To think I shouldn't be paying maintenance as well as DH?

[Mumoftwo88]

My DH has a daughter with his exW aged 8 and we have two children together aged 2 and 4. His exW claims maintenance from him and he pays it every month without fail at £250.00. She has recently just become unemployed and whilst I sympathise with her I cannot understand why she is now claiming that he should be paying more and if needs be it should be paid through my earnings. (Her words)

She seems to think that because our household has two incomes coming in then we are wadded. We're not. From my earnings I have the mortgage to pay, bills to pay for this household, a food shop to pay for, a car to run, and 3 children to provide for, including DSD when she stays here.

And I have a family holiday to pay for. I'd like to think we can have some luxuries without some woman trying to screw money out of me just because I happen to be the partner of her exH.

Now don't get me wrong I know it is important that DSD is provided for, but that is where my DH's maintenance payments come in and I make sure she is ok when she is here. At the end of the day I'm not some meal ticket to this woman.

Aibu?

This is a classic example of how to expect/demand makes someone appear horribly entitled. But a lot of what is wanted should be given freely in the first place.

Families - whatever type - work best when everyone works towards the same common goals rather than everything having to be negotiated with rigid fairness.

In this case, family includes the DSD and the OP, with the DSD taking precedence because she is a child and unable to control her own destiny. That may well be unfair on the OP, but that's something she needs to thrash out with her DH, not the DSDs mother, who is simply trying to look out for her own family unit.

Quite right dahlen,

I wouldn't accept a penny from my 13 months olds dad because he's in a low paying job but pays more than double what the csa would ask him to for his eldest child ( different mum) but its still a low figure and I think it would be hugely unfair for her financial support to reduce due to him paying me.

The csa would asses him as having to pay her £5 pw he actually pays £13.75 pw ( I know he pays this because when we were together and for about a year after I paid it)

If the csa became involved they would ask for £5 pw and split it between us both or with a private arangement he would not be able to maintain the £13.75 as well as paying me anything due to his income so her money would have to go down as he has nothing else to cut out expenditure wise.

'If she can't cope right now then the right thing to do is allow NRP to be RP until she's financially able to cope again'

What an absolutely 'fantastic' idea

Oh wait - let me just pack the kids up to move 90 miles away from their home and school and friends to live with ex and OW.

Oh double wait - hear that ? It's the sound of Ex and OW running for the hills at the thought of having to actually 'look after' the kids.

dahlen I agree that there are loads out there who do do the right thing. The 'entitlement' posters are those that rile not those who do right because it's the right thing to do. Hence should not would iyswim

£250 is more than ample for one hilds needs you ar husband is paying for his dauughter and that alone my dh pays for his dd i do not contribute why should i its not my child i have my own children to think about CSA DEMANDS 15% of a nrp income but takes inti account any other children so my husband pays 15% of 80% of his income taking into account our two boys fair enough i think

that would be on childs needs

fleecyslippers Don't see why, if geography and/or circumstances are favourable that a change of household shouldn't be a viable alternative to current RP just being paid more imho.

Contrary to 'popular' belief not all NRP are feckless wasters and not all NRP's wives/partners are OW or utter horrors.

that said, my ex and his new missus would also leave skid marks in the tarmac they'd be gone so fast

X2boys

No your husband pays 15% of 80% minus a 2 children deduction.

But that aside £250 being ample is very much dependant on the needs or accustomed lifestyle of the child.

Some of my children cost far more to maintain than my other children due to disabilities

250 is not ample if childcare is £1000 a month per child or school fees for 2 children are £2000 a month. It is all relative and depends on the family although no matter how poor your family is if the mother works full time 2 childcare places full time 8 - 6 are going to cost about £30k in London and £20k out of London which makes 250 a month absolutely pathetic.

Its also not ample if due to needs professional occasional overnight carers cost between £400 and £600 per night.or specialist equipment and clothing sets you back 4x or 5x what a none disabled child costs.

Its one of the reasons why a NRP can claim a additional reduction in payments if they have a resident disabled child ( but a pwc cannot apply for a increase if the child they are reciving payments for is disabled)

thats all very well xenia but as sheis now redundant she wont be needing the £1000 childcare and certainly cant afford school fees will she i think thats more or less what i said socks but if you are going to be arsey about semantics so be it good job i live in the northwest xenia where prices are far more sensible

I think that if childcare costs were factored into maintenance payments, we'd see a huge increase in the number of fathers going for residency.

THat may or may not be a good thing.

I apologise I misread your post I thought you meant the 20% automatic deduction was the two resident children thing.

apology accepted

Seriously? The RP in question gets free childcare from her mother, so overall costs would rise if the child changed to live with the NRP and this was no longer possible. Not to mention whether the best interests of the child would be served.

Anklebiter, if the NRP lost his (in this case) job or had to go on reduced hours etc, yes his payment would change as his income has changed. I also think if an RP was on here posting that they made money hand over fist but the NRP was struggling to pay CM, plenty of posters would suggest flexibility.

