Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Sallystyle · 22/02/2015 18:07

I forgot benefits no longer take maintenance in consideration. Still my main point stands.

SilenceInTheLibrary · 22/02/2015 18:10

OP posted a collection of some of Fedup's posts upthread - they are not rational, they are just not very nice. They are nothing approaching "fucking ace."

BubbleGirl01 · 22/02/2015 18:10

Bloody hell - I am dumbfounded by this thread. People stating that the OP should be providing just as much as her ex when £800 a month wouldn't even cover childcare, so how is she supposed to work, let alone household bills, clothes etc Hmm. The ex does not have childcare issues, nor has he had cancel his career to stay at home to raise his DCs, so he is free is go out and earn as much money as possible. The OP is not!

Damn right, he should be paying half his salary until the youngest DC turns 18 at least. Why the hell should he be able to go out and enjoy his life of freedom and possibly have more DC with someone else while his existing DC live hand to mouth? Happens all too often and it is disgusting IMO.

blueberrymuffffin · 22/02/2015 18:10

''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.''

WOW I'm sorry it looks like I've been getting parenting all wrong for all these years. Apparently, one parent provides 100% care, and the other 100% money!
Are you actually for real??!!

As Isithappening pointed out, if you are not entitled to any benefits it is because you have savings and rental income. The same way as you do not get state benefit if you become unemployed and have large savings, you are expected to live off that money.
Personally, I couldn't think of a better way to spend my savings than using it to feed and clothe my children.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:13

So I spend my money feeding and clothing my children and DH doesn't have to?

OP posts:
blueberrymuffffin · 22/02/2015 18:14

''Damn right, he should be paying half his salary until the youngest DC turns 18 at least. Why the hell should he be able to go out and enjoy his life of freedom and possibly have more DC with someone else while his existing DC live hand to mouth? Happens all too often and it is disgusting IMO.''

18? So the OP should be able to live off her ex's wage until her children are 18?
I agree possibly with until the children are in full time education, but 18? You can't be serious?

In which case, what about the Mum's who survive off benefits? Can they carry on claiming until they are 18? Last time I checked they were expected to return to work when their youngest is 5.

SilenceInTheLibrary · 22/02/2015 18:18

Utterly ludicrous to have the state picking up the bill when there's a high earning father. The state is there as a safety net, not to allow divorced fathers to 'enjoy their money.'

Also ludicrous to expect the OP to be able to match her ex's earning power - when he wouldn't let her either continue her career, or even get a job when she was with him. He has continued his career nicely, and will continue to do so, while she will continue to be sole carer for the children.

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 18:18

If the OP returns to work when her youngest is 5 he should still be contributing while they are in full-time education.

blueberrymuffffin · 22/02/2015 18:19

''So I spend my money feeding and clothing my children and DH doesn't have to?''
No, DH does have to, £800 of it.

I don't get why you keep saying this? You're making out that he doesn't have to contribute, of course he does.

What would you do if your ex was on a low-ish income and the amount you were due was £200pcm? Would you expect his whole income?
I understand that you're resentful towards your ex but what do you actually want?

TerryTheGreenHorse · 22/02/2015 18:19

Blueberry you just sound awful. Maintenance isn't "living off" your ex.

I'm sorry your ex decided to shirk his responsibilities but why not direct your ire to him and his ilk rather than directing it in the wrong place.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:20

Hopefully I'll be returning to work before then.

This isn't me 'living off his wage' - it's him contributing to the upbringing of HIS children.

I didn't make them myself, you know.

OP posts:
TerryTheGreenHorse · 22/02/2015 18:20

I'm going to have to zone blueberry out for the sake of my screen.

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 18:21

She says she is not resentful towards her ex.

You just don't get it do you?

If he were on a lowish wage he should still contribute as much as he can.

IfNotNowThenWhen · 22/02/2015 18:21

Not caught up yet, but can I take issue with something BoneyBackJefferson said about maintenence?
Even if a RP moves in with a wealthy new man, that should have no bearing on what the NRP pays towards their children.
If I move in with my boyfriend , why should he pay for my son? My son's father is the one who is responsible.
I have a friend whose DP lives with her and her 2 children.
He is expected to pay for her kids, yet their father is just about to have child number 5, ( 1 previously, 2 with his current partner) and pays no child support for my friends children.
My own father paid nothing, as my mum had a new husband, so aparently it was my step dad's job, to maintain his children? Even though he had his own kids!
I will, make sure my son knows up and down that if he makes a baby, that is his financial and emotional responsibility, no matter what happens with the mother. Hopefully that'll scare him into condom use!

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:21

Blueberry - fairness.

If my ex was on a low income I would expect a fair percentage of it; however that isn't a salient point as my ex isn't on a low income.

OP posts:
blueberrymuffffin · 22/02/2015 18:22

''If the OP returns to work when her youngest is 5 he should still be contributing while they are in full-time education''
Of course. He will have to contribute until they are 18, but he does not have to give 50% of his income until they are 18.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:22

Yes - I will have The Talk with DS as well!

Thus far he doesn't appear to have his Dad's genes though. He's lovely :)

OP posts:
tiggytape · 22/02/2015 18:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ilovesooty · 22/02/2015 18:24

He should be giving as much of his income as necessary to ensure that the end of the marriage is not to his children's detriment.

SilenceInTheLibrary · 22/02/2015 18:26

Blimey blueberry - calm yourself. Have a Brew or something. You must be spitting venom all over your keyboard.

Yes - NRP's generally are expected to pay CM till the child is 18/until they finish FTE. This is child maintenance - and just because you didn't get it, or get much, doesn't mean no father should have to pay it.

kim147 · 22/02/2015 18:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:27

Blueberry - roughly what I would expect (which I will say to the solicitor) is this.

I think while I have preschool children a contribution closer to 1500 is fair. That's 500 a month per child. It still leaves him with well over two thousand pounds p/m on top of the pension - that isn't counted.

When the youngest DCs goes to school - 'luckily" for DH when he or she is 4, as with a July or august birthday they will be the youngest in the year, I think that could go down to more like £1000 assuming 'D' h hasn't been promoted - which is likely.

However I would hope he would pay for extras for the children such as school trips (more for DS in secondary) extra curricular activities and when the time comes things like driving lessons, help with expenses for university, and so on. Not because I'm lazy and can't be arsed but because they are his children.

That is my honest reply.

I also envisage I will work and I will contribute and do what I can. However, the two youngest are going to be VERY close in age and that's going to be tricky with regards to some stuff as they get older.

OP posts:
TerryTheGreenHorse · 22/02/2015 18:28

This thread is nearly full now stardust, I bet you didn't imagine this brouhaha.

Original poster
Stardustnight · 22/02/2015 18:29

I must admit, I can't believe I am more interesting than who killed Lucy Beale!

OP posts:
StarOnTheTree · 22/02/2015 18:31

WOW I'm sorry it looks like I've been getting parenting all wrong for all these years. Apparently, one parent provides 100% care, and the other 100% money!
Are you actually for real??!!

Yeah for real, particularly as I didn't actually say that so I'll repeat what I did say - these children have 2 parents who between them can provide both 100% care and 100% of the money needed to raise them.''

Let me know if you still don't get it and I'll say it real slow next time Hmm