Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be fed up with my DPs greedy Ex?

339 replies

badhareday · 29/01/2015 08:16

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?

OP posts:
HowCanIMissYouIfYouWontGoAway · 29/01/2015 10:22

Well, if they were still together and he took a drop in income they would have to adjust accordingly so that's what she'll have to do now.

I am sure it doesn't feel nice for either of them. I am sure he wants to give all he can to pay his half for the children he created, but if he earns less, then the law recognises that and the csa or whatever they are called adjust the amount payable. I am sure she is only thinking of minimising further disruption to the children.

It's a shame that they can't agree on this. Threats and sulks are not helpful. Perhaps he should say to her ok, go through the csa then, that's fine. Perhaps it would be for the best. At least that is formal and everything recorded.

As for the handouts thing that someone said. pfft. Since when is paying for the children you created giving someone a handout? Your obligations as a parent to meet the needs of the life or lives you created don't end if you are no longer fucking the other parent. People have a duty to feed, house and clothe the children they make. BOTH parents. Not just one. Both. Nobody's doing anybody any favours by taking responsibility for their own children.

ghostyslovesheep · 29/01/2015 10:24

I am amazed you know so much about her income and out goings - you sound like such a helpful and supportive partner

I'd suggest you just butt out and leave him to it

and maybe stop slagging of his kids mother

pictish · 29/01/2015 10:25

OP - why has your dp taken a job with fewer hours and less money anyway?
You seem full of information about the ex, her work status, how that relates to the issue at hand and how she ought to resolve it, yet you're notably cagey about your dp and his situation.

WD41 · 29/01/2015 10:25

OP obviously we don't know the reasons as to why you don't receive maintenance, and whether you have pursued it or not, but pursuing it doesn't make one greedy. She sounds like the sensible one tbh.

Tinkerball · 29/01/2015 10:30

Wannabe OP never said her DPs ex earned £2500 from her part time job, what she actually said was income - and had already said his ex gets tax credits so I presume this us including this.

PeruvianFoodLover · 29/01/2015 10:31

But we don't know the mum's reaction - just that she is looking for proof on the reduced income.

The OP says the mum is threatening court if the amount of child maintenance is reduced.

Assuming that we believe the OP (and if we don't, then why pick that particular bit of the OP to disbelieve while accepting the rest of her post is true?) then this is not only a disproportionate response to being informed that the OPs DPs income (and therefore the maintenance he can pay) has reduced, it is also ill informed, because courts no longer rule on child maintenance in this way (I'm assuming the split is more than 12 months ago and there was no initial child maintenance order).

Of course, it may be that the mum is not intending to apply to court in relation to the CM payments, but is instead threatening to use the family court process in the only way available to her and that is to restrict the children's contact with their dad in response to the reduction in maintenance. It's really not clear WHAT the mum intends to apply to court for.

Tinkerball · 29/01/2015 10:33

theyroubleis it wasn't the OP who said ex was lucky to get any money at all - this was another poster!!!

TinLizzie · 29/01/2015 10:37

HowCanIMissYouIfYouWontGoAway - Well, if they were still together and he took a drop in income they would have to adjust accordingly so that's what she'll have to do now.

This. Being conveniently ignored!

BuggerLumpsAnnoyed · 29/01/2015 10:40

She gets paid £2500 a month and her morgage is £350 or less? And she only works part time? Bollocks. Doesn't sound like you get on so i can't believe she would tell you her income.

And i think its very imature to make the assumption that she wont let him have more access as she would get less money. She may not want to spend less time with her children. You wouldn't like it if one made the assumption that your dp only wants them more so he could pay less.

Basicallt, my personal opinions aside on how honest you've been with the figures (and i know theres every chance the ex earns that much) everybody tends to live to their means. So a sudden drop in income when you haven't seen proof yet would piss you off and you have to make sacrifises to to a choice your ex has made.

BuggerLumpsAnnoyed · 29/01/2015 10:42

howcanmissyouifyouwontgoaway
They are not still together though are they? His ex has a household to run with a small contribution from her ex. Her life has and always will be affected by a man she is no longer with. Its a silly point to make.

JeffVaderRunsTheDeathStar · 29/01/2015 10:44

If I had decided to continue with a pregnancy and the dad didn't want it, I would not harrass said father for money like I see a lot on here.

