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 not want dh to give ex more money

158 replies

Bebo1980 · 27/09/2011 20:14

My dh has a daughter with an ex, they currently have an amicable relationship although it hasn't always been so. We have his daughter frequently, take her on family holidays, she has her own bedroom/clothes at our house etc etc. My dh used to give his ex money informally until several years ago she involved CSA and actually ended up receiving less money than she was originally. Since then my dh has been very conscientious in sending pay checks in voluntarily and making sure he is making the correct payments. What I am trying to say is that he wants to support his daughter and is in no way a 'deadbeat dad'.
When he dropped his daughter off yesterday his ex mentioned that she had started taking her to ballet classes and 'is he going to contribute to half?'. The money is not a massive amount (although I've recently gone back to work full time after having a baby and we are in no way loaded!). The problem is the principle. Is CSA meant to just cover basic living amounts or does it include extras?is she going to continue to ask for more contributions? In my view she took him to csa to ensure she received an adequate amount of money a month and now she wants more.Don't get me wrong I believe that she is entitled to the money she receives but how far should this go and is it worth rocking the boat by saying no?

OP posts:
CristinadellaPizza · 27/09/2011 20:49

'The amount taken off him'? No, the amount he has to pay as a reasonable proportion of his income to raise his daughter.

8% isn't a huge amount. You both have to cut your cloth given that he has another child.

Original poster
Bebo1980 · 27/09/2011 20:52

At the time his ex took him to the csa without speaking to him in some attempt to 'punish him' for going through solicitors to try and gain more access to his child. We were paying more than £200 a letter in order to try and see her and this went on for over a year. So at the time no he wasn't very concerned about over contributing, we were more concerned about paying legal fees.
I take on board what people have said about paying for the lessons i just believe that things should have been agreed 1st

OP posts:
RedHelenB · 27/09/2011 20:53

I'm sure you discussed the financial implications on his first child of you having your own baby with his ex or was it presented as a fait accompli???!!!

AQ few quid for ballet lessons can surely be found, remember the CSA calculation is the MINIMUM he has to pay.

AuntiePickleBottom · 27/09/2011 20:55

How I see it is that the mum has the same costs as you but she hasn't got the full financial support of another person in the home

SexualHarrassmentPandaPop · 27/09/2011 20:57

So your dh basically charged his daughter his legal fees to piss off her mum...nice Hmm

LineRunner · 27/09/2011 20:59

Bebo, anyone can take a basic contact order request to the family court and represent themselves for the admin fee.

FontSnob · 27/09/2011 21:04

So your dh basically charged his daughter his legal fees to piss off her mum...nice

Eh???? How do you come to this opinion?

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:05

Bebo I think that if the child's mother wants her daughter to attend ballet classes, and if she genuinely can't afford it, then she should first consult with the child's other parent to see if they can jointly afford it.

However, in initiating payment of maintenance through the csa when higher voluntary payments were being made, she made the choice to request lower payments imo, and any adult making such a decision should ensure that works best financially for the child. She can't now just suddenly just decide that she wants to do x, y and z for the child when it's not affordable. Your DH should have been involved in the decision if he was to be expected to contribute.

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:07

Fontsnob I was wondering the same thing. When an NRP spends money on gaining access to his child he's "charging his daughter". Presumably if the child's mother had willingly granted access then a court order would not have been necessary. The child's mother is an adult, and can surely work out that the more money the NRP is forced to pay on legal fees, the less disposable income he will then have for the child. It's not a difficult concept.

Original poster
Bebo1980 · 27/09/2011 21:07

No he didn't take it out on his daughter actually, he continued to pay the mortgage until an agreement was reached as well as support money for her. Then we had to find legal fees on top. A basic contact order was not what was required by the way, he had contact but it was 3 hours a week in her house which we believed to be unreasonable.
I do appreciate the reasonable opinions on here from people but believe others are looking for the negative in everything i am saying. We do pay the csa amount but we also pay for activities and things on top of this however we will look at it further

OP posts:
StrandedBear · 27/09/2011 21:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:16

Stranded - that story you just cited about the sporadic and half payments the OP's partner was making - did I miss a post or did you just completely make that up??