Dahlen, as I tend to know couples where both work full time and 4earn quite a bit is fairly common to share the childcare - eg a nanny and the children have a week with one parent and week with the other and use the same nanny or nursery and the parents split the cost. It is just about the biggeset cost of all children everywhere who are under 5 -either the total loss of the mother or father's wage or else the cost of full time childcare.

Xenia - tell me about it

At the end of the day it's about ensuring that a child doesn't go without.......If this child is going to not have the basics covered because of her mother's circumstances, then it's up to you and your DH as a family to ensure this doesn't happen.

The state already gives rather generous benefits to ensure that children do not go without the basics. Plenty of single parents raise their kids on benefits. If a child will go without when they will be getting full state benefits as well as £250 a month maintenance then I'd like to see where the mum is spending the money since something won't be adding up.

OP & her DH are not some sort of magic income protection policy who pay out according to the ex's income. They have no say in the ex's living costs so why should they fund the difference? They already pay what I would consider a decent amount of maintenance.

Those who think it's only fair because it's best for the child I suspect are not single parents or are/have been a stepmum. I suspect their tune would change quick sharp if they were in OP's shoes.

There is no fair about it. You are applying an ideal scenario where none exists. If life were fair, the child's parents would be still living together in blissful matrimony. But life sucks. That didn't happen and now the child has two homes. Her parents have two sets of bills to pay.

Personally I think 'fair' would be for OP & DH to offer to fund extras like school trips or uniforms but giving extra maintenance to offset the shortfall is a dangerous step which should be resisted.

I never recommend paying more or less than what the CSA think is correct. It just saves resentment and problems in the long run.

CSA though will not be appropriate in cases with school fees and full time childcare surely? One answer for fairness is that children live half the time with each parent so each is finding full time weekly childcare and paying for it or sacrificing their career and also doing half the washing, half the grunt work which goes with children.

Those who think it's only fair because it's best for the child I suspect are not single parents or are/have been a stepmum. I suspect their tune would change quick sharp if they were in OP's shoes. I am a single parent and I have been in a relationship where OH had a child so have been in both of the situations you are talking about.

So Kelly, so if you were still in the relationship you spoke of and his ex lost her job, you'd feel it was fair to raise the amount you paid by whatever was requested to make up any shortfall in her lifestyle?

And as a single parent do you feel it is your ex's moral obligation to give you as much maintenance as you need to fund the current lifestyle you and your child(ren) have?

The ex has lost her job.

There's no indication that there is anything extravagant about the ex's "current lifestyle". There's no indication that requests for additional help are a regular occurrence, or that she is refusing to look for work.

So why is it unreasonable for her to ask for help in circumstances where she might be struggling to maintain the child's standard of living?

If the NRP prefers to sit back and see their own children suffer hard times rather than offer help, that's a very sad situation.

niceguy - I have been in the OP's situation (I didn't have DC of my own at the time). I wouldn't say I agree with paying "whatever was requested" (although my then DH's X wasn't being unreasonable) and I wasn't altogether happy about it because we were struggling too, but I never thought an innocent child should suffer because it wasn't fair on me. I paid the maintenance out of my own income because H wasn't working. A little while later I realised that the main problem with this wasn't the child's need for money but my H's inability to hold down a job long enough to earn it. Like I say, the DH in this scenario is barely contributing to either his first family or his current one. That needs addressing far more than the 'greedy, money-grabbing' X.

And, FWIW, now I am a single parent myself, I receive no money from my DC's father. He refuses to pay and is self-employed. The onus would be on me to prove his income and to chase the completely ineffectual CSA which I would also have to pay for the privilege of using. Life's too short and I have learned to rely on my own earnings. That doesn't mean that it's fair. He should contribute, but I value my own serenity more than the principle so I got over it a long time ago.

Hang on, did I miss something? I thought he paid £250 each month without fail?

My point is that the child should not be 'suffering' anyway because we have a good benefits system in place. Yes, maybe they have to change their lifestyle to accomodate the loss of her job but that's life. Even in a traditional family set up, if one parent loses their job, the child's life would be impacted and there'd be no ex to act as an income protection insurance.

Dahlen, your last point is similar to the point I'm trying to make. It's not about what should happen. It's about what actually happens.

Niceguy

I am also a single parent and on top of that have spent 17 years as a step mum.

To this day I still pay maintainance and extras for 1 of my step children despite not being in a relationship with her dad for the last 8 years.

In my last relationship I personally paid maintainance for his older child,he did not live with me it was a casual relationship but he had fallen on hard times.

I have only ever recived maintainance for 1 of my children and never even requested it for the others the only reason I take it from that child's dad is because I gave him a house and a company that was and is still doing very well and he did everything he possibly could to try and fleece me and go back on everything we arranged and requesting a formal arrangement was the only way I could go about making him stop.