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...

So in effect, Math, the OP has to pay a large sum of money, well over and above the boy's needs and more about the ex-wife's wants, in order to see him? Mmm. Nice. Sounds like racketeering! Providing for the child is paramount. My parents got divorced, my father paid money to Mum for me - just as it should be. But some people on here seem to have a interesting sense of entitlement to their husband's bank balance for their own personal use, whilst bleating that how they spend it is their own business

Unless it was specified, to the letter, what the money could and could not be used for, then Wasp doesn't have a leg to stand on. He can't assume she would spend it on one certain set of expenses and not on another unless it was spelled out in the agreement. The devil is in the details here. And if there are no details, then Wasp can complain all he wants, which he apparently has a talent for.

Unless there was a clause in the agreement stating he can ask for an accounting, he can assume until the cows come home about where the new handbag (again, gasp) came from, but he should really explore all the possibilities as to that before jumping to the conclusion that it was "his" money that paid for it.

What he believes and what he can prove are two completely different things. I'm assuming there are possibly two main elements to the agreement -- one being the money and the other being the visitation arrangements. While there is no quid pro quo involved (no 'pay to visit'), if the exwife has been upholding her main part of the agreement and not refusing visitation (and it seems she has recently allowed an extended period in the summer too), then she has been essentially upholding her part of the agreement. Unless the child has literally rags to wear and no quality of life whatsoever (which doesn't seem to be the case) then she has been providing for the child out of the support cheque, and what remains is carping on Wasp's part.

And no answer yet to the 'I end up' question. What would happen if Wasp just kept his wallet in his pocket and assumed his ex would probably pay for those things when she got around to it? How about hoping for the best instead of assuming the worst of her? If she has got used to Wasp whipping out the wallet for the extras, then all he has to do is stop doing it, and teach her to pay for those things herself if she is supposed to be doing so, which he is perfectly entitled to do if it's in their agreement, and let the ex get on with it.

Well....I never thought I'd be glad that my XP doesn't pay any maintenance but having waded through this thread I certainly am, considering that many people think it's A-ok to poke around in your ex partner's finances.

Math - understand completely where you are coming from but I think you are banging your head against a brick wall here. Ignore the jibes.

Not read it ALL but I would pay thru the CSA and then buy your son these things as and when you want to. I would also go to court to get an order allowing you much more access, as I assume there is no reason for you NOT to have more access?
Good luck

How much do you earn OP?

If it's £5000 per month, then you are v. generous.

If it's £10,000 per month, then you are reasonable.

If it's £20,000 or more per month, then you are mean.

FGS will people stop talking about the CSA as if their payments are reasonable. Their payments are set at poverty levels for most people and with rare exceptions, any absent parent who is NOT paying over and above what teh CSA orders them, is short-changing their children. CSA levels were invented for absent parents who are paying derisory amounts of maintenance, to declare smugly that they are good parents because they are paying what the CSA orders.

My impression is that the OP resents the fact that his ex isn't struggling. Unless you are actually financially suffering yourself, OP, you should just accept the fact that it is a good thing that your DS is growing up with a lifestyle at home which matches yours. That's what you should be aiming for - you shouldn't want him to go back to a household which has a standard of living much lower than your's, why would any parent want that for their child?

(Thanks Janos, my head is getting a little sore at this stage.)

I don't think he wants his ex to struggle, she is working p/t and the OP has said they are both well off. He is paying a reasonable amount of maintenance for his child, it is not unreasonable to want the money to be used for the benefit of his child.

so.... my dh's ex doesnt earn very much by the nature of the job she does.

My DH also actually not earning that much at present for other reasons. I do earn a fairly substantial salary (by most standards).

Because of that we do enjoy a higher standard of living (if you want to put it like that) than his ex.

Are you saying we should give her more money so that the lifestyle of all of us is more equal??? Dont quite get that.

No I'm not saying taht Ladydeedy. Your personal circumstances are for you to judge.

I'm asking if your child didn't live with you, would you want the home s/he lived in, to have a lower standard of living than your home?

But but it depends on the cirumstances, doesnt it?
How much money is coming in, how many other children to consider, what other different costs are having to be met...

herbeatitude - thank the Lord SOMEONE has finally pointed out CSA assessments are not generous or reasonable. You are right that they are, at best, set at the minimum required to scrape by if topped up by tax credits/other state support. Which is shameful.

ladydeedy - the child should be entitled to the same standard of living they enjoyed when the parents were together, if at all possible. So if your dh was with-holding his fair share of child support, deliberately worsening his child's situation, that would be unfair. If he's paying a reasonable, agreed amount that enables his son to have the same standard of living as before separation and divorce, that's fair.

It's not so that the lifestyle is more equal. It's a question of paying a fair share of the income the support-paying parent has access to.

Again, what the money is spent on is at the discretion of the payee, so the lifestyle might not necessarily be improved.

