Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to want what he promised me?

27 replies

WelshCat · 29/06/2011 21:14

Ugh, EXP rant. Basically he denied DS was his for ages, then decided DS was his and wanted access. So I asked him for back-maintenance since DS was born 10 months ago (single mum, noooo money, expensive babies...) of £1100 (which could be more, as CSA calc says he should pay £41 a week). He agreed to this so he now sees DS 3/4 times a week. Yet he has not given me any money.
Its not all about the money, but it is a little. He keeps lying, he has offered it to me twice for bond on my flat, baby room furniture etc, but then when i said yeah I'll have it then, he said its stuck in an ISA and he cant touch it. So i am unamused and slightly pissed off. There is way more back story which involves him being pretty mean, but I wont go into it. I am mostly annoyed coz i trusted him and stuck to my end of the deal, but he is refusing to give me what he promised me. AIBU?

OP posts:
HelloKlitty · 29/06/2011 21:17

ISA's don't tie up money.... I have an ISA and I can take it out when I like!

fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 21:25

Well if it was me, I'd say no money = no access. He is either a parent or he isn't. A true parent doesn't get to cherry pick the good parts and leave the not so good parts, like paying for nappies etc. If he's not prepared to step up, then he is of no use to your child.

I'd then get the CSA to pursue him for the money owed.

lookbutdonttouch · 29/06/2011 21:27

I don't think yabu at all to want what he promised.

You shouldn't link money with contact with your ds however. Entirely unrelated. Go through CSA if its a problem? Tell him you are planning to? Might make him cough up...

Hassled · 29/06/2011 21:29

The family courts treat money and access as completely different issues, I gather. And they're right to - the bottom line is that your DS will be better off/happier long term if he has a half-decent relationship with his father. Which he won't have if he doesn't see him. So don't stop the access, but yes, keep at him re the money. Get the CSA on the case.

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 21:30

I dont think CSA chase back maintenance though, thats why when we decided to resolve it outside of court I asked him for it as a condition of contact. I am tempted to call them because he has paid the only two weeks of maintenance late and down a few quid. Which irritates me as I cannot rely on it then. My only concern is that if CSA contacted him he would deny DS is his again, which would anger me to the point of self destruction, and that is just not on! I can't force him to pay up, and I am very hesitant to stop contact, so I dont know what I can do!

OP posts:
Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 21:30

and HelloKlitty, thats what I thought!! He seems to be full of shit..

OP posts:
fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 21:39

I really don't see how your child can have a decent relationship with someone who a)denies he is the father in order to avoid financially supporting his baby and b)doesn't want to financially contribute.

I am not of the opinion that access should always be maintained, even if the father is a toxic waste of space. I would not want a man like this anywhere near my child.

If you cut off his access and he takes you to court, at least he wouldn't then be able to deny being your child's father.

Imho, you have to sort this before your child is old enough to have awareness of the situation

DogsBestFriend · 29/06/2011 21:41

If he's likely to deny that DS is his to avoid paying for your lad's upkeep I'd suggest that you get as much proof of his admission as possible before he gets a whiff of any CSA application. Can you email him about the money/seeing HIS son? Tape phone conversations? Get witnesses to his admission?

When I had to take my ex to a CSA tribunal (for refusal to pay rather than denial of paternity, ex DH was self employed and claiming to be a SAHD to his new partner and her child) the onus was very much on me to prove everything I was alleging about his income. The CSA, despite being given loads of info and opportunity and despite my MPs involvement and a successful complaint whereby they promised to use regulations in force which permitted them to investigate did all but sweet FA.

I won my case (bastard still never paid mind you!) but only on the strength of my own evidence. Obviously if it gets to that level in your case a DNA test will be ordered but I'm thinking here, although I may be wrong, that you might be able to avoid this lengthy, distressing process if you have enough alternative proof.

Might it be worth thinking about? Interested to hear other's views on it and apologies if I'm mistaken, I'm no expert just another lone mum whose been shafted by her ex.

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 21:49

karmabeliever, a large factor in my deciding to avoid court and just give in and let him see DS was that I knew DS would be so young that he wouldnt be horrible affected should EXP act like a prick again. I am (which is so very unlike me) so hesitant to cut off access so he cant accuse me of using DS to hurt him etc etc all that junk. I'd only do that if he really really messed up.

DogsBestFriend, I actually conduct most of my serious stuff with him via email so I have proof of what was said, I have one about this very thing that says 'I am happy to fulfil my obligation to DS and more, I could never turn my back on him now' which IMO is all the proof I need that he LIED!!! lol

OP posts:
hairylights · 29/06/2011 21:56

Yanbu.

However "access" and maintenance are separate issues. He us not your belonging and to prevent access would be to punish your child.

Why not just go to the CSA?

