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?

Charley I agree wth you totally. I also think that the OP has picked up on bits and bobs of what he's said and doesn't have the full picture and people are expecting her to sit down and give a full account as if she has both their bank statements, mortgage details and a full 10 year financial history in front of them.

I don't necessarily think people who are disagreeing with her are wrong, I just think it's very much an emotive issue for a lot of people on here and as a result the OP may be getting a slightly tougher time than she really deserves.

The thing is, everyone can argue all sides of this scenario until the cows come home but there will never be a definitive conclusion because nobody, not even the OP, is in possession of all of the facts.

The ex's finances simply do not add up. And do I remember rightly that the DP received a solicitor's letter threatening court action over the drop in money? I can't really see a solicitor getting involved if the drop is in line with the income drop and adheres to CMS's rules. In my opinion, there's more to it than that.

And OP, that's not a dig at you. But it is very obvious both that you're too involved and that you don't have the full picture.

Can I ask why your DP cannot increase his hours "at this time". You're very open with the exes information incorrect seemingly but not very clear about that particular aspect of this situation?

I've just put the figures the OP has given into entitled to and it says that she would be getting about £2000 a month with her salary + tax credits etc.

BUT Universal Credit has been introduced in some areas and if she is in those areas the ex will be getting....£2500 a month.

The OP and her partner may well be telling the truth....

Thechandler, sorry I'm afraid you haven't got a fucking clue. I'm not sure what you were doing in a law firm, but I hope it wasn't giving legal advice.

I'm not sure why I'm explaining myself again, but obviously I wasn't clear. The Exe got a new mortgage in her sole name. Her family paid a large sum to redeem the original mortgage, she took a small mortgage for the remainder. DP retains an interest in the house, when it's sold he'll be paid the sum agreed. I've seen all the details for his current home when we were sorting out some paperwork so have no doubt it's his, subject to a mortgage.

As to his salary, he was relatively well paid before this recent issue. He has now lost a chunk of that, but is still on a decent salary by many people's standards, as should be obvious by the fact his csa assessed contribution is 350. His mortgage was of course given based on his previous earning levels. I know the job he does, and what he earns. I know others in similar roles and his earnings (or at least his previous, and now his pro rata earnings) are completely in line with that.

As for us buying a house, that's a couple of years away and his earnings may have increased again by then all being well. If not we'll buy somewhere that fits in better with what we can equally afford.

Knowing his finances seems no big deal to me. My father always told me never to trust a man who conceals his finances, is secretive about what he earns and where he spends his money. I consider that good advice to follow.

Thechandler, sorry I'm afraid you haven't got a fucking clue. I'm not sure what you were doing in a law firm, but I hope it wasn't giving legal advice.

I'm a solicitor. We all (usually) do family law in our training. The Law Society doesn't personally check with you whether you like us. HTH.

If you're going to swear and be abusive, maybe it would be best not to post on an internet forum asking for advice? Since people who disagree with your own version seem to cause you such uncontrollable rage.

I am sure you and your boyfriend are well suited.

And for goodness sake, find out what he is actually being taken to court for!

C'mon Chandler, the OP has been nothing but polite and measured in her responses up until now, and has had a fair amount of abuse from this thread.

And you do realise that people often threat with 'taking to court' as a way to get them to comply with what they want, don't you?

I think the numbers are irrelevant.
If the maintenance payments were decided based on a salary, and that salary drops then it is only right that maintenance is adjusted to be in line with the new salary.

If he lost his job and so had no income would she expect him to still pay it, because after all, it wouldn't be fair on the kids?

If she was married to him and his salary was decreased would she seriously expect it to not impact on the children?

The top and bottom of it is, the DC's father doesn't earn as much as he used to, the money just isn't there. So anybody who was looked after by that money will feel the pinch.

The ex will survive, the kids will survive, it's really not the end of the world.

"Polite and measured"

I could not disagree more. She's been defensive, obtuse and aggressive in places, refusing to acknowledge any point made that does not fit with her chosen narrative of poor hard done to DP (of one whole year) suffering with regards to his, greedy, selfish ex wife (with whom he shares children and presumably a whole life previously). She also seems unable to consider there being any validity in choices that are not in line with her own.

As for Chandler knowing about reasons people threaten court. Being a solicitor I imagine she knows an awful lot more than the majority contributing to this thread, including the OP.

'Polite and measured' is a laughable way of describing OP's words & behaviour on thread - am faintly that anyone could read same thread and reach that conclusion!

She has been bitchy and dissing of her BF's ExW from the get-go; disingenuous; refused to answer (repeatedly asked) uber valid Q's and generally ignored anything that doesn't fit her own view/agenda.