Tinkerball · 29/01/2015 10:46

As I said Bugger OP never said ex s wage was £2500, she said income and also that she received tax credits and other benefits. I know someone who gets £1000 a month tax credits because she only works 16 hours a week.

tarashill · 29/01/2015 10:46

I wish my daughter was as fortunate. Her ex dh pays her £5.50 a week for their daughter. He's a self employed joiner with a very lavish lifestyle but cooks the books with his accountant, the CSA or whatever you call them now accepts the lies and that's all he has to pay. She works herself but can barely afford to pay her bills. It's scandalous. I wish my daughters ex was like your dp.

HowCanIMissYouIfYouWontGoAway · 29/01/2015 10:57

I disagree.

Chunderella · 29/01/2015 11:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Nicknacky · 29/01/2015 11:03

jeff There is nothing to suggest the ex had these children against the wishes of the DP! So he pays for them like he should.

And I think it's wrong that posters are saying that because they receive so little then the woman should think herself lucky. If h and I split up then I know I would receive far more than 350 a month because h is a high earner and he would want his maintenance to reflect that.

TheChandler · 29/01/2015 11:06

£350 for two children is a bargain. You have kids - you should expect to pay for them, and in fact provide for them. He should be looking to get a better paid job so he can provide properly for his family, not just abandoning the one he's got with a few hundred a month because he has a new partner who wants him to spend his money on her.

tiggytape · 29/01/2015 11:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NickiFury · 29/01/2015 11:19

Jeff how is your last post in any way relevant to this situation? Confused

Not only that, it may seem obvious but I will point it out yet again. Sex is fundamentally actually for procreation and every time you do it there is a risk of pregnancy. Contraception allows us to make it a recreational activity (and thank goodness for that!) but it is no man's right to have sex as part of his night out, alongside his 8 pints and a kebab, without having to face the consequences of a possible subsequent pregnancy. I am disgusted by the view that a man's right to risk free sex and his whiny "but I never wanted a baby" is more important than a CHILD and it's need to be provided for.

But what about a termination I hear you cry. Every woman who becomes pregnant decides how to handle it because that is her right and if she decides to keep this child then you just have to suck it up because you were 50/50 in getting her there and what has happened is as a direct result of the choice you made to have sex.

BuggerLumpsAnnoyed · 29/01/2015 11:25

Eww jeff thats a pretty disgusting opinion. Aside from the fact that its irrelevant to this thread as it appears they were in a relationship and probably agreed to have the children.

BuggerLumpsAnnoyed · 29/01/2015 11:30

Ooops sent to soon. Anyway i think a man neesa to accept that whenever he has sex theres a chance of conception and therefore may have to support a child.

BuggerLumpsAnnoyed · 29/01/2015 11:33

Here here nickifury

grumbleina · 29/01/2015 11:40

Wow, sorry to butt in but I had no idea that £350 a month, even with some shared custody, was seen as a reasonable amount.

I mean I know a lot of people pay less, but in terms of being what's mandated or even seen as generous.

I only know a couple of people paying maintenance, they're not high earners, and only have one child but as far as I know they pay around £500 each per month and that always seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Makes having kids and walking out seem like a pretty appealing financial decision tbh.

polkadotsrock · 29/01/2015 11:46

Possibly a slight aside but is it generally accepted that the nrp is trapped in a job they hate because they should not pursue their happiness if it potentially lessens their financial contribution to their children? This just seems to be the accepted view here but it seems a bit unfair to me. We are generally supportive types who would agree that money isn't everything and you should do what you find fulfilling and would expect that from partners in relationships, do you lose that when you separate and then have to do what pays most? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning behind what others think because at first glance I don't see how it matters if he wilfully accepted a job that pays less or he was forced, and I definitely don't see why he should be trying to get a second job too.

ElsieMc · 29/01/2015 11:48

I think she has got used to this income and is panicking about adjusting to the cut. She is overreacting as evidenced by her over-reaction relating to Court. I would tell your DP not to worry - the courts no longer decide child support (generally) that is why the CSA/CMS was set up to separate contact from child support.

They will calculate the minimum amount due and that is what he should be paying.

Your dp has had a good attitude towards child support and it always gets to me when this is taken advantage of. I live with the other side of the coin as my gs's dad avoids child support every single month. The CSA have to go through the routine each time; two phone calls, a letter then an attempt to take a card payment. He has paid nothing for ten weeks recently and I have learnt (and been told by the csa) to NEVER rely completely upon CS.

My nephew is a young dad separated from his partner. He pays 205 per month against a csa calculation of just over100 per month and his former partner is also a threatener.

I think the only advice I can give is to let her do her worst. Do go to the CMS, he can make an arrangement with her, but let them calculate the amount. She could end up owing him and she needs to bear this in mind. If the matter was already set up through the CSA, then a new schedule would have been drawn up reflecting his change in circumstance, which could result in him having made an overpayment.