I think I agree.
But when you say the income that the support-paying parent has "access to", what does that mean?
Their own income? Or the income that comes into the household as a whole (his and his partner's)?

You're welcome Math!

I think someone upthread mentioned LP's 'choosing' to work less hours because their income is topped up by maintenance.

In fact, many LPs have a reduced salary through circumstance, because they have no choice. It's harder to work ft if you are on your own with little or no support network.

I just bloody hate this stereotype of the bitter, lazy, money grabbing ex which so many people seem to take at face value. Most single parents, IME, are just trying to make ends meet.

A lot depends on how the i's are dotted and the t's crossed in the divorce agreement. Mine precludes any increase for the support payments even if my ex were to marry an heiress, but states if I remarry and a new spouse's income increases the total household income available to me, then my ex can reduce payments. Not ideal, but the best I could do for what I could afford, legally, at the time.

Agree 100% Janos -- it's an ugly and unfair stereotype.

wow, that's an amazing arrangement and seems pretty unfair.

There were trade-offs in the area of paying for university education, and no prince charming appearing on the horizon to sweep me off into the sunset, so it's working out fine so far.

Math you really shouldn't have agreed to that. Unless your talking about spousal support.

Hmm, do you actually realise the costs of looking after a child? I only get a CSA payment, no more. My ex showers my children with sweets, comics, days out, toys etc when he has them. I can'n afford to do this. He earns good money and refuses to pay anymore than he has to. I'm sure his children will question his motives in the future.

Yes people are so willing to buy into the stereotype of the bitter harpy ex wife.

You just have to look at the figures. 5 years after divorce, most men are better off than they were when they were married. 5 years after divorce, most women are worse off than they were when they were married.

So with the odd few exceptions that people are always so eager to focus on, men do financially better than women when it comes to divorce. But funnily enough, there is no media stereotype of the bitter ex-husband, furious that he has to pay unrealistically low maintenance to the ex and constantly over-valuing how much of a financial contribution he makes to his children's upbringing. The stereotype is all the other way: a direct inverse to what the statistics are telling us. Funny that, anyone ever wondered why?

(Unfortunately for me, my divorce took place in the US (the USA and Somalia are the only two countries which did not sign the UN declaration on the rights of children), and on top of that I had an enthusiastic but free-legal-aid lawyer who I think was out of her depth on financial matters. She was good on visitation. The advantage of the university fee arrangement is that the oldest DCs are going to university in the US as that is where they completed their secondary education -- a very expensive prospect.)

Well there are lots of way round things including men who remarry and have a child and then they stay home with it so their income is very low and have to pay less or nothing to the first family, whereas if they went back to work and their wife stayed home they would be paying the support.

If children were properly shared none of this would raise. You'd just support the children whoever they live with. In fact our court order says that - whoever the children live with supports them except I pay school and university fees for all five no matter with whom they live as I earn more.

Matha my dd wants for nothing and has no need for money from her father. She needs from him love, time and boundaries. That is what he gives. When I married my husband he became part of our family unit it would be ridiculous for him to not support her. That standing why would my daughter need three people financially supporting her? When we needed the money we took it, now I don't. My ex also has another child who does need financial support , I would hate to think my ex was giving money to my dd which went on luxuries like horse riding and sailing while his son went without essentials.

I've been thinking about the clothes thing some more as yesterday DS came home from a day with his grandmother with new sandals on. It was a hot day, he likes his boots best, he put them on. He has sandals at home but doesn't like the way they feel. Grandmother takes him out with shorts and boots, thinks, it would be nice for him to wear sandals, buys him some, he comes home, takes them off and puts his boots back on. This has also happened with trainers, and with shoes where grandmother thinks, he's had that pair a while, they must be too small, I know, I'll get him some bigger ones, he comes home, takes them off, puts his boots on. I check the new shoes, they are too big, I put them in the cupboard for later.

Also every time his grandmother takes him somewhere interesting, say a different local park or child-friendly museum, it's ALWAYS the first time he's been there according to her. Every time he eats something she hasn't seen him eat before, whether it's kiwi fruit or risotto, it's the first time he's ever had it according to her. She doesn't think he spends all day in his room at home on bread and water but she obviously thinks his days with her are the best ones ever for him as clearly they are really important to her.

Now DH and I love her and trust her with DS so this is not a problem at all, DH and I joke about how DS walked for the first time aged 3 or whatever late time grandmother cottons on to him doing something he's been doing for ages!

On the other hand, I can see how a similar situation between exes might stir up feelings that each was not looking after the child the way the other thinks they should.

(Duplotogo -- my little neighbour wore a pair of frog wellies all last winter and well into spring. When she outgrew them she insisted on another pair, and has worn them so far all summer. She refuses to wear anything else.)

To each his own....

'Appropriate' is in the eye of the beholder where clothing and footwear are concerned, imo, which is why I would still like to know how someone 'ends up' buying stuff for a child every two weeks.