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?

The OP's XP doesn't pay maintenance for her children and the OP gets on 'just fine' without any contribution. I think this is the crux of this.

Why should DP treat his X/children with respect and financial support when her XP doesn't?

Don't understand why NRP shouldn't pay towards housing for their children?

until the payment exceeds half the cost of raising the children, it can't be described as generous. Regardless of how much you receive.

Who decides on that cost, though? The RP makes the choices about standard of living - and no matter if the amount the NRP contributes is higher or lower than 50% of that, they have no say in the choices made about their children's lives.

And, most involved NRP incur their own costs when they have the DC - should these also be included in the calculation of "how much it costs to raise the DC" and each parent be expected to contribute "half"? What if the NRP chooses to feed the DC caviar every weekend?

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.

Yes, very fair, but OP has already said his income has dropped, and hours cut. They will in turn need to reduce their outgoings just as they would if he was still living there.

Both parents should be equally sharing the cost of raising the children, therefore if ex is contributing £350 a month towards the children, so should mother. That's £700 a month.

Of course the NRP's costs while they're looking after the children should be taken into account. It should be a 50:50 split.

And the resident parent is more often than not best placed to know the children's needs.

number3 The mother will be contributing similar if not more? I doubt 700 gets spent a month on shoes, toys, and entertainment but will be on housing, food, transport, electricity, clothing to name a few things.

Will she get tax credits if she is on as good an income as it appears?

because the nRP also has housing costs in relation to his DC staying over..... everyone keeps saying they NR DC should have their own room at the NRP house, so he can hardly live in a bedsit.

Also if the eW remarries and as I said, they choose to buy a 500k with a 400k mortgage house, whereas she lived in a 200k house with a 100k with her xH, how do you work out the housing cost for the DC?? That is not the NRP choice in how much they pay for a house. Would you say, he has to pay 15% of their mortgage for his child, or would you say, there are 5 members in the xW family, divide the mortgage by 5, and the NRP should pay that??!! NO

This makes me very angry as you can tell. When I was off work recently for 4mths and we had less income, I cut the after school activities for our DC. DH's NRDC was not affected at all. I also stopped saving for them but NRDC had savings still going in.

the resident parent is more often than not best placed to know the children's needs.

MN provides daily evidence that what one parent considers a life-essential for their DC, another will view as a frivolous indulgence. And that's not touching on the many thousands of parents who choose not to meet their DCs basic needs in favour of a hobby, or addiction.

What are the chances of a separated couple sharing identical parenting values?

And here is the issue.

Some of us are happy to shop in Aldi and will spend £50 a week on food, whilst others will shop in Waitrose and spend twice as much.

You cannot expect someone to lose some of their income and still pay the same amount, just as you would not in the same situation.

I have full custody of my children, my ex is a lying twat who says he doesn't work, I get £7 a week from him.

Guess what? we survive, we budget and we get on with it.

Should my ex pay half the costs? Hell yes of course he should. But he shouldn't pay for MY costs, nor should he pay for luxury items which he would not have chosen should we still be in a relationship.

People can tighten their belts if they need to, some people just don't want to.

I was coming to point out that the maintenance payment doesn't represent the total amount the NRP pays for their children.

Given that OPs DP has them 2 days a week (thus is paying for their living costs 20% of the time, and has the same fixed costs in terms of mortgage for house big enough to accommodate the children the whole time anyway) £350 maintenance p/m seems reasonable enough

The NRP is effectively paying for the 3 days of the week that the costs aren't split evenly between the two parents.

And that's terrible that your ex doesn't provide. And you are right, if you need to tighten your belt you do. I wouldn't want to, and I don't think that's wrong either?

If h and it split then I would have to downsize my house and get a cheaper car, but I still would expect him to pay a good chunk towards his children.

Nicknacky

Yep, but if he has the kids twice a week, it wouldn't be 50%

It would be 5 days worth of care and bills, LESS child benefit and tax credits.

