to be fed up with my DPs greedy Ex?

[badhareday]

Am so bloody fed up with her, and the (unnecessary) stress she's putting on DP.

Basically DPs job has changed fairly recently, his hours have been cut and he's not earning anywhere near what he was when they agreed maintenance. So he's done the calculations through the csa (know it's not called that now but can't remember the new name, sorry) and told her what he'll now be able to pay.

She's had a complete hissy fit over it and said if he pays any less that what they agreed she'll take him to court, plus trying to lay a guilt trip on him about how the DC wont have as many nice things cos she wont be able to afford them, etc. And got a solicitor to write to him and threaten court too!

Its idiotic. I really don't get her attitude, where does she expect him to get the extra money from? He's still paying several hundred a month which is more than most. And yet she's not happy.

Am I missing something or is she every bit as unreasonable as she seems to be?

If my DP and I did ever split up, and he then met someone else, and then had some unresolved financial issue with me that he asked her about, which I had sent him emails or other correspondence about, it really wouldn't bother me if he discussed the content with his new gf, or showed that correspondence to her or anyone else, why on earth would it? I wouldn't be expecting any such document to be strictly confidential between us two, it's not a love letter for goodness sake. I'd expect in any situation that a person might seek advice from friend, family or new partner. That's human nature. I certainly wouldn't tie myself in knots worrying because his mate from the pub might know what I earn, so what?
I beg to differ. If you marry this man and produce a couple of children and he then moves on to another woman, produces documents to say he is 'flummoxed' about why you won't accept him paying you less in maintenance and the whole pub agreed with him, I think you would feel rather differently.

You might think that. Honestly I wouldn't give a shiny shit. It's not confidential, it wouldn't bother me. I am old and wise enough to know my own mind, I've had DC and split from their father, so I think I really would know how I'd feel and what I'd think. But thanks for being patronising enough to suggest otherwise.

I wouldn't be best impressed if my ex shared my financial information with anyone and I suspect I'm not in the minority.

To give you an idea on tax credits, my income is significantly lower than hers and I get roughly half of what you seem to think she does per month. Then child benefit.

tinkerbell I didn't mention an agreed amount with the csa in my post you referred to. I just said agreed maintanance, as it was an agreement between him and his ex. He is reducing that agreed amount due to a loss in income, in other words can't afford it. I've not gone back through the thread but I believe it's mentioned in the very first post.

If he can't afford it, he can't afford it, and as long as he gave his ex notice about the reduced income and is upfront then I'm not sure what the ex can do. But it doesn't make her greedy. I think that's why people are being hostile.

OP has mentioned the ex income several times despite it being irrelevant and I think that's why people are frustrated. It's private information, gotten by dp showing private correspondance between him and his ex, OP may not think it's confidential but everyone I know considers their own finances to be confidential, most people would and wouldn't be too happy with that info being shared with anyone other than the recipient of the correspondance.

When I think further I'd not be comfortable with correspondance on any topic being shared with third parties.

Sorry, OP, I just have to comment that you are soo in the wrong here and I speak as someone who didn't have the benefit of child maintenance payments when I was a single mother.

Firstly children cost way more than just the food and clothes that so many fathers seem to think.

Secondly the idea that the resident parent should work full time because she has free child-care, while the father who only has the child two days a week works part-time shows how little the quality of care of his children matters to the father.

'Alternatively please explain where I called the Exw a bad mother? You can't because I didn't say it. I've no idea about her parenting skills so couldn't comment one way or the other.

1: you have referred to her in terms that clearly imply your view; labelled her 'greedy'; and generally referred to her in a pretty derogatory fashion throughout your posts OP.

2: you are obviously able to have knowledge of her parenting skills as you spend time with children that she is the primary parent of - children you describe yourself as 'fond of?' I'm guessing you wouldn't be fond of them if they hadn't been raised pretty well as that would obviously be echoed in their behaviour?

For someone as intelligent as you (genuinely) seem to be, it beggars belief that you could write 'I've no idea about her parenting skills so couldn't comment either way' yet manifestly be in a position to actually know this simply from your own time spent with them.

Disingenuous; pretty over-invested in what really isn't your business; and nasty comments vis the DM your BF's DC seem to be running theme here, suspect that is why you're being challenged so much as opposed to 'oh dear, your poor BF...'

Why should it just be fathers who are expected to work ft though? Isn't that rather sexist?

In the current situation my DP had no choice but to accept a reduction in hours/pay. He is not in a position to look for another job at present or possibly for a while. He's happy to have the DC more if that would assist his Exw, but apparently it wouldn't.

His Exw is in an occupation where, should she wish to, she would easily be able to increase her hours. And luckily for her that would not involve any extra expense nor given that the DC are school age would she be deprived of much time with them. It's her choice whether she chooses to do so or not, but she does have that choice, to increase her income when faced with a situation where maintenance has dropped. In her situation rather than railing at the unfairness of the reduction and sending solicitors letters to try and coerce DP into paying more, I'd be looking at ways I might increase my own income.

If they were together still and he lost/changed jobs she'd have to weather it and make cuts accordingly. They are not together, he has changed jobs, why is it different? He's not trying to get out of paying, but his circs have changed. Why should they not both compromise?

I think you've had a rough ride on this thread OP. I also think there's nothing you could say to come out the winner here.

If you don't know the sums involved, you obviously shouldn't be forming opinions. If you do know them, then a) they must be wrong and b) you shouldn't know them in the first place.

Its different because they are not together anymore.

