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:
Moniker1 · 22/02/2015 10:14

Thank you Pagwatch I was beginning to believe some of the crap, not having gone through divorce or had maintenance payments.

Kept thinking I had missed something the OP had said up thread.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 10:14

Absolutely pickled, op has said herself that she would like to back to work but how is she supposed to support herself and their 3 children until that is possible? Why should he be contributing such a small amount of his income?

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 10:19

so...the message to women everywhere is unanimously 'leave the bastard but continue to depend on him for money'. Hmm

EdSheeran · 22/02/2015 10:20

"I think it should work the same as income tax. Therefore, the NRP should pay a certain % of income up to a certain amount and a higher percentage for earnings above that threshold."

I agree with this.

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:21

I haven't seen anyone question her mental health. I did read someone suggest she get some counselling. I don't think that's a bad suggestion? Makes sense to me. It you've been through abusive relationship it can certainly help to talk about it. Doesn't mean you're mental, not in the slightest.

It seems that whenever someone gives some constructive advice they are shot down.

With regards to money, I think that a lot of posters get fuck all from their ex and £800 seems like a shitload of money....because it is compared to fuck all. It isn't fair to go "Well I get nothing, so you shouldn't complain" but I can see that is a really emotive topic.

Marynary · 22/02/2015 10:22

There is nothing to suggest that OP won't move on with her life or work when once she is able to (e.g. when the children are of school age) so why do people think she needs a lecture on it?

The debate is about whether or not it is unfair that a high earner should be required to pay so little towards the upkeep of their children. The argument that everyone should accept unfair policies and not complain because "life isn't fair" is ridiculous. No policy or law would ever change if everyone had that attitude.

Moniker1 · 22/02/2015 10:23

but continue to depend on him for money

No, kids deserve the best - their DFs should pay as much as they can/is required.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 10:24

And lets not forget it can be tough going back to work after a prolonged period.

I took 1 year off with dd2 as financially it wasn't viable for me to go back to my old job. In this time I retrained and had a very supportive husband and family. I found it incredible daunting going back to work and would consider myself to be quite a strong person.

Now imagine that you have an abusive partner, all your confidence has been eroded, it's been a long time since you've worked, you've had to deal with all sorts of shit. How daunting do you think that would be?

Op of course will survive and she will be stronger and better for it as will the children. She will manage financially as many others have strongly pointed out women do fine on less. Doesn't mean that it's fair and she can't rant and rave and scream from the rooftops about it.

You know what, maybe she or someone like her or a group of collectively minded people could actually get the rules changed about this and make things better for future generations of women. Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that how it should always be

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:24

The thing is though, is is fucking obvious it is unfair. Pages and pages of "Oh how crap, it is so unfair" etc aren't going to change that fact. So, strategies and advice are needed. What is the next step?

LittleBearPad · 22/02/2015 10:26

The children's father should support them fedup to the best of his ability. £800 isn't all he can afford if he has over £3k left.

Pagwatch · 22/02/2015 10:27

Pickledparsnip.

Well that's not quite what happened, is it.

'Counselling' was suggested by a poster because she thought the op was being touchy in her responses. In spite of repeatedly saying that she neither needed nor wanted counselling, that poster persisted in a way which was patronising and rude.
I

She does not need counselling, explained that repeatedly and yet kept being told she did.

That is rude and arseholery.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 10:28

No fedup the message should be to the nrp, you have a child, you need to provide for them.

The message should be leave the bastard, don't let worrying about money stop you from leaving an abusive tossers because he will still have to contribute towards the raising of his children and we will make sure that happens

Pagwatch · 22/02/2015 10:29

It wouldn't have been pages and pages of 'oh how awful'
She was getting good advice amidst the futile and gratuitous 'well I manage on less than that'

tiggytape · 22/02/2015 10:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LittleBearPad · 22/02/2015 10:32

And given the op only kicked him out a week or so ago she's entitled to be dealing with this exactly as she wants to. Splendid if others on this thread could move straight to practical matters. But with two children, especially the 8 year old to deal with and explain why daddy isn't at home I think taking some time to be angry at the shittiness and unfairness is really ok

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:32

I think perhaps posters were trying to illustrate that it is enough to live on. They live on less and it is possible.

