Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

[CocoEnglishChanel91]

Advice please. My boyfriend and I have no children. His son lives with his mum, who earns £20k a year, plus WFT Credits, Child Benefit - and is living with her new partner, a police detective sergeant who earns £50k. Combined household income (including benefits) pushing £80k.

My boyfriend earns £28k per annum, sees his son every week, has great relationship with him. He has to pay over £200 per month to his ex, and has the Child Maintenance people crawling over and vetting his income.

Yet the £80k going into his ex''s household is classed as not being relative. Surely it is?

He's not trying to escape responsibility for paying for his son. Far from it. He's paid consistently from the off (over 15 years ) but it seems ludicrous to me that his ex can have whatever household income she likes and that's not a factor.

It just feels very unfair to be, with everything seemingly weighted on his ex's side.

Why is the parent with care's income not relevant? Doesn't the child have two patents?

From people with experience is what I say about patents with care correct? And could it impact on me if we move in together?

Thanks

J

In those cases it all muddles in though doesn't it. The PWC on benefits will get enough to house themselves and their child. They will get money to feed themselves and their children but two portions of the same meal cooked at home is going to be less expensive than two portions of different meals.

It's so complicated and there are so many different situations to try and account for.

A parent paying £200 a month to their ex isn't doing much if that's all they ever provide, but a parent paying £200 a month to their ex who is also providing a home for the child to stay comfortably in at weekends and during the holidays, and will buy every other pair of school shoes and will pay half of the school residential trips is being fair IMO.

My ex used to whinge and moan about paying 160 a month for 4 children.. He also cut funding at 18 so didn't pay for university for any of them. The way he went on you'd have thought he was superdad. He used to think his ex wife who left him was funding extravagant purchases with HIS money haha

It has literally, lit-er-rally, got absolutely fuck all to do with you.

Beak out.

Claiming the £5 on principal (I wish I was a millionaire) does not mean that she sends their DC off to eat bread and water in a cold house. When my DD was resident with me, I claimed maintenance from her father, but then I would pay for the transport to drop her off and collect her, put all the clothing and entertainment she would need into her overnight bag, order a food delivery if her dad was short, and send some money so she could have a day out, at the cinema for example.

Most of us (bitter) women simply want our children to be happy, so we will fight their corner when needed, but we will also ensure that they never go without. I've found that having a good working relationship between ex and myself, where I can offer my support if necessary, absolutely vital. If that means I pay out a lot more than the maintenance I get from him to ensure she is happy and has contact with us both, then that's what I am willing to go without to provide for.

I also try to make it fair for any new partners (either mine or his). When I had a live in boyfriend, I did not expect him to provide half the income for the home, I asked for a third, as I looked at it this way, I pay a third for myself, a third for the children, and he pays a third for himself. That way I am not asking him to support them, my maintenance goes towards the children's third, with me topping it up because I am their mum and wouldn't have it any other way, and then what's left over goes to pay my own part.

By taking on the financial burden of my DDs transport and expenses while she is with her dad, I am not asking him to provide much more on top of his maintenance, so his partners will hopefully see that I am fair and willing to work with them to ensure we all are happy. I know I don't have to do that, but it just made me happier because it meant no arguments about money and my daughter being on top of the world because she got to see her dad regularly.

Of course I do get a little bit irritated that now she is resident with her father because I got sick (and made homeless), he doesn't reciprocate and I still have to struggle financially, emotionally and physically while he sits back and doesn't try to ensure that everything goes smoothly for her sake. He will not drop her off at the train station, I travel for three and a half hours there, then have to pay for a taxi round trip to collect her on top of train fares (I've even offered to pay for the taxi fare if he brings her), and when I am too sick to travel, I offer to pay both their train fares so that he can travel halfway (an hour on the train) to drop her off, and he won't even entertain the idea. Nor does he get her to call me if I have no credit until I get paid. Grrr, but I am not bitter, just frustrated, lol.

but a parent paying £200 a month to their ex who is also providing a home for the child to stay comfortably in at weekends and during the holidays, and will buy every other pair of school shoes and will pay half of the school residential trips is being fair IMO.

I agree with this. Some will pay the minimum the can get away with and no more. Others are actually parents.

Bloody he'll gan that's awful :( how old are your children - how long before they can make their way to you?

DD is only seven, so it's basically grin and bear it for her sake. I'm getting a travel scooter on finance which should make it easier as I can use it on both bus and train, which means even when I get sick, I'll manage the journey (I can't currently because I am so unsteady on my feet when ill, and I am worried I'll pass out).

It was never meant to be a long term thing, she was meant to stay until I got housed, but of course he now decides I can't have her back, and will take me to court for custody citing my ill health as a reason she is better off with him. I really couldn't manage that, and right now my circumstances are less than perfect (one bedroom, and disabilities not properly managed or controlled), so I am working on that and seeing a solicitor to get things straightened out with regards to access.

I could have her, but I am not sure if I should have have her right now, I'd find it difficult, and historically her behavioural issues worsen the iller I am, so while she is settled in school, and happy being there, and I am still dealing with my health being completely unreliable, I guess it's better to not upset the balance. It hurts in my chest, not having her here with me, but she has a whole family there, complete with three grown up sisters who take her out, spend time with her (and generally spoil her), a doting auntie and nanna, a dog she adores and a dad who can manage her behavioural issues, and who loves her, albeit whilst also being a complete butthead to me.

I just want to illustrate that most mums would do anything for their children, and really so should most dads, and anyone coming into this family as a new partner really needs to accept that a child will always be provided for by their parents, regardless of who earns what, or who has more (time/money/holidays/etc). If you can't accept that, I question why you would be in a relationship where the other person is a parent.

How much do you earn. Surely if you really think your DP Ex's partner money should be included then so should yours.

