To be surprised at how little STBX will have to pay

[Stardustnight]

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 ?

realgonekid84 - ah ok, well that certainly changes things a bit....!

Seriously lemon

I do not want DH to suffer. I wish him no ill feelings. I hope he will enjoy his life.

However, he is not my priority or even particularly high on my radar. The priority is the children.

They deserve to enjoy life. They deserve to be able to socialise with their friends in a secure, warm home with healthy, nutritious food, indulge their interests in music and whatever else they love.

I could take, literally, 50% of his take home salary (I won't) and he'd still have PLENTY to 'enjoy life'!

Lemon, I'm sure he's worked very hard for his money, do you not understand that by star staying at home and providing the childcare and enabled him to earn that money.

If you'd have read the thread you have seen that he prevented her from working, so she hasn't been able to climb any career ladder, you have also seen that 3 children wasn't her choice, make of that what you will.

Yes £800 is a lot of money but compared to what he will have its nothing and just because it is a damn sight more than many others does not make it ok, this is not a race to the bottom, everyone should be outraged at this and other examples of nrp getting away with not providing for their children

To be fair real if I was I'd have been sacked haha

A really good case for rtft!

Whilst also isolating OP and abusing her in numerous ways

But fuck it the poor little snowflake must work hard to earn £4k a month not necessarily true by the way he shouldn't have to ensure his children are appropriately provided for not to mention the fact he can't be trusted to look after them and will need supervised contact

''Perhaps if you had chased him for money some of his illegal practices might have come to light blueberry''
I reported him for benefit fraud, he got a slapped wrist and then carried on.
I still got £5pw. I could have stopped contact or blackmailed him but i'd rather stand on my own two feet, our DS will look back at his childhood and know that it was his Mum who worked to give him everything he had.

''I can't support these children alone. I'll need help from somewhere - be that the state or STBX. Since the state didn't create them, it should be the latter''

But you aren't supporting them on your own are you? You will be getting £800pcm from your ex. Yes that's not enough to support them on your own but that's how much you're entitled to. There has to be a rule and that's what it is, they can't change the rules on a case to case basis.
It's also not fair that DH's ex and her DP earn twice as much as DH and I do put together, DH is paying off £25k of his ex's debts cos he was stupid enough to take out a loan for her in his name, like you do when you are married to somebody and think you're going to be with them for the rest of your life.
She manages to rinse him for every penny she can get, because, hey that's the rules.

I know I've been hard on you OP but maybe it would be worth you seeing a solicitor, you may well be able to take him to get a court ordered maintenance payment, even if it's only temporary until the DCs are in school.

OP is going to be looking after THEIR 3 children. She is not looking for money for herself she's just saying that he ought to be paying a bit more because he earns alot. Yes, he probably does work very hard. What has OP been doing for these past few years, sitting on her backside? No, she has been a SAHM mum for their children! The stbx would not have been able to have maintained his job if it weren't for the op looking after the children in the first place!

I'm as independent as they come and in a totally different situation than op but I don't agree that this man ought to be able to "enjoy his money" while OP struggles with 3 kids on her own. Nobody is suggesting he ought to be paying half his salary to her but I agree with her that £800 is not very much in comparison to what he earns. He is equally responsible for these children.

fedup I think you are fucking ace.

Having read THE WHOLE THREAD Stardust is absolutely not being unreasonable. She asked a fair and valid AIBU question and has been completely open and honest in providing vast amounts of information which are massively pertinentyou'll find this information if you read the whole fucking thread. Stardust, I think you are fucking amazing and am so pleased that amongst the shite you have received some fantastic advice. Take everything one day at a time, be kind to yourself and learn to live again, you're going to be brilliant.

Blueberry, that was exactly what I said; I said - "I can't raise them on my own"

Either the state pays me with benefits to raise my children

Or ex pays me to raise our children.

So no, as I said, I can't support them alone.

So which do you think is fair? State - ie YOU and other taxpayers - or the children's FATHER?

Thanks juggling.

Parsnip - that was random!

Blueberry, just because you're having a shit time doesn't mean that star should have to put up with it.

Your situation also sounds totally unfair, maybe you also need a shit hot lawyer but putting the op down and coming out with nasty comments is not helpful.

Yes there are some women out there who will do their very best to make their ex miserable but can you not see that this is very different to your situation?

Hahaha!

