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

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:
CupidStuntSurvivor · 29/01/2015 13:42

Here's the thing...If the RP takes a pay cut, it doesn't cost them any less to ensure their children's basic needs are met. But it does cost a NRP less if their pay gets cut. The fact is, it doesn't cost any less to meet the children's needs after a pay cut than it did before. And the RP will always be the person balancing the books and making sacrifices to cover the shortfall, regardless of which parent takes the cut.

Original poster
badhareday · 29/01/2015 13:44

I'm not making assumptions about her income, as stated above DP knows all the facts, including the amount of the mortgage payments as it is on the former marital home.

OP posts:
PeruvianFoodLover · 29/01/2015 13:45

Its the court's job to decide on the facts whether what your DP says is true. I doubt his ex either wouldn't be paying legal costs or wouldn't have been granted legal aid if there was absolutely no sort of case there at all.

There is no process in family court to determine this. The CSA/CMS is responsible for administering child maintenance - it cannot be superseded by family court. (Even maintenance orders issued during divorce hearings default to CMS after the first 12 months).

If the mum is going to court, it will be in relation to contact, residency or a specific issue directly affecting the DCs (choice of school, medical care etc) - not finances. I have low regard for any resident parent whose motivation for family court action is a change in financial support.

CupidStuntSurvivor · 29/01/2015 13:47

To be honest OP, though the law is sadly on your OH's side, you're coming across as a bitter partner who resents your OH paying money to another woman.

Just think about this for a second. If you have DC with him and split and the children stay with you, you may well be in her position one day. And your now-ex's new partner may well take to an internet forum to bitch about the fact that you'd prefer his payments to be closer to half the costs rather than the legal minimum contribution.

WorraLiberty · 29/01/2015 13:48

We don't live together nor do we have DC together. Neither of us make a financial contribution to the others household.

Jesus, so he's not even your partner then, he's your boyfriend.

Just keep out of his and his ex's business OP.

Oh and just because your ex pays nothing towards his children, that doesn't mean everyone else should be grateful that theirs does.

Original poster
badhareday · 29/01/2015 13:48

Realistically if your mortgage was 10 per cent of your income how many sacrifices would you have to make if you lose 100 a month?!

My mortgage is over half my salary. I manage fine. I can't imagine the luxury of paying so little.

OP posts:
frankbough · 29/01/2015 13:48

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.

Lol. If it's 50/50 , then it's 50/50 accountability, 50/50 access, in fact all decisions regarding the child should be 50/50... Just like it would be in a family situation with 2 parents and the child.. But alas because sex is now enjoyed as a past time, contraception fails, and voila, we have millions of children being born into this mess, and ultimately the tax payer picks up the fucking massive bill and the poor child is brought up with this debacle going on in the background...

thetroubleis · 29/01/2015 13:49

Sorry OP and Tinker that's what you get trying to do coursework and MN at the same time.

Coursework it is then.

wishmiplass · 29/01/2015 13:50

Tell your DP to move house and pay her more.

There you go. Solved.

OllyBJolly · 29/01/2015 13:54

*Realistically if your mortgage was 10 per cent of your income how many sacrifices would you have to make if you lose 100 a month?!

My mortgage is over half my salary. I manage fine. I can't imagine the luxury of paying so little.*

You have got a bad case of the green eyed monsters!

Your financial situation is nothing to do with your BF's ex, and the ex's position and her financial settlement is absolutely no business of yours.

Really - move on.

BeCool · 29/01/2015 13:55

OP I lost all sympathy for you with the "That's more than most" comment.

You think she should shut up as the father of her children pays her as the resident parent, the CSA minimum and she should be thankful because some losers shirk their financial responsibilities completely! Lovely Hmm

And let's not all forget what the CSA states is the MINIMUM to be paid for supporting your children, not an upper threshold.

Original poster
badhareday · 29/01/2015 13:56

I'm perfectly entitled to refer to him as my DP, we're in a long term relationship and plan to live together in future once DC are older.

We already have all the DC we plan to. I am well off financially so if we did have DC (unlikely) and split up (ditto) I'd expect no more than csa minimum which I'd pit aside for DC future. I wouldn't need it to live on, as said above I get nothing from my X and manage fine Smile

OP posts:
TheChandler · 29/01/2015 13:56

I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of those non-resident parents who has let his earnings reduce and works less hard, and got a new girlfriend who has only heard the "greedy bitch" side of his argument, and has fallen for it. If you don't even live together, why would you be so involved in all of this? Why is it your business to know what someone else's mortgage costs?

And why on earth can't he get out there to bring his earnings back up by working harder to support his own children? The fact that her family are willing to pay her legal fees shows that theres more than one person concerned about the way he is behaving.

I'd spend your time worrying more about what other wool he's going to try and slip over your eyes further down the line.