LittleBearPad · 22/02/2015 10:33

Especially on MN when she has no family and her ex-DH alienated all her friends.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 10:33

Again you're right pickled pages and pages of this isn't fair aren't going to change that, but again this is not what has happened.

Op has managed leave an abusive relationship, one where she has, been made to feel that she is wrong and now she is free and able to question something she is still being told she is wrong. How supportive is that?

Next step, how bout we challenge the rules in place, make people see that it isn't fair and we shouldn't have to put up with it

LittleBearPad · 22/02/2015 10:35

So what pickled. The DH will live on twice as much. He doesn't need a house his children can stay in as he isn't allowed unsupervised contact.

Just because other people live on less doesn't make the OPs situation ok.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 10:35

You seem to be missing the point pickled. Yes she can survive on that, she has said so herself, the question is is it fair and right that she should have to when he can swan off and do whatever he wants without a second thought?

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:40

I didn't see that Pag. Maybe I need to go back and read through again, but that is not what I read. I saw counselling being offered as a solution, the OP took offence to it, the poster tried to explain how it might help.

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:42

Spade I have said repeatedly that it isn't fair and no its not right. Surely no one is disputing that? So, what is the next step? A shit hot lawyer?

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 10:43

pickled I'm a counsellor and I was appalled at the way counselling was pushed on to the OP.

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 10:48

No policy or law would ever change if everyone had that attitude

The Law won't change because fundamentally, we ALL know of a man/men who don't appropriately support their children. And we all hide behind 'ah, poor him, he doesn't get any Tax Credits and he earns minimum wage and he has to put a roof over his head and those children are cared for by their mother on her part time wage and the state so it's OK if he doesn't contribute because he's got enough to worry about and she won't let him see them and she took the house and everything in the divorce so she doesn't deserve any maintenance'. And they remain our friends and our family and we never challenge them. Instead, we vilify the 'single mum' who is left with all of the responsibility - financial, emotional, practical - because she is (for the most part) some kind of 'burden on the state' and in receipt of benefits and a council house and free school meals. She is lazy if she doesn't work, a bit less lazy but still lazy if she works part-time and doesn't give a shit about her children if she works full time. We talk about 'broken homes' and assume that all children are better off in households stuck in the 1950s headed by a man and maintained by a SAHM who dedicates her life to her children. We assume all children from 'broken homes' are delinquent, don't do well in school and end up on Jezza with bad teeth and a drug habit. Hilariously, I was once told that my dyslexic child wouldn't be dyslexic if he didn't come from a broken home! Professionals make 'gosh, isn't he well mannered, you wouldn't expect that, given his mum's a single mum' comments and can't see the issue. Step parents join in the single mum vilification with 'oh, she had nits and we had to delouse her...what a terrible single mum' and 'oh gosh, he'd love to see his children more but we have a life too you know and need to go out on a Friday night for some couple time so we can't have them for the full weekend' and 'she puts them in childcare whilst she goes to work 'cos her career is more important, they would be better off in our household because I don't need to work and I would dedicate my life to bringing them up properly so let's drag her through court and question her parenting skills'.....Some single mums feel the burden of that title and often rush into relationships to try and free themselves of it, causing a chain of chaos and uncertainty for their children and a wonderful spectator sport for the school run mums who 'saw her again in the pub with a different man'.

And trust me when I say there is no shortage whatsoever of women who are happy to be with men who don't support their children.

The solution to that is men should pay more? That women shouldn't seek financial independence on behalf of themselves and their children but rather their ex partner should pay more to keep her in the manner to which she had been accustomed? That a woman who advocates financial independence is actually a man with an agenda?

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 10:48

I think when I have more time I shall read back through the thread and try to see what I have missed, because from what I remember I just don't see it.