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 21:58

coz they wont chase back maintenance, and im more annoyed that he promised me it and now has decided i cant have it. obviously the money would be very useful, but its the deceit and lies that get me the most.

OP posts:
fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 22:06

hairy, it doesn't punish a child to keep a nasty person, who doesn't even want to admit he's the father in case it costs him money, out of a child's life. I take the view that it is doing a child a disservice to let these people into their lives. Children should be surrounded by people who genuinely love and care for them.

Obviously it is different to stop a child from seeing someone with whom they already have a good relationship, as a means of getting at that other person. That's not the case here.

Welshcat, obviously it's up to you what you do. I can see why you want to give your son the chance of a relationship with his dad.For me, the not paying child support is really messing up, because it's saying to a child "I don't care enough about you to support you" but that's just my opinion.

I do think you are giving your ex a little too much power over you because you are worrying about his perceptions of you and the accusations he might make. Your ex otoh is not worrying at all about you. Again, just my opinion.

I hope he does pay up, but I honestly don't think he's going to.

hairylights · 29/06/2011 22:14

Then our opinions are diametrically opposed, karma.

I would say it is imoortant that even if a parent doesn't financially contribute (which is far, far from ideal) it is very important that the other parent does not prevent a relationship.

Your opinion doesn't sound as Buddhist as your name might suggest.

Op : do you financially support your Dc, out of interest?

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:15

Thanks karma, I guess I just really fricking wanted it to work out this time! Its the second time he has been all over DS then rapidly changed his mind. He is so mean to me though when I bring it up, makes me feel like im begging for money that I have no right to.

Don't know what to do! Hes defo not seeing DS four times a week if he wont pay, he can see him twice or something. Just have to keep hassling him I guess!

OP posts:
MavisCruetTheFairy · 29/06/2011 22:15

IIRC the CSA won't chase back maintenance before the date that you apply to them, but will chase up any maintenance due from that date.

So your choices are
a) Don't apply to the CSA and continue to hope that he spontaneously starts coming up with not only ongoing maintenance but also the total back maintenance. Based on how well that strategy is going so far, and the fact that you have no enforceable order that you could use to compel him to pay if he doesn't feel like it. I can't see you ever getting any money out of him at all so you are likely to wind up raising your son to adulthood with no financial contribution from your ex.

b) Apply to the CSA now and accept that they are not going to chase up back maintenance for the last ten months. However, they will chase up maintenance for the next seventeen years and two months (or whatever it works out as), which is seventeen years and two months' more money than you stand a cat's chance in hell of getting if you stick with option a.

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:17

hairy what do you mean?

OP posts:
Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:18

Mavis, I am blinded by sheer hope I think. Can I apply to the CSA if he has paid, just late and not enough?

OP posts:
Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:18

And hairy I am trying my best not to prevent a relationship, I havent threatened him with no access.

OP posts:
fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 22:23

hairy, for me it's not so much the money, it's about the intention. A deliberate refusal to support your child, when you could do so, is giving a very negative message to a child, once they are old enough to understand. It really is telling a child that they are not valued. I think that's very damaging, so given the choice between seeing a parent who would give that message, or not, I'd choose for my child not to.

It's not about using the child to get at the other parent, just preventing the child from being hurt in the long run.

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:25

agreed :)

OP posts:
hairylights · 29/06/2011 22:28

Luckily, it's not about what one parent chooses for their child though, when it comes to "access".

Op if I were you I'd go to the CSA now, your dc may have lost out up til now, but you can sort out his maintenance from now on, at least.

Original poster
WelshCat · 29/06/2011 22:31

ok, but i am unsure as to whether i can contact them if he has started paying weekly, although late and less than we agreed.

OP posts:
fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 22:39

Well, hairy, who is in a better position to say what's best for the child than the person taking full responsibility for that child. Dipping in and out of a child's life and not sharing the load, makes a man a sperm donor and not a father imo.

The OP doesn't want to cut off access and that's her prerogative. However, hypothetically, if she did, I don't think this man cares enough to go to court for access, but again if he did, then at least he couldn't deny paternity.

The impression I get here is that he is using the baby as a means of messing with the OP. I just think this half in, half out thing isn't good long term.

fedupofnamechanging · 29/06/2011 22:42

I think you could contact them, because they will calculate an amount that they think is reasonable based on his income. What he is giving you on an ad hoc basis is probably nowhere near what he ought to be paying.

You need a definite, specific amount of money, so you can plan your own finances accordingly.

hairylights · 29/06/2011 22:55

But karma this man is now seeing his child four times a week! Ok he denied the child at first but since it's been proved he is his he has made the effort to see his son. Yes, it's far far from ideal that he is not contributing his share of the financial contribution on time and regularly, which is why the op should consider the CSA.

And actually there are times when the main cater does not make the best decisions for the child. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but to presume that main carers always make the best decisions for the child is dangerous.