Nicknacky · 29/01/2015 13:58

To those posters who think he should be paying the minimum the csa states. If you were in a nrp position where he tried to pay more, would you say "No, I don't need any extra as the minimum csa said is £xxx?"! Bollocks would you.

LaurieMarlow · 29/01/2015 13:59

Your figures on her income sound like a crock of shit. To have £2500 a month coming in, even assuming that a substantial chunk of that is tax credit means that she has a part time job that pays her in excess of £1500 a month NET. It's also so flexible that she doesn't appear to have child care costs.

Please tell us more OP because it sounds like the answer to my prayers

At the same time her mortgage is less than £350. Lucky her. It just doesn't sound likely to me, sorry.

In a more general sense, you're all being a bit unreasonable

OP: It's his ex partner and his children, so its not really your place to get involved. The less you fling around words like 'greedy' the more you'll shine.

Your DP: He is 50% responsible for his children, so he should feel the pressure to provide for them to the best of his abilities. Sounds like he has co-operated well with the CSA thus far, that's commendable, but he should be aiming to contribute more than the very bare minimum. The fact that he has high outgoings is neither here nor there. His outgoings (including child maintenance) are all as a result of the choices he made. If he can't afford those choices on his current income, he needs to do something about it.

His ExP: She's reacting to a drop in income and to be upset & annoyed about that is understandable. However, sounds like your DP is having a rough time job wise and health wise. She should be a little more understanding of your husband's predicament in the short term.

Nicknacky · 29/01/2015 13:59

Well, if you are partners then why don't you help him out financially if he is struggling?

wishmiplass · 29/01/2015 14:00

But TheChandler, they're unlikely to split up so your last comment isn't applicable really it it? Hmm

CupidStuntSurvivor · 29/01/2015 14:01

Well then OP, let's hope that when you move in together and his outgoings are halved, he choses to start paying his ex significantly more to reflect that.

No? Hmm. Thought not.

You're just jealous that his ex is better off than you. Get over it.

eggface · 29/01/2015 14:02

YABU I think. When 2 people have kids together and one of them then reduces hours or can't bring in so much money, it IS a stress. So why should DP be protected from that stress just because he's the NRP? His children are going to get less money in future, money on which they relied.

Perhaps it is frustrating for you to see your DP because you've had to tough it out without support from your ex? Perhaps think about being angry with your own ex, rather than with DP's ex?

The fact that the mother of his children has more money than him shoudn't matter. It's her right to share the expense of bringing up the kids with your DP - she might want to save her money for something else! if your DP had a load more money than her, I bet you wouldn't be suggesting he paid extra?!

wishmiplass · 29/01/2015 14:03

Op. Sorry to be direct, but you sound pretty horrible.

Put some nose ointment on. It really is NONE of your business.

TheChandler · 29/01/2015 14:03

I tell you OP, you're welcome to him. I don't think you would have any competition for this man, nor do I think we will see him lining up for Man of the Year any time soon. I'm sure you make a lovely couple.

Number3cometome · 29/01/2015 14:05

*How many children do they have together?

£350 a month isn't that much really.*

I have two children and the CSA say that my ex has to pay me £7 a week for BOTH children.

£350 is a very generous.

Children do not cost that much per month if you budget properly, and if she is already getting tax credits and child benefit she should be able to cope - if not perhaps she should consider getting a job herself?

I take it she isn't prepared to hand the kids over either.

Sounds like she just wants it all her own way.

If she is forced to court the most she will get is £34 a week.

Nicknacky · 29/01/2015 14:09

number3 She has a job already and it's not about coping, it's about a partner providing for his offspring.

If h and I split up then I would expect more than £350 due to his income and
I would want me kids to continue in the lifestyle they are used to, as best as possible. He isn't being "generous" it's his kids, not a charity donation.

CupidStuntSurvivor · 29/01/2015 14:10

No Number3, until the payment exceeds half the cost of raising the children, it can't be described as generous. Regardless of how much you receive.

HerRoyalNotness · 29/01/2015 14:13

350 isn't that much

Are you joking?? If the mother is also supposed to pay towards her children, you know 50/50 like she should, then that would be 700 per month for their costs.

We see this time and again on here, oh why should the children suffer, they still cost the same if you earn less, I spend 80% of my salary on my DC, why shouldn't their father pay more than 25%.

It seems that the universe thinks that the "first" family shouldn't have to cut their cloth when there is less money, even though that's what they'd have to do if their parents were still together.

I did a calculation to make sure we were paying fairly to DHs x, private arrangement, incl food, shoes, clothes, school uniform, shoes and coat, elect, gas. Didn't include holidays or housing as the expense of that is parental choice in that, are they going on a 10k holiday or a 2k holiday or one could have a 500k mortgage by choice and one have a 100k mortgage. Then I split it into TWO, for each parent. We pay HALF of school trips ad hoc.

This is the most sensible way to do it. And if we had to reduce it, which thankfully we haven't had to even with more children in the family, instead of shopping at next, they'd just have to downgrade to primark for eg..