Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

To think DH's ex wife is taking the piss regarding maintenance?

183 replies

StickyBlisteredShitHole · 15/09/2011 17:02

DH gives his ex wife £150 a month maintanance for their 2 DCs. Just lately she's been asking for him to contribute to this, that and everything else despite the fact that she's got the maintanance. Last night she got her DS to text DH asking him to contribute towards a school trip abroad and now today she's sending him a message asking him to contribute towards a school trip for their other son. Despite this she's booked a holiday abroad for next summer hols and no doubt we'll be expected to contribute towards that too despite the fact that we, as a family can't afford to go anywhere!
AIBU to think she's taking the piss?

OP posts:

TheCrackFox · 15/09/2011 17:16

Does he only work part-time? if he has 2 families to support he needs to get a full time job?

SansaLannister · 15/09/2011 17:16

Tough. She can go back to the CSA and they'll probably make him pay even more.

Who cares about how you live? That's your problem when you married a low-earner who already had kids and then chose to have more with him.

If you don't like it, you can work more hours. So can he.

slavetofilofax · 15/09/2011 17:16

YABVVU.

My ex earns slightly more than minimum wage and gives me £200 a month for two children, and he gives me half of the expensive school trips, extra curricular clubs, uniform etc.

Because it would be impossible for me to provide adequately for two children on my part time term time minimum wage income and his measly £25 per week per child.

To right he should pay, and if he can't afford for his children to go on school trips then he shouldn't have had another, and you shouldn't have enabled him to.

His ex hasn't asked for anything towards their family holiday, yet you are holding against her the fact that she might. You sound vile.

MrsSleepy · 15/09/2011 17:16

So what is his take home pay? Are you working?

oldraver · 15/09/2011 17:17

Sorry I think that should of been £750

SansaLannister · 15/09/2011 17:17

I really think these people who go round creating children, then ditch them and try to get out of paying a fair share should be brought to book, tbh.

Maybe they'd think twice about having kids with every partner they get with.

porcamiseria · 15/09/2011 17:17

you are talking SHITE
he pays our average weekly shopping bill

troll

LaurieFairyCake · 15/09/2011 17:18

He can't be working full time on that salary. That's ridiculous.

picnicbasketcase · 15/09/2011 17:18

I hate these threads. Why does everyone always take the stance that the first children should get treated better than subsequent ones? Of course I agree that his children with the ex have to be properly provided for but everyone else seems to be saying that the OP's child should go without in order to do it. How is that fair?

If this has gone through the CSA and they've worked out how much he can afford to pay and he's doing it, he doesn't deserve all this vitriol. If he could afford to pay more than that, the CSA would have calculated it and he'd be paying more, surely.

nailak · 15/09/2011 17:18

erm how do you know he wasnt in a better job previously when they had another child but made redundant or something?

BaronessOrczy · 15/09/2011 17:19

What everyone else said.

Oh, and sort your attitude out. You sound the very opposite of delightful.

nickelbabe · 15/09/2011 17:20

if he's working full-time, then it's 15% of his wages.

slavetofilofax · 15/09/2011 17:20

but she's obviously living beyond her means and expecting us to fund it.

And you don't think that's what you were doing when you chose to have your child?

She is expecting her childrens Father to pay half of their school trips! She shouldn't even have to ask! If he was a decent Dad, she wouldn't.

SansaLannister · 15/09/2011 17:21

'Why does everyone always take the stance that the first children should get treated better than subsequent ones?'

Because a person shouldn't go getting more than they can afford.

If their maintenance of their first children means they can't have further without that one going with less, then they shouldn't have any more kids.

And if that means their new bird can't, she can either get a better-paying job or move on and find someone else to procreate with.

LoveInAColdClimate · 15/09/2011 17:21

I think the problem here, OP, is that your charming-sounding husband needs to stop going around impregnanting people then running away from the consequences. His poor ex-wife and children.

SansaLannister · 15/09/2011 17:22

'erm how do you know he wasnt in a better job previously when they had another child but made redundant or something?'

Not his first two kids' problem. He's paying what he's been told to pay and it's reasonable to expect him to pay half for school trips and the like.

nickelbabe · 15/09/2011 17:22

(i worked out my calculation based on minimum wage of 21 and up, £5.92, working 37.5 hours a week, and being paid for holidays - works out about £962 a month)

if the CSA ask for 20%, then that would be £192 a month.

harassedandherbug · 15/09/2011 17:22

Blimey! We pay a similar amount for dbd.....one child. And have another to support (soon to be two). According to CSA calculator we could pay less, but honestly it's not something either of us would feel comfortable doing. We've never been asked to pay towards trips but do get her hair cut, buy her odd things, top up her phone sometimes and pay for an internet dongle.

How she spends her money isn't any concern of yours I'm afraid. Plus having a dd in year 1 and two ds's who've both finished school, school trips cost and there's always something extra to pay for. Considering the amount of maintenance she's receiving I'm not surprised she's asking for extra help.

Kids cost more as they get older too........

I predict this will get messy!

Original poster

StickyBlisteredShitHole · 15/09/2011 17:22

He's on £13k but there are two children living in our house too. The CSA worked out the amount in 2003 so maybe it should have increased since then.

OP posts:

Lulumama · 15/09/2011 17:23

i don't think it's about treating one set of children better than the other, but not penalising hte first wife's children due to bitterness

he had two children, it takes more than £150 a month to raise them

and re the CSA , there are plenty of threads on how bad it is, how things are miscalculated, how easy it is to mislead them etc so not necessarily the right amount here either

itisnearlysummer · 15/09/2011 17:23

You should have thought about that before you had kids with a man who already has a family and earns minimum wage.

Read this again!

The phrase 'tough titties' comes to mind.

Why does everyone always take the stance that the first children should get treated better than subsequent ones?

Because the subsequent children are already benefiting by having their dad around and living with them and in their lives giving a shit on a daily basis. The OP's child isn't going without in that respect. And the first wife/partner often had to fight for her ex to not treat her children like a Playstation 2 when the Playstation 3 came out.

nickelbabe · 15/09/2011 17:23

yes, I would agree that it should have been increased by then.
You should inform them whenever your circumstances change - which includes pay rises.

OddBoots · 15/09/2011 17:24

Wouldn't your dh rather the mother of his children asked to see if between them they could afford school trips than just say no to the children without asking? If it isn't affordable to you then it is fair enough to say so but I do't see what is wrong with asking.

LoveInAColdClimate · 15/09/2011 17:24

'Why does everyone always take the stance that the first children should get treated better than subsequent ones?'

Because a person shouldn't go getting more than they can afford.

If their maintenance of their first children means they can't have further without that one going with less, then they shouldn't have any more kids.

Agreed, SansaLannister.

Lulumama · 15/09/2011 17:24

in 8 years he has never increased what mainatinance he pays!! whilst the cost of living has gone up and up and up

you can't be for real

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8