An easy (but frankly pretty yuk) EG is her recent ref to her BF's DC as 'empathetic and sensible' yet the immense juxtaposition between that and her previous assertion of: 'I've no idea about her parenting skills so couldn't comment one way or the other.'

Which is patently just bollocks given her own obs vis the children's qualities? Qualities that DON'T just miraculously appear on their own but rather are the consequence of pretty decent parenting yet OP would rather stick with her script vis the ExW than acknowledge that.

Find it really irritating TBH and just feel for the DC. Am bailing now as this notion of some new GF whinging about her new boyfriends (pretty paltry in real terms given the immense costs involved in raising and providing for children) maintenance towards his own kids and commenting on their DM in a pretty derogatory fashion is faintly nauseating.

C'mon Chandler, the OP has been nothing but polite and measured in her responses up until now

Perhaps Charley is jesting?

Ultimately if everything the OP says is true, I'm not sure why the DP is so stressed. He's worked out what he'd be required to pay under "the rules" so it's pretty unlikely, no matter what his ex says/does he'd have to pay anything over this. OP says he's still on a decent salary.

I wonder if the boyfriend deliberately cut his working hours so that he could pay less maintenance? Why can't he work full time?

I agree with PP that it is none of OPs business anyway. You do seem to be full of spite for the XW OP, it can't be good for your health you know.

I'd thought it fairly obvious why he was stressed, the repeated contact from his Exe demanding payments aren't reduced,the solicitors letter in similar terms and threatening a court application....when you're dealing with a fairly sizeable drop in income already, and the concerns that raises (and before anyone pipes up and points out his Exw income is reducing,yes hers is. But by 100 per month. The reduction in DP s salary is obviously a lot more). Even if you know you're in the right,the idea of having to go to court, especially when you can't afford legal representation, is pretty worrying.

I've already explained several times why he can't look for another job right now. And that the change in hours wasn't his choice.

I've already explained several times why he can't look for another job right now.

No you haven't.

You just keep stating variations on "He doesn't want to."

it speaks volumes when somebody knows more about someone else's finances than they do about their parenting. And while I don't disagree that it's a good thing to know about a partner's finances, the ex wife's finances are none of your business or for that matter any of her ex husband's business. And it doesn't add up that she would give him a breakdown of her income while at the same time threatening to take him to court.

There's also a vast difference between issuing threats and actually issuing a solicitors letter. As people have pointed out countless times, child maintanence isn't dealt with through the courts but through the CMS. So if she is issuing solicitors letters then there is more to this that your partner isn't telling you. It's not what he is telling you you need to be concerned with, it's what he isn't telling you.

And of course he can change jobs/hours if he wants to. no he may not be able to stay in the exact same job, and it may take longer to find a different job, but assuming he isn't the prime minister or similar which means that there is only one job in his field available he has the ability to move jobs if he wants to. Now he may not want to and that is his choice too. Equally the ex wife may not want to change her hours and that is her choice. If you have primary aged school children it's difficult to cover childcare costs or school absence if you're working full-time. Yes some people do it but most will say that it's bloody difficult and would choose not to if they could.

Was the level of maintenance set in the financial settlement for the divorce and done quite recently, it would explain how come he has such an accurate breakdown of the ex's income. It would also explain why he hasn't just turned round and told the ex where to go.

I've said there are health reasons which mean it's not a good time for him to move jobs. There aren't likely to be many jobs locally which pay more ft than he currently earns. He is on very good terms. The amount of his reduced payment backs that up! Moving away isn't an option. This is a drop of 100 a month. Yes it's unfortunate. But the financial impact on him is greater.

As to the letter, I've seen the contents and it's quite clear they will be opposing any request by him to pay less and applying to court etc if he changes his payments. Nothing in it to ask him for proof or anything. I note that some on this thread have said it's an empty threat because the courts can't or won't get involved. possibly true, but that's the letter that's been sent.

And again, there are no current childcare costs. Should exw choose to increase her hours, there will be no costs then either. She has DP to assist, and her family,as is the case now.

OP you keep saying that, but free childcare from family, doesn't mean she is at liberty to increase her hours at will and just presume on the goodwill of family members to make themselves available for drastically increased hours of gratis childcare

If anything, it makes increasing hours more awkward and delicate to navigate.

She has DP to assist, and her family,as is the case now

Her family have no obligation whatsoever to provide childcare. They may be happy to provide their current level of support. They may not be happy to provide additional support. She may feel unable to ask for additional support. She may have a deadline by which she has to find additional support that your DP is unaware of. What happens if the people helping with childcare get sick/get a job/no longer want to provide childcare?

