Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 surprised at how little STBX will have to pay

999 replies

Stardustnight · 20/02/2015 22:11

STBX is on a very good salary indeed and his living costs are low.

Despite this, according to the CSA calculator he will only have to pay £800 a month for 3 children, which compared to the amount of money he actually has, isn't a lot - £200 a week.

Am I being unreasonable to be feeling mildly disgruntled and short changed? Or am I grabby and entitled ?

OP posts:
FireflySerenity · 21/02/2015 18:59

Yes he may get some of her inheritance but likewise she'll get some of his pension, any savings etc. It works both ways.

Men usually end up with more as they return to work whereas many women don't. If you take the risk and cease working, the gamble may not always pay off and the one working and earning will naturally be better off.

If three children can't be feed, clothed and attend school day trips etc on £800 something is very wrong. It's more than enough and then there's CB on top. No mortgage so all the OP has to pay are the usual bills that she would have with or without children. The ex may choose to pay for other things on his contact time.

ilovesooty · 21/02/2015 19:03

She didn't take the gamble or choose to stop working.

Thesuperswimmingdolphin · 21/02/2015 19:04

U2 - the OP would have got a different response if she was in a significantly lower income bracket. There's no greater crime on mumsnet than to be comfortably off.

ilovechristmas1 · 21/02/2015 19:12

op are you worried you wont manage financially catering for the children?

if you are they are all very young so they wont be that expensive compared to teens,it is very doable

EdSheeran · 21/02/2015 19:14

I agree that OP has got an unfair pasting but she has also received a lot of support and advice. :)

ilovesooty · 21/02/2015 19:17

Ed I'm glad she has.

demonchilde · 21/02/2015 19:22

Can I just ask again what % of the NRP's salary people think would be fair. Genuinely interested in the answer.

I know the current system is far from perfect, but I still think it is fairer than the old one ( where just their disposable income was counted). Under that system, an ex could potentially rent/ buy a house with 90% of their salary leaving the RP with just a proportion of the remaining 10%. Whilst the current system is far from perfect, surely it's an improvement on the old one?

EdSheeran · 21/02/2015 19:35

I'm glad too because AIBU doesn't have to be a nest of vipers and indeed, it isn't always. It's easy to be a bitch behind a keyboard and even easier to use the excuse "but it's AIBU!". Nah, not on.

Marynary · 21/02/2015 19:46

Can I just ask again what % of the NRP's salary people think would be fair. Genuinely interested in the answer.

I don't see why it should be the same percentage whatever the earnings. I would have expected the % to increase as earnings increase, as it does for tax, stamp duty etc.

Marynary · 21/02/2015 19:50

Love the fact that some posters seem to think that OP and her three children should be able to live on £800 without difficulty but the poor XH can't possibly be expected to live on less than £3,000.Hmm

tiggytape · 21/02/2015 19:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ilovesooty · 21/02/2015 19:59

I don't think it should necessarily be a percentage either. I think different factors come into play, such as the sort of opportunities that had been planned for the children while the parents were married.
I suspect that this man wanted his children to have a comfortable lifestyle while the marriage existed but he won't give a shit about that as long as he can play financial hardball with his children to distress the wife who dared to ask him to leave because of his abuse.

EdSheeran · 21/02/2015 19:59

Of course it shouldn't be a fixed percentage because it disadvantages the children of higher earning NRPs i.e. OP's family.

Philoslothy · 21/02/2015 20:03

When I met my husband he was handing over about 50% of his salary before accommodation costs to his ex. This changed over time as he paid off her mortgage so her expenses were lower and this gave her more independence and allowed us to have a family

BelindaAllWorkedOut · 21/02/2015 20:03

I've said before that you are most absolutely not being unreasonable, OP, and that still stands. Some of the spite and apparent £££ envy on this thread is awful. Good for you at standing up for yourself.

By the way, you are a compelling and articulate writer, so I hope you can find a way, soon, to use this somewhere more beneficial than AIBU Grin

Philoslothy · 21/02/2015 20:06

I agree Belinda. I think it is entirely understandable that the OP is worried about money. I also think that if her ex encouraged her to give up her career to care for children he should accept that for the time being he has a larger financial responsibility

ilovesooty · 21/02/2015 20:12

He did more than encourage her not to work. He made sure she couldn't.

TwoOddSocks · 21/02/2015 20:12

firefly the point of marriage is to protect you from becoming very much worse off by stopping working to support your partner's career. He should have considered that when he got married and had children the risk he took was that he'd give up a substantial portion of his income in the event of a split.

It just seems crazy to me that he should have such a huge amount of disposable income while she would be entitled to tax credits and benefits. It's like on the one hand determining this is how much he needs to pay to support his family and on the other hand admitting that it isn't nearly enough.

I don't think all of the burden of the divorce should fall on her. If the plan was for her to stay at home with the very young children if possible that should be maintained. She obviously wouldn't be expected to return to work until at least 6 months after giving birth anyway.

realgonekid84 · 21/02/2015 20:12

Nice to know looking after your joint dc 24/7 is not worth £800 per month according to some posters. Plus the rental income of course Not read the whole thread yet but I am shocked by some of the replies. You have suffered so much op with 3 bereavements and an abusive ex.
I really feel for you op. Maybe post in relationships and you might get kinder responses.
Good luck for the future.

GinnelsandWhippets · 21/02/2015 20:14

Wowed I posted this morning and just now looked again and this thread has (sadly) continued with the total wrongness. Agree with pag and all the other OP supporters. OP you've behaved so gracefully on this thread while some posters has perfectly exemplified everything that's shitty about MN.

TwoOddSocks · 21/02/2015 20:22

demon I don't think it should be a percentage and it should take into account the disposable incomes of both parents. In this case OP will clearly have no disposable income left after providing for her kids so her ex should expect to lose a very large percentage of his.

TwoOddSocks · 21/02/2015 20:25

firefly the point isn't that they can't just about get by but that OP should be compensated for providing 100% of the childcare and since OP's husband can very much afford it they shouldn't be forced to only get by. He should contribute towards a better standard of living for his family. It should also be the case that the OP should be able to return to work if she chooses to (right now childcare costs would make that impossible). He has the luxury of the financial independence of a full time job since he is providing no childcare.

demonchilde · 21/02/2015 20:36

Ed- given that the amount is proportionate to earnings, I don't understand how this only would disadvantage those with higher earning NRP's?

Odd Socks- I thought that the argument against using disposable income was the high costs of all the administration involved, especially given that outgoings, earnings etc etc will vary frequently. The CSA is now a chargeable service payable by the person who applies- usually the RP - (now that really IS unfair). Surely the higher administration costs of working out what is due would push the prices up and make it prohibitive for some to use the CSA as a method of calculating/ collecting income?

ilovesooty · 21/02/2015 20:38

TwoOddSocks - absolutely.

TwoOddSocks · 21/02/2015 20:44

demon I would imagine they should just use average cost of living in an area. It could be simpler to have a formula which was only based on salary in which case I think the percentage should increase with the salary. So a very low earner may need to keep 70% of their salary just to feed and house themselves modestly while a very high earner might easily afford to give over 50% of their income.

I don't think the NRP should expect to just be able to pick up a new single life, or start a new family with someone else while the RP struggles to afford necessities.