If they were together then dh would have told his dw about his upcoming reductions in hours and then they can have discussions and make plans for the future and ways of keeping the impact on their dc to a minimum together. That isn't done in most cases once a couple seperate. The RP often doesn't find out until the payment they were expecting doesn't show, or isn't told until last minute and can totally fuck a budget up. (Not sure if the DP just sprung it on Mum in this case or told her once he knew)

It's the same when people say about new babies in second marriages, I've read so many times on here "if they were together there would be less to spend on existing children" which is absolutey true but again, the one having to have income cut would have been part of that decision and talked about how it would impact their future. It's totally different and not as simple as that.

I think the OP has had a really hard time and people have picked and chosen bits of what she has said and attacked her with them.
Maybe she has got the finances wrong or been lied to, rather than lying herself on the thread.
She has said that her DP has offered to have the DCs on more nights, but that the ex doesn't want this. This would affect lots of factors e.g. Maintenance, childcare.
Anyway who knows!!!

It's not generally in the best interest of children to be shipped about, particularly if the aim is to reduce their NRP's financial liability.

And the children should be the priority. Which the OP seems to have overlooked.

I've been a single parent and worked full time with young DC. It's not impossible.

I don't agree he'd be paying more if they were together. One household is much cheaper than 2, obviously. He's now paying a lot more for a mortgage than when he was married (well over double), plus all bills etc -which benefits his DC 2 days a week when with him. And paying maintenance in addition. And of course the maintenance should, as I think someone said upthread, only cover 50% of the 5 days a week the DC are with their mother.

In the current situation my DP had no choice but to accept a reduction in hours/pay. He is not in a position to look for another job at present or possibly for a while. He's happy to have the DC more if that would assist his Exw, but apparently it wouldn't.

His Exw is in an occupation where, should she wish to, she would easily be able to increase her hours.

OP - why would it be so much easier for everyone else in the world, including all women with children, according to you, to increase their hours at work to full time, than your boyfriend? Why are you buying into these stories he tells you?

£350 a month is almost nothing for two children. They are his children for goodness sake! If I were one of those children, and had any inkling now or later in life, that my own father could only be bothered working part time and grudged spending money on me so he could shack up with a new girlfriend, I'd be really sad. It would affect me for life. Its bad enough when a family breaks apart, never mind your own father treating you as an annoying and expensive appendage.

Re children being the priority, I think it benefits children to spend as close to equal time as possible with each parent.

However I appreciate that some parents (male and female) have their own agendas/axes to grind by opposing such a stance...despite it seeming to favour children more than the idea of seeing a parent only on alternate weekends etc.

At no point does the OP say her partner "grudges" paying money, people are reading what they want to see.

Do your children spend 50% of their time with their dad?

Let her go to CM then, they will base it on his earnings, if he's earning less she'll get less.

Don't engage with her, call her bluff and see what she does.

He can't materialise the money if he isn't earning it!

Ah, thechandler, there you are again making up facts to suit yourself. I explained quite clearly upthread that there were valid reasons why my DP is not able to seek another job at present. I also pointed out that even if he could look, he mightn't find anything better paid than his current job, even with loss of hours. Knowing his children as I do, they are sufficiently sensible and empathetic to appreciate that it's far easier for someone in a secure role to increase their hours (given that's an available option) than another pin all their hopes on getting a better job which they're not in a physical/ mental state to apply for, and which may not even exist locally (and moving to another area is out of the question for DP because of maintaining his relationship with the DC,which he couldn't hundreds of miles away). So I've no concerns over his DC.

Hope that's cleared that up.

However I still expect to be told I'm stupid, gullible, etc and various other stock phrases from the all divorced men are in the wrong almanac...!

Tyzer85 TheChandler oh do get a grip, you can tell that from a few posts?
Used to work in family law, you get an instinct for it. You would not believe the lies some men (and a few women) come out with and then you see the opposite written down on paper. It makes you very cynical.

Indeed as his mortgage now is about 1000 a month he will be no worse off when we live together

Indeed as his mortgage now is about 1000 a month he will be no worse off when we live together, in fact possibly better off if our mortgage payment is less than 2000.

His share has been agreed formally at a figure but wont be paid until house is sold in some years. He's not on the mortgage, this is in his exW sole name now.

So he would have had to buy her out, how did he finance half the cost of the matrimonial home plus another house which has a £1000 per month mortgage?

How on earth can a man who is working part-time afford a £1000 per month mortgage anyway? Are you sure he isn't being taken to court by his ex for something to do with ownership of the matrimonial home? And how would he be in a position to buy a property jointly with you, unless subsidised heavily by you, with only part-time hours? It must be the best paid part-time job on earth!

Seriously OP, are you not concerned about all these "facts" he is presenting you with that don't quite add up? The house purchase plans, the reason for being taken to court, the income of the ex...

And its not a good thing to be so involved with a newish boyfriend's finances to such a great degree. Different if you've been together a few years and are living together, but all this personal info...not a good sign. Imagine if he talked about you in the same way to a new girlfriend if you split up.

OP, you have probably picked the absolute worst place to ask this question. If you wanted to find a place where your question was likely to hit a raw nerve then you have picked the right place. But if you wanted to have a discussion about this without other people getting very emotive about it then I would have tried a forum other than Mumsnet. I'm not being nasty saying that and I don't want you to feel unwelcome but sometimes there are questions where you're really not going to get an objective answer and this is one of them.

My DCs father has never been able to have them 50/50 for various reasons (work, unsuitable living accommodation, etc). It was always an option as far as I was concerned, but not one he was able to accommodate.