Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is DP BU to cancel maintenance payments to ex...

234 replies

missymarmite · 15/01/2014 20:06

If he gets fined for her taking their 2 kids out of school for a weeks holiday with her partner.

It would only be until his share of the fine has been paid off. This is in light of the recent court case where a couple got taken to court and have to pay nearly a grand for taking their kids out on holiday. Apparently each parent is liable, even non-resident ones who have done nothing wrong! Why should our family suffer for HER holiday!

OP posts:
perfectstorm · 16/01/2014 19:57

Why would the children even know about the intricacies of their mother getting their father fined and him recouping the money from her?

That's not the kind of stuff children should know about.

Obviously. But I'm afraid it's a fantasy world if you think kids never know about this sort of thing. They do, and it damages them. Saying "well, the RP/NRP shouldn't tell them" is true, but shoulda woulda coulda. The fact is, they frequently do. Only the OP can know if this particular mother would or wouldn't, but quite frankly someone willing to expose their ex to a fine so she can take the kids out of school to obtain a cheaper holiday is already behind the curve in terms of respect for others, as far as I can see.

BoneyBackJefferson · 16/01/2014 20:01

On the other hand, if they have the temerity to vote with their feet in this regard, they are quite literally criminalised.

Parents have choices of where to educate their children. No where does it say that children have to attend school.

and the situation between teachers striking and parents going on a term time jolly with their children is not comparable.

BoneyBackJefferson · 16/01/2014 20:05

I should also point out that I was away from my class for an entire day, I went on a training course, the children where left work that was linked to their course and the "cover supervisor" is an ex teacher who taught the subject that they cover.

My absence for the day will benefit those children as I now know more about the changes to the course than I did than before I went. My absence is in no way comparable to parents taking a children on a holiday.

jenniferlawrence · 16/01/2014 20:10

YANBU. She should pay the fine if she is taking the out of school. If she won't pay him back for the fine your DH should take it out of her maintenance payment.

The children won't starve as a result. I'm sure their Mum won't give them less food because if a reduced maintenance.

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:14

That's fucked up. A residentstep parentbeing fined? Won't be long before the non resident ones are as well!I'm gobsmacked. I really am. Surely step parents are nothing to do with their stepchildren's education if they have no parental rights

Well according to this thread, all a resident step parent has to do is write a letter to the relevant authorities before the holiday and they will not be fined. Therefore saving themselves £120. Which will make the decision to disrupt the childrens education a good idea financially.

Wallison · 16/01/2014 20:18

Does that £120 go to the children or to the adult responsible for their welfare? No? In that case YABU. But then you knew that anyway.

Incidentally, £120 a month for the support of two children is fuck all. But again, I suspect you knew that anyway.

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:22

but quite frankly someone willing to expose their ex to a fine so she can take the kids out of school to obtain a cheaper holiday is already behind the curve in terms of respect for others, as far as I can see.

EXACTLY

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:32

Incidentally, £120 a month for the support of two children is fuck all. But again, I suspect you knew that anyway.

In this case, 1 of the 3 children live with OP's DP, so he should be recieving CM for that child from his ex. So in reality the £120 per month is for one child not two.

Irrelevant anyway because if your household income is only £1000 per month, then £120 per month is definitely not "fuck all".

Wallison · 16/01/2014 20:35

£120 is not enough. The guy shouldn't have had other kids if he couldn't afford to honour his existing commitments.

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:37

I know of cases where £120 is "fuck all" to the PWC who has a house hold income of £10, 000 per month
But is the difference between eating and not eating for the NRP's family when they only have an income of £1000 per month.

Wallison · 16/01/2014 20:40

Boo hoo.