The OP's partner's payments were reduced because his ex wanted to go to the csa to punish him for the court action. This is actually very common, trying to punish NRPs for having the audacity for wanting to see more of their own children. If the ex wanted the amount the csa would collect, then she can hardly complain now that it's not enough. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

FabbyChic · 27/09/2011 21:17

If the mother wants the daughter to go to ballet lessons she should pay.

She cut off her nose to spite her face thinking she would get more but she didn't it is now her fault.

The money your partner gives covers everything, he should not pay anymore, if I was him I would say, you should have stuck to our agreement you chose not to so you get only what the CSA states I should pay and that is it.

If she wants to take her places, send her to ballet she should either work, or get a better job to provide for these things she wants paying for.

I hate materialistic mothers.

wantstosleepnow · 27/09/2011 21:17

You should leave this thread OP, most people won't even try and see your point or listen to the facts.

YANBU, of course it should have been discussed, it should not be expected that you pay half automatically.

lifechanger · 27/09/2011 21:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StrandedBear · 27/09/2011 21:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:20

lifechanger - anyone wanting things they can't afford is living beyond their means. She decided that her 'means' needed to include CSA, rather than voluntary payments. She is an adult and had a choice to make. And yes, making decisions on your financial position and then wanting to live beyond that is materialistic.

squeakytoy · 27/09/2011 21:20

I would disagree Fabby. Ballet is an extra treat, not a basic need. Why should only one parent be the person who has to pay. They should go halves at the very least. They are both equal.

StrandedBear · 27/09/2011 21:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SexualHarrassmentPandaPop · 27/09/2011 21:21

It might seem reasonable to say that the ex shouldn't have gone through the csa so it's her look out that the payments are now less. But the money isn't for her is it? It's for his daughter who would have had no say in what her mum did. If her mum has less coming in it is the Op's ex's daughter who is going to be missing out on stuff.

HappyMummyOfOne · 27/09/2011 21:21

I think it depends on how much the CSA payment is. If the ex matches it and adds on the CB/CTC that she gets and it doesnt cover the childs costs (rent/heat etc still has to be paid by the ex and NRP so shouldnt count) then he should pay a little extra. If it more than covers a childs monthly cist, then its voluntary if you can afford it.

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:21

yes stranded, but on the flip side it meant less money. The ex decided to make that trade-off. It was her choice.

malakadoush · 27/09/2011 21:22

Hi Bebo I know what you mean, we are in a similar situation. We have my DSD 50% of the time and we pay an amount calculated by the CSA (we actually pay more than we should as we have never gone back to be recalculated when access arrangments changed) DH's ex wife claims the child allowance and gets some tax credits but she still expects us to pay 50% of any additional expense for her. DSD has her own room, own clothes, we pay her pocket money, half bus fares lunch money etc, take her on holiday, pay for her phone. But absolutely anything outside of normal eating etc ex expects us to pay 50%. it's like she doesn't think she has any financial responsiblity and it is all ours - bear in mind that at the start of each month the ex is around £500 up through having DSD, whilst we are almost £300 down before we even start to pay for all the things I have listed. I can totally understand how you feel.

SexualHarrassmentPandaPop · 27/09/2011 21:22

Not the op's ex but ykwim.

allnewtaketwo · 27/09/2011 21:24

"missing out". If a child's parents can't afford ballet lessons, then they can't go, end of. I'm sure each and every little girl whose parents feel they can't afford to send them to ballet lessons isn't actually "missing out" Hmm. Was I missing out as a child because my parents couldn't afford tennis lessons? Yet just because this child's father is an NRP, "affording it" doesn't come into the equation. He is automatically "unreasonable"