Not really Stardust. As far as I'm concerned she has talked a lot of sense. She says the kind of thing my sister said to me when my ex went. It was damn good advice. Maybe not what I always wanted to hear, but it was good.

If you feel it was useful that's lovely - it just looked a bit odd in the middle of a conversation with lemon: but like cheering your fave footy team at a rugby match!

stardust - the government expect BOTH parents to support their children, not just the father or the state. You seem to think that it should be your ex's soul responsibility. As somebody said at the beginning £800+£800 = £1600.

I understand you are pregnant and with childcare costs, at the moment, you working would be near impossible. However, they don't look at it on a case by case basis.

Are you actually suggesting that all fathers should pay half their wage to their ex? Or more than that? Or should it be different % depending on their circumstances? What's the qualifying criteria? Do you want the ex to never be able to afford to be happy again? What if the woman leaves the bloke? Then what's the rules?
Relationships and break ups are never black and white but the CSA minimum payments have to be.

For you £800 isn't a lot as you potentially have no other means of income, but to most that would be A LOT.

As I said, see a solicitor, you'll have a strong case to get a court ordered maintenance payment.
Surely you'll also be due some equity from the home?

Either the state pays me with benefits to raise my children

Or ex pays me to raise our children.

The state would help you if you didn't have savings and rental income. You would be able to get maintenance as well as income support and tax credits (which you might still be eligible for). The reason the state won't support you is because you have too much in savings and rental income, it is the same for anybody with other sources of income- they are expected to support themselves.
Maintenance isn't included in income support and maintenance calculations so your ineligibility to supplementary benefits isn't anything to do both lack of support from your ex.
I'm not agreeing that his contribution is correct, as I don't think that it is but the state does support families who receive support from ex partners.

Stardust unless you know that person in RL I struggle to know how you would know for sure she is who she says she is. Even if she is a counsellor it's a very strange for a counsellor to say . I say that professionally.

Neither did I state that court had been the only option ?!

Notably you point out the negatives in my post .

Good luck.

I don't think repeatedly harping on about your own situation on a thread like this is my definition of "fucking ace" tbh.

It's the Monty Python one-up(down?)manship again.

stardust - the government expect BOTH parents to support their children, not just the father or the state. You seem to think that it should be your ex's soul responsibility. As somebody said at the beginning £800+£800 = £1600

FFS The OP is supporting their children by, you know, providing 24/7 care. Why are you trying to measure the OP's support of their children only in financial terms? By your argument there should also be 50/50 care of the children. Which can't happen right now!! Therefore adjustments have to be made in who provides the 100% care needed and who provides the 100% finances. It absolutely should not be the state because these children have 2 parents who between them can provide both 100% care and 100% of the money needed to raise them.

I actually really feel you , have a great deal of empathy and true compassion but can see tbh from your reply why people may feel riled by your attitude.

I didn't see any good advice or sense either but each to their own.

Silence- lots of people don't want to listen on here to rational ways of dealing with the situation ... It's all very high expressed.

This here is exactly what it boils down to doesn't it?

So which do you think is fair? State - i.e. YOU and other taxpayers - or the children's FATHER?

Where there is the option of the father being able to support them he should; not the tax payer.

I am on benefits myself so not a benefit basher by any means, buy why should tax payers pick up the tab so her children can be supported when they have a wealthy father?

Someone give me one sensible well thought out answer to that please.

Why does 'daddy dearest' get to play with £3000 a month while tax payers to support his children In what world does that even make sense?

I have still yet to see one reason why it is acceptable that he gets away with paying only £800 except for the fact that he earns it and should enjoy it. Life doesn't work that way. He has children, he earns money, he should pay much more until OP is in a position to work herself, and with a 10 month old and a pregnancy that won't be any time soon, and neither should it be when their father walks off with £3000 a month.

He can pay much more and still have plenty of money to enjoy. The tax payer doesn't have to help support them and the OP gets enough money to comfortably provide for her children.

My dad didn't pay a penny towards us and my mum didn't bother taking it to court or CSA. I really wished she had have done. I think it is disgusting that we had to struggle while my dad just walked away and started a new family and lived comfortably. Yeah, my mum was probably happier in a way because she didn't have to deal with him any more but really, we should not have had to have lived uncomfortably and no should the OP's children. Some might think £1,600 is enough but I could not comfortable afford to raise three children on that and like it or not, when their father can afford to give them more money so the kids can have a more comfortable lifestyle he should.