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:42

Wallison - £120 is not enough. The guy shouldn't have had other kids if he couldn't afford to honour his existing commitments

Are you "benefit bashing"? You should know that you are not allowed to do that on MN. Grin

redshifter · 16/01/2014 20:53

if both people have partners then both houses have 2 incomes. The RP is shouldering most of the financial responsibility for the child. The NRP has less.So if one couple can afford to ttc and the other couple can't it isn't solely down to them being an NRP

In the case I was refering to, both couples have a net income of £21, 000 (which is about the national median, I think) but after CM, one couple has £16800 while the other couple has £25200.
A difference of £8400.
Surely a difference of £8400 per year can effect the choice of having another child or not?

tudorqueen · 16/01/2014 21:05

So, what if an accident happened and a woman becomes pregnant. What do you suggest? A means test to see if they can afford another child followed by an abortion if not?

FFS

redshifter · 16/01/2014 21:23

tudorqueen - exactly.

Some people on MN strongly support a womans right to choose whether they have a child or not even if they are on benefits and can't afford it. But if you are a hard working woman married to a man who has children already, you shouldn't have that choice because he has to support his ex's lifestyle choices.

And they think if you feel upset about that, then you need psychotherapy.

FFS

GoshAnneGorilla · 16/01/2014 21:40

Financially providing for your children =/= supporting your ex's lifestyle choices. Can you not see the difference?

needaholidaynow · 16/01/2014 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fifi669 · 16/01/2014 22:01

£120 for a months maintenance, I wish! Ex is supposed to pay £7pw! (And I don't even get that)

Maleeka · 16/01/2014 22:24

Wallison, if you had taken the trouble to read the thread you would know that the OP's other half didnt have other kids with her. He has 3 of which 1 lives with him, and his new partner has a child. They are a blended family.

I agree with the OP and dont see why her partner should have to pay the fine. I am a NRP and if my ex took our kids out of school there is no way in hell that i would pay the fine! I think is a very unfair change in the law that NRP have no control over!

Original poster
missymarmite · 17/01/2014 06:04

Allthingsfluffy asked why the eldest dSD isn't going.

We had to make the very difficult decision that she couldn't go with her sisters. Firstly because she is at secondary and it would be detrimental to her education. And secondly because of the fine. We are also trying to save up to send her on a school trip abroad in the summer (it will be the first time she has travelled abroad), so we kind of sold it to her like that IYSWIM, although she was upset, understandably, especially as we could never afford even a camping holiday in the UK.

OP posts:
sashh · 17/01/2014 08:34

It's wrong for you , your dh and dc to suffer because of the exwife, but if that's wrong then surely it is wrong for the 2 children who live with the ex to be punished for something they have no control over either.

This should not be about money it should be about the children.

I would have much more sympathy for you and your dh if you were concerned about the children missing a week's education, not £120.

You have been told what to so, write tot he school.

If your dh doesn't do this then he is not doing anything to stop the holiday/change the situation and yes he should be fined. He is a parent.

They did this last year and neither of you seem to be bothered, suddenly it might cost you some money and you are bothered, but about the money not the children. He was a parent last year, why didn't he say or do anything then? Wasn't he bothered?

BloominNora · 17/01/2014 09:03

Wallison The 'guy' didn't have any more children. He has 3 with his ex, one of whom lives with him so he is paying £120 a month for 1 child. He does not have any children with the OP.

May be worth actually reading the thread before spilling your judgmental bile all over it eh?

BloominNora · 17/01/2014 09:03

Wallison The 'guy' didn't have any more children. He has 3 with his ex, one of whom lives with him so he is paying £120 a month for 1 child. He does not have any children with the OP.

May be worth actually reading the thread before spilling your judgmental bile all over it eh?

DrCoconut · 17/01/2014 09:34

Anyone saying £120 is an insignificant sum can always send me a cheque! Grin It's totally reasonable to deduct costs run up by the other party from money you give them. Why should someone be fined for something they didn't even do? Would you accept someone incurring say a traffic fine and billing it to their ex?

Wallison · 17/01/2014 09:39

No. He's paying it for 2 children. Which works out at £15 a week per child. And why is 'guy' in inverted commas? Is he really a woman?