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 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:
Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 11:53

Whoop de fucking do pickled a whole £600. Well that's ok then, oh except it isn't. Op has already said that it will be a struggle, meanwhile stbx has £3000 coming in, is that fair?

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 11:54

itishappening

  1. It's my life, not EastEnders - I don't like that 'up to date' line, sorry.
  2. 800 based on 3 children.
  3. Because of an inheritance but there is a question mark over this.
  4. £195?
  5. Unlikely. Just 25% discount.
OP posts:
fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 11:58

And I bet that lots of people preaching about" financial independence " don't have two children under 2 . If so id love to know what job they do that pays for f/t childcare for two babies and out of school care for an 8 year old and still leaves them enough money to live comfortably , say £3,00 per month

I had one on the way, a 2 year old and a 4 year old when my ex walked out. I teach full time. I live comfortably on way less than £3k a month - but I have realistic expectations of life on one wage and don't expect my ex to support me. And yes, of course, Tax Credit helps with that but if it were withdrawn, I would manage without it, albeit a reduced lifestyle to the one we have now. The same if I were to get ill or being disabled or something unforseen happened. I would adapt and get on with it. To suggest that you 'need' £3k a month is entirely insulting to the thousands of families out there who live quite happily on far, far less.

I am afraid you just proved the point about the vilification of single parents with the CTC comments. But that's fairly typical. Couples on tax credits, SAHM are all OK to claim but single parents aren't. We are never considered to be 'working families' and therefore deserving of support, just 'single mums' who deserve nothing other than ridicule. Thanks for that.

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 11:59

I hope you've seen the advice to look at whether you'd be entitled to maternity leave if you've paid class 2 national insurance contributions with your tax return. (I appreciate that your husband won't have let you get anywhere near your tax return but it's still worth looking into)

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 12:03

£120 council tax £100 gas and elec £40 water £30 phone and broadband
£10 mobile £??? On any pets? £150 average on petrol/car upkeep/mot £40 on house and car insurance

why should the OP (or any other PWC) not contribute to the running costs of their own household? why is it the NRP's responsibility? The OP has an income and should be eligible for CTC. Why shouldn't that be used for part of the cost of bringing up the children?

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 12:03

I don't expect my husband to support ME, fedup - this is why we are talking at cross purposes.

I expect him - too right I do! - to support his children. And he will. It's just Angry that the system in a sense doesn't expect him to!

ilovesooty I don't think I've ever done one, I honestly don't know where I'd start Blush

OP posts:
Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 12:04

No ones saying she needs £3k per month to live on, what's been said is that it is not fair that she will be living on £1600 a month solely looking after 3 child (2 aged under 2) whilst he has £3k to live on

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 12:05

fedup - let's review.

Because someone can't contribute to the running costs of her household because she has to stay at home and care for her children.

And that someone would be ... Anyone?

I have a small income from rental properties which I only have because both parents are dead. If they were alive they might be able to help with childcare meaning I could work.

OP posts:
ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 12:05

When the solicitor asks for all the paperwork it will be evident whether one's been done. Don't worry.

PS I get an accountant to do mine although I'm assured they're not all that hard Blush

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 12:07

fedup why should she have to claim benefits if her ex can contribute more than the bare minimum to the upbringing of his own children?

Pagwatch · 22/02/2015 12:08

Just because someone decided that they do not expect their ex to support hischildren does not mean that is a valid or indeed sensible choice for everyone else.

It may reflect immense courage and pragmatism , of course it may, but forcing that as a dubious badge of honour on others is a bit self serving

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 12:09

Stardust I can see we are at cross purposes and I have never had the intention of upsetting you which I hope you believe. I do see things differently and I suspect, several years down the line when you've got everything lined up and sorted (because you will) you will think back to this and discussion and think that perhaps I had a point. If you don't, well, that doesn't make me wrong either. I wish you well, as I've said before. Don't dwell on it - just work on moving forwards.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 12:10

Thanks, although paperwork full stop is a worry.

It is not my strong point!

OP posts:
Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 12:11

Fedup, you may not have intended to but that comes across as very patronising.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 12:12

You haven't upset me fedup but this is a week post chucking ex out.

I think rather than dwelling on things, I'm in the throes of organising things.

The only point you seem to be making is that I should not rely on DHs contribution. Mine is - I should. And so should every other woman. Because they are his children. His own behaviour has led to him not being able to see them unsupervised - not mine, or theirs, and they should not miss out.

OP posts:
fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 12:15

fedup why should she have to claim benefits if her ex can contribute more than the bare minimum to the upbringing of his own children?

why would you not claim benefits if you considered you needed extra money to help support your children and the benefits were available to you? out of fear of being labelled 'scrounger', perhaps? Because being the 'single mum on benefits' is incredibly hard to bear?

From a social policy point of view... well, quiet. Why should anyone have to claim benefits if there is someone else out there able to support us? Where does it stop? My mum has money in the bank...should she support me and my children at the ripe old age of 40 something?! You are right, of course, that whilst married, a husband and wife should be mutually financially dependent and supportive but as it stands, it really doesn't work like that. I should say, that I have a court order that ordered my husband to pay me interim spousal maintenance. He never did. I couldn't afford to continue the legal process to make him. Had I not been eligible for benefits, I would have been on the streets (I lost the house as it was) - he should have been made to pay but the court delays and lack of money on my part made it impossible. We are a civilised nation and support people in difficult situations. That was one of them.

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 12:18

The only point you seem to be making is that I should not rely on DHs contribution. Mine is - I should

I don't actually disagree with you. But experience has shown me that expecting another human being to behave in a reasonable and fair way is foolhardy!

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 12:19

Spade I'm not really sure how many more times I have to say it's not fair? I'm pretty sure we've established that.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 12:23

That's your hang up fedup not the ops. Yes there are people who feel that way but at no point has star even hinted at that. This is about why her stbx should get away with contributing so little. And why other nrp should get away with it.

what happened to you was wrong, the courts should not have allowed him to get away with it, this is what I'm saying, just because you had to put up with it doesn't mean star or any other woman should. Can you really not see that?

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 12:24

Of course I wouldn't expect your mother to support your family fedup

I do expect a man earning what the OP's husband does to make more than the minimum contribution to the upbringing of his children and if necessary I'd like to see legal aid funding in place to ensure that he does.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 12:25

Pickled then why bring up the £600 as if that makes everything ok?

fedupbutfine · 22/02/2015 12:26

Fedup, you may not have intended to but that comes across as very patronising

I think if the OP is able to take it with good grace then it has nothing to do with you, does it? I personally find your comments unhelpful and deeply patronising (and that's being polite) but I have refrained from saying what I really think because I accept that different people see things differently, even if I would prefer them to see it from my perspective. That's the whole point of forums like this. Most people are able to 'argue' without getting personal or without ganging up like girls in a school yard and making nasty comments about people they disagree with....my integrity, my gender, my sincerity, my honesty..have all been called into question on this thread. I haven't retaliated or made nasty comments but I have said what I think and make no apologies for that. The comment you made above speaks volumes about you, frankly.

Spadequeen · 22/02/2015 12:29

You have your view I have mine, your many comments speak volumes about you.

pickledparsnip · 22/02/2015 12:41

To illustrate that it would cover the estimated costs, and then £800 could go towards the children.

Pagwatch · 22/02/2015 12:45

It doesn't matter one tiny fuck how well or not the op could manage with £800 from her ex.

The point is that with £4000 at his disposal his children shouldn't have to.