Unless mother shares the tax credits and child benefit with the father?

If he had stayed and looked after his children himself he would not have been able to keep all but £350 to himself. He would have spent most of his wage on his family. I believe absent parents should contribute as much as they did when they were resident parents even if that leaves them short.

jimmycrackcornbutidontcare

How on earth do you work that out?

So as far as you know, the mother could have kicked him out / cheated on him / domestically abused him and he still has to pay just as much?

No, lets be realistic here.

Have just flicked up the thread and read a post about how it is unfair that 'first' families think they shouldn't have to lower their standards of living when more children come along. I think that if a person cannot reasonably afford more DC to the point that existing DC will suffer (not just miss expensive holidays) then they shouldn't have any more DC. They wouldn't have more if they couldn't afford them if still with the first family.

Number3 - if I split with my DH and the DC ended up with him they would still remain my financial responsibility. I don't understand people who effectively wash their hands of their DC because they their relationship with the other parent has broken down.

That's not what OP is saying, she is saying that her partner pays £400 a month, which he wants to reduce to £350 a month as his pay and hours have been cut.

I said my ex pays £7 a month (because he is a prick)

But we do cope!

Oh that old chestnut, don't have more children if you can't afford them.

But the RP can? And circumstances change. We could afford the DC we had subsequently. If DH loses his job, I'd probably be able to keep us, which is why I didn't give up my job unlike his Ex but I certainly wouldn't be putting my hand in my pocket for his NRDC. They would have to go without until DH can find another job.

Shit happens in life, shit than can be expensive, and everyone needs to adjust their budgets accordingly.

We seem to have derailed the OPs thread completely, and entered into the circular argument again of who should pay what, and how much.

I agree with trying not to engage with her or be annoyed. Let her take your DH to court and see what the CSA or whatever is called now has to say. He is only liable to pay the amount they suggest. If he earns a lot less then he won't be able to pay as much. Tell her to get a job that pays more if she's not happy.

At the end of the day your dp is paying what he is legally obliged to pay. It sounds like she's not on the breadline so will simply have to adjust her budget to accommodate, as the family would have to do if they were still together.

I don't think the venom against her is healthy or useful, but appreciate she is causing you stress. Try and disengage and don't emotionally invest. She can take your dp to court, but the law is on his side.

It is appalling that so many ex partners think they should pay nothing or the absolute bare minimum they can get away with in order to maximise the money left for their new partner and their new life. It shouldn’t be seen as generous of a parent to provide a reasonable amount of support for the children they no longer live with – it should be expected

This.

I think the OP is very unreasonable, and comes across as quite nasty towards the mothers of her partner's children.

And I'm sick of paying taxes for benefits to mop up the gap between what [mostly] fathers don't pay for their children, and what [mostly] mothers need to raise children decently and with a good start in life -- such as a good education. These fathers are the benefit scroungers, not the parents trying to scrape by.

I don't think the OP's partner is being truthful. He is probably not paying/in arrears/not giving a truthful account of his current financial position. He could be self-employed and working the system that way.

I don't think you have any business having more children if you can't adequately support the ones you already have. The fact that people do and their maintainance to their older children is cut is rewarding the feckless.

The XW in this situation through taking on the lion's share of care etc is likely to be limiting her career options owing to childcare costs and that is likely to penalise her financially in the future as well -unlike the OP's partner. She is covering more than a loss in child maintainance payments. Her personal unpaid contribution is allowing your partner to maintain his lifestyle.

£350 a month is inadequate in meeting half the costs of raising two children.

OP the fact that you accept no contribution from your XH is depriving your children what they are owed. You should be concentrating your efforts on that rather than meddling in this situation.

He can't give what he hasn't got so I would let it all go to court, fwiw my ex gives me £10 a week, I expect that if I was to kick up a fuss about this measly amount then he would just give nothing.