And if her partner does earn as much you say then she will have lost all the extra 'benefits'.

If you want to take your boyfriend on holiday, nothing's stopping you :)

What's your point 3? I don't understand the link. In the link a husband wants his wife to offset his child maintenance payments. That's between the couple. This is about the law.

I've read through that thread and even seen my post on it. Surprisingly my first post on there is almost identical to one of my posts on this thread.other than a bat shit crazy suggestion that was quite obviously tongue in cheek.

I'm not sure that does show a double standard there are large numbers of posters saying it's his responsibilty, a few talking about how the DWP and HMRC work so an entirely different thing and a few saying it should be a joint expense, so just a thread showing lots of different opinions

Fan you have an awesome attitude to what sound like incredibly difficult circumstances. I take my hat off to you. Can anyone close to you help out with the travel part? Are you South East, by any chance?

It's been tough this year as my mum is doing her masters degree, so she's been run off her feet trying to do that. Hopefully now she's done, I'll be able to share the load with her.

Her house is halfway on my journey (I am East Midlands), I have an hour and a half on the bus to get to hers, then just under an hour for the train. It's Birmingham I travel to, so it's got lots of transport, it's just me not being fit to travel sometimes.

Mum suggested me learning to drive, I think she may very well pay for me to do a crash (ahem) course over a week or so. I am entitled to full PIP, so the car isn't the issue. It shouldn't actually cost me as much with a car, considering what I am paying now to travel, offset by not needing to get insurance, road tax, MOTs etc. Just pay for petrol.

I did try to find someone to drive me, I would have covered petrol and a bit extra to thank the driver, but it's not happened.

I'm Kent or I would have helped out if I could. It sounds deeply frustrating for you. Hopefully getting a travel scooter plus your mother being more available will mean you get to see your daughter more. You don't sound at all bitter but I feel annoyed for you. Sending you

Lots of things I want to say but this seems like a conveniently timed thread at a point in time where F4J are trawling MN for quotes about us all being manhaters.

" He's not had a holiday in ten years - while his ex and her man go"
Presumably if you earned what the exs new boyfriend does this could be you too!!

Yep, so stop moaning and get a better job. Your boyfriend doesn't get to abdicate financial responsibility for his child because his ex has met someone who earns a decent wage.

Oh fuck, bold fail.

With regards to the tax credits thing, though, do they take account of overtime payments?

Because DS' often choose to stay at that rank because they can claim overtime which bumps up their pay (which they can't claim once they reach Inspector rank) - I have no idea whether tax credits take that into account or just work on basic salaries. I don't know what the thresholds are for tax credits anyway.

I think life would be a lot easier if parents were deemed to he financially responsible for their own biological or adopted children and step parents income was left out of it.

OP, women like you get right on my tits. 200 pounds is nothing when calculating what it really costs to house, clothe and feed a child. If your boyfriend resents supporting his own child, it really doesn't bode well for you - you may well one day be the single mother trying to get child support while your ex fucks off with a silly mare who thinks it's oh so unfair that he has to fulfill some financial responsibilities!

And I say all this with no personal axe to grind, bar a strong belief that men should be forced to pay the true cost of raising their kids - it's not the jobbof the state or the mum's new bf!

I also think that if you can't afford the kids you have, you've no business having any more and child support should not be reduced to account for dad having more babies with a new partner. The first kids don't suddenly become cheaper to feed on account of dad having a new baby!

Yes, children are much more expensive than non resident parents remember. (I pay 100% of 5 children's costs (or did when all 5 were still at home) and I paid their father on the divorce so probably have the worst financial deal in England because I work so don't get tax credits or child benefit either and I have them 365 nights a year (not my choice although of course much better than not having them living with me)).

It is very hard to generalise on these things but day by day if they live with you they do cost a lot. I've just bought the sixth form uniform (including 2 suits). I've paid for 2 hair cuts. I paid for Friday night's take away for them. I've paid for a top up shop one did today. never mind the higher costs of housing them which their father doesn't have and when they were younger their full time childcare costs. In fact I was just talking to one today about his grandparents on the other side. I've paid their train fares up to visit my ex's parents for 12 years -about £3500. Their father has not paid once yet it's his parents. I'm the one who made the effort to keep them in touch with them as I think it's morally wrong for children to lose touch with grandparents on divorce. I hope there's some reward in heaven for all this stuff because there is certainly no thanks on earth for that.

My son has lived only with me since he's 9.
He's now 18.

I've never asked his mum for money as I don't need it and it helped her out.
So should I have took the money off her? It would have come in handy.

Janet, it sounds pretty tough. In your case, I am guessing the financial side is annoying more than devastating because you are so capable and successful. But there is an implied lack of emotional involvement from the DC's father, and that is awful.

Your actions are right. I don't know if there is any reward in the next life (is there one? who knows?), but there certainly is one in this life. Doing the right thing despite is being painful, I am sure has benefitted your children and the adults they grow up to be. Also, I do think virtue is it's own reward.

Thank goodness for parents like you, who can put aside there own hurt and grievances, maintain dignity and self control and provide a reasonable emotional environment for their DC to grow up in.

It's bollocks 3cheekylittlemonkeys to say there are double standards on MN because different people have different views about things. If you can show that the same people say different things depending on the sex of the people involved, you have a point, but otherwise it's just idiotic. There isn't some generally agreed set of MN principles we all have to subscribe to. If you think the fact that there have been threads that have gone differently to this means there are double standards, then you also need to apply the same principle to every other instance where this happens on MN. That would also mean you'd have to take issue with the pet threads because some posters have allergies. Or the diet threads because some posters are underweight, or TTC because lots of us don't want more children. And to be clear, I'm not saying you're a liar: you could just as easily be genuine and wrong.