great.

He's not backing out. He's changing the amount. That's not backing out.

And I agree with you that access is a completely separate issue to maintenance for a child.

yes it is. He agreed to X, if he now wants Y he has to negotiate with the other party. You can't have people unilaterally tearing up any agreement when they feel like it. Otherwise the whole basis of our society and legal system falls.

However the legal system wasn't involved in this agreement, I'm not sure what that has to do with this situation.

You are essentially saying if I choose to lend you something and I change my mind I'm not allowed to do it.

Personally I think he should go through CSA and be done with it although I didn't think they were accepting new cases at the moment.

Well look at it this way. Imagine he loses his job and cant afford to pay whatever the amount is and says I can afford to pay you x.

I'm not sure he's in a position to "negotiate", as there's no exchange as such, the transaction is one-way.

Lending isn't a good analogy for child support. He's not lending anything, he's paying for his son's upkeep. We aren't talking about an object or sum of money that he owns absolutely with no reference to anyone else. (And if you do lend something and change your mind, you have to talk to the borrower - you can't just storm into their house or delve into their bank account and snatch it back.)

Wasp and his ex agreed to make a private arrangement but it is underpinned by the law. Either is free to go to court if they wish but mhey can't just walk into court and say 'I an going to do this' without reference to the other party. The court will look at both sides.

There is no good analogy for child support, other than someone would like a dog but doesn't want to buy a dog and find out it doesn't fit in with their way of life so they're borrowing your dog and you're paying them to look after it, I think the person is well within their rights to stop paying them for the privilege and just provide them with food and pay for any vets bills. On the lending front I wasnt talking about money (I was talking about an object) but even so you should check your facts as you can depending on how you transferred the money to them.

However, his child support should support the roof over his sons head etc not things for her.

It was a private agreement and no it has not be underpinned by the law, otherwise it wouldn't be a private agreement. Seriously I've seen so many women who think they're doing their exes over by CSA when really it is them that lose.

But he can just go to the CSA and pay her what they claim is the correct amount. It's got nothing to do with courts or law.

So if he got an increase in his wages then and the ex wanted more support, if he wasn't in agreement, he shouldn't have to agree to more because the ex agreed to this amount which shall always stand? Somehow, I don't see how people would agree with that and so it appears to be a rather one sided argument. The ex gets to decide no less but she gets to demand more.

It would appear that the OP's main bug bear with the whole thing is he would like to have some control over what some of his child support is being spent on. He has no say legally in the amount the CSA would demand ... but he can choose, if he wants, to spend the rest directly on his child and not have to give it to his ex. The child isn't losing out there, the ex still gets what she is "supposed to" and he gets some control over where his money is going. So going through the CSA also seems a possibility to me too.

Also OP, great news that your son gets to spend extra time with his Dad over the holidays.

"If he wants more access and his son would like more access, that's great."
Erm no it's not, unless the ex allows that to happen.
My stepdaughter has pleaded with her mother for years to stay more with us. We would love to stay more too.
But it's not going to happen unless a judge orders it.

agree, and even then it's pretty much unenforceable...

indeed if a mother is hell bent on breaking orders she usually gets away with it...

"oh, and I don't accept the money I pay every month is "hers" - if it were mandated by the CSA then perhaps but given it's a discretionary payment by me then I have every right to know where and how it is being spent."

This is where you are completely wrong, Wasp. If you have an agreement, even if the courts have not been involved in the making of it, and your exwife has been holding up her part of it as to the major element she has promised to do (visitation) then it's not a 'discretionary payment'.

When you write a cheque, you name the payee, and once that cheque is negotiated, the money is the property of the payee, in this case, your exwife. You understand that your cheques to the gas company, the electricity company, the car finance, etc., are their property once negotiated, right? Why the mental block in the case of the money to your exwife? She is not an extension of your personality or a figment of your imagination. She has a bank account, and once your cheque clears, the money is hers. You and she are no longer married.

Despite your protestations, you have not in fact answered the question of how you 'end up' paying for the extras. Do you get a shopping list every two weeks? Do you just decide your son needs a haircut or a pair of shoes or a Nintendo game, or whatever it is that you then proceed to buy. Does the school send you the bills? Does the scout leader communicate to you directly, bypassing the mother, that your son needs a uniform for scouts? How do you 'end up' shelling out extra money?

"he has freely entered into it, therefore presumably freely entitled to change it.." and
"He's not backing out. He's changing the amount. That's not backing out." Ladydeedy, changing an agreement unilaterally is backing out of it. An informal agreement that has been adhered to up to now cannot be repudiated by one party. If one party can change an agreement at will, the agreement is not worth the paper it's printed upon. Why bother with an agreement at all in that case? Your argument is absurd.

Wasp can allege all he wants about his exwife's handbag habit, but he can prove nothing. And he cannot demand receipts. He is doomed to fume and resent from a distance. I hope he will not spend the time he will have with his son this summer prying into his exwife's business via the child. I hope it will be a pleasant experience for all, hope he can concentrate less on stuff and more on what the child is getting out of it, what is most important to the child -- time and attention from a parent who loves him. I hope he doesn't try to outshine his exwife in the 'stuff' department, or overwhelm him with new this, new that. The child will see this time as time for him and his dad, not time as part of a poison triangle.

Well Math I understand that that's where the problem is. OP and his ex agreed to a certain amount to be used in a certain way. OP does not believe the money is used as agreed hence it is possible that his ex wife is not holding up her part of the agreement.

Equally "your exwife has been holding up her part of it as to the major element she has promised to do (visitation)".

Contact/visitation is not related to money handed over.

If anyone appears to be fuming, it appears to be you mathanxiety! OP appears to be fine.