As for DP, sorry, but there is no way on god's earth I would ever trust my ex to provide regular childcare for our children. It's entirely unworkable and in our case, would most certainly end up with me losing my job.

And in addition to all of that, you have no idea whatsoever if she is able to - as easy as 1-2-3 - up her hours in her current position.

And I am aware of cases where a judge has considered a maintenance payer has reduced their hours to reduce their maintenance liability and as such, has had the existing level maintained. I agree, however, unless he is a very high earner (more than £2000 a week?), the courts will not deal with child maintenance and will refer her to the CMS. Unless of course he has a Global Maintenance Order which is another thing entirely. Given you know the ins and outs of the ex's finances, it seems odd you seem to know so little about his.

badhareday, I don't necessarily think that is the case. Just because someone has free childcare for part time work doesn't mean the people who provide it will be able or willing to do the same for full time hours.

But having said that, when couples split you no longer have control over what the other person does. So yes, sometimes they may make decisions which you can no longer control, (or have those decisions forced on them) which mean that you are not getting the same amount of money and you can't do much about it.

This is why maintenance isn't taken into account when benefits and tax credits are taken into account, so that families aren't forced into unnecessary hardship if the amount of maintenance changes or isn't forthcoming. So you are right to a certain extent because the system already has protection built into it for circumstances like this and if his ex hasn't been sensible enough to plan accordingly then yes, it is to a certain extent her fault.

Also, you mention that she is making an issue of this at handover and that is unfair as she shouldn't be putting the children in a position where every time they see their parents together there is an argument over money. She could be finding a more appropriate way of doing this and the fact she's doing it in front of the children smacks to me of a certain amount of emotional blackmail as far as the money is concerned. And I suspect this is also because she knows that a court probably wouldn't do what she asks. Ditto the fact she knows your DP can't afford court and she can, I think she probably has a fairly good idea that she can intimidate your DP into paying more money than a court would award her and is deliberately trying to box him into a corner and frighten him into paying it precisely because she doesn't want your DH to take it to court.

Tell him to get advice from CAB or similar and tell him he'll see her in court.

I don't think it's fair for people to say he shouldn't be discussing this with you because people do discuss things with family, friends and new partners.

For what it's worth I don't think the OP has been particularly polite but I also think she's been very much attacked and that a lot of people seem to be projecting anger about their own situations onto the OP which I think is a bit unfair.

It sounds like he still has a fairly healthy income, especially if he currently has a mortgage of £1000 per month. I personally wouldn't be even remotely interested in a man that makes that kind of money, but when it drops a bit, chooses to reduce the amount of money he is paying to provide for his children. Surely there are other ways he can adjust his finances (presuming, of course, if he did her "accounts" previously that he is well versed in financial matters) so he could make the cuts in other areas of his budget. I'd not be best impressed with a man that says "oh well I cut the amount of money I was paying to provide for my children because CSA says I can...." Not a great catch IMO.

But that's just my opinion. Everyone has different standards.

Because my DP wanted my advice on what to do, because he was flummoxed by her stance given what she has til him of her finances and what he has seen previously.

of course, there's always the question of, if he did her accounts and presumably has knowledge of accounts so is reasonably financially savvy, why would he feel the need to ask the OP's opinion on all this? [confusing]

As for the "free child care"...that's just laughable, and barely even worth mentioning. You haven't even clarified exactly how she gets free childcare, much less acknowledged that just because her CURRENT level of childcare is free, that has no bearing on whether or not additional childcare would be free if she upped her hours. And regarding whether or not your "DP" could help with childcare, I assume you mean him actually taking care of the children, as opposed to helping pay for it, due to his financial situation. How is his ex supposed to work that? Do you honestly think workplaces will say "Gee, let us know when your ex is available for childcare and we'll give you THOSE hours?" Even if she did get hours during his time off (which would likely be difficult and put a lot of stress on her), then there's the concern over him cancelling, changing plans, taking holiday, or the invariable arguments over pickups and dropoffs. And then I imagine he'll say he needs to pay her less maintenance as he's "babysitting" them for her. (yeah, get out the popcorn for THAT argument on MN! )

I think you're spot on there Alice his income drops slightly and the first thing that goes is the child support. Nice. I think the ex wife knows only too well how he prioritises his financial obligations to his children and that's why she's raging about this and not letting it lie for "only £100".

If he's not doing anything sly there should be no reason whatsoever for dramatic sad face and stress should there? What he hasn't got she can't have and OP I think you'd be far better off telling him to get a grip of himself regarding this none issue rather than buying into his moaning about it.