To think I'm not 'lucky'

[GettingScaredNow]

That ex pays maintenance!

My friend has been quite supportive through my extremely difficult and abusive divorce. And we were chatting yesterday and I divulged that ex has voluntarily paid maintenance according to the CSA calculator. But, there's a massive ulterior motive for him.

He needs to apply for a Visa based on right to family. And the home office want proof that he sees the children and pays maintenance. So it's in HIS interest to pay a decent amount and pay it on time.
He will be in the visa system for the next 5+ years and will need to show proof for that time frame that he has paid every single week. So I'm guaranteed maintenance for the next 5+ years.
My friend outright said me and my kids are lucky for this and should be grateful to him.
I get that many many women have trouble getting maintenance out of their ex's but I'm not lucky!

It annoyed me that I am supposed to be acting/feeling grateful about this. I am not ungrateful for the money, but this isn't him being a great dad. This is him doing what he has to for himself, again.

Yabu

Whatever his motive he is paying towards his dcs upkeep where many dads don't

Yanbu that you should feel grateful, but you are lucky that he is paying for his responsibilities. You must know that millions of women are left to take care of their children without any financial support from the fathers, I can see why your friend has thi opinion.

YANBU you will contribute a lot more financially than he for children you had together.

My family always thought I was lucky to have kid free weekends every other weekend - never mind the other 26 days of the month I did everything alone!

And actually sad as a society that is where we are at

Does he see the dc though?
If not, how does paying money allow him to enter (and stay in?) the country on right to family reasons?

I think YABU in thinking you're not lucky, you receive money without fight. I hazard a guess that there are many, many women who would wish to be in your shoes.

I agree with you. If fewer people had the attitude that women were lucky that their kids' dads supported their children financially, it would become the norm, rather than the exception. It contributes to the narrative that it's optional.

We can agree that people whose exes do not pay maintenance are unlucky, right?

If the scale is divided into just lucky and unlucky, then you are on the lucky side of it.

If the scale is divided into unlucky, neutral, and lucky, then you are in the neutral bit.

You should not have to feel grateful for someone doing what they should be doing though.

My son gets nothing from my XH, never has and never will. I will never understand why women are expected to be grateful when their kids dad does fulfil his responsibilities. So OP YANBU in that you shouldn't have to be made to feel grateful for him doing his basic duty, but I would consider that you are in a fortunate position because he is paying. That said, it's not your fault that some dad's aren't, so I don't see why you should bow down and be grateful when he's just doing what he should be doing!

It's all very unfair and open to abuse on both sides.

We pay OH ex CSA set maintenance (£500 a month) which does not take into consideration the journey from Scotland to South of England when the kids aren't in the car but my ex is self employed with 2 businesses and pays me £150 a month.

He went of four foreign holidays last year and I have reported him for tax evasion and nothing has happened.

What a sorry state when a women is called lucky that the father provides for their children. It just shows how normalised it is. It's so sad.

I guess it depends how you say the word 'lucky' then.
She is saying that me and my children are lucky that he is paying maintenance. My kids are lucky to have a dad who happily pays for them.
I think it's not 'lucky' it's the bare minimum he could do.
He does see them, for an hour here or there, and wants to call and talk to them over FaceTime.

I can see that in respect to 'unlucky' women who's ex's don't pay I appear to be fortunate.
I resent the idea I'm supposed to be all happy and grateful to him for paying the bare minimum towards his kids purely because it benefits him to do so.

When I filed for divorce he promised me that I wouldn't get a penny out of him and if I forced it through the CSA then he would quit his job etc etc.
Then he found out about the visa requirement and suddenly he is happy to pay each week and wants a letter from me confirming he is paying it to support his file.

Yanbu

Just because some deadbeat dads choose not to pay for the upkeep of their children, does not mean the ones that do receive maintenance are "lucky"

I find it quite sad that society thinks this way, more so in the UK, because a lot of other counties make it the law that Fathers pay for their children.

I'm certainly not saying you should be happy or grateful for the money you receive. I'm saying you're lucky in that you don't have to fight him for it. I think it's disgusting some parents don't contribute financially or otherwise to their DC.

No YANBU. I absolutely agree that those people who don't get maintenance from exs are unlucky. It is unfair for them & should be far less acceptable than it seems to be. But, as others have said, paying towards and seeing your own children is the minimum that should happen.

Yanbu.

People who choose to refuse to take responsibility for their children are not true adults imo.

You and your child are lucky that the system has twisted his arm enough to cause him to pay but you have no reason to be grateful to the individual doing what he ought to do anyway!

I suppose it depends how "luck" is viewed. Maybe I am unlucky for never having received a penny from ex H and DD is unlucky for never having had contact from him but in my view we are lucky for never having had to deal with him, his lies, unreliability, etc.

How can it be "lucky" to be coming out of an abusive relationship with a man who is such a shit Dad that he never sees his children and reluctantly pays the absolute minimum just so he can get a visa?

That is a shite situation.

Are you keen for him to stay in the UK?

I wouldn't be bothering my arse to keep my children in touch with such a crap excuse for a father.

Neither you nor they will see him for dust once he has what he wants, so he is using them.

He's the lucky one in this scenario.

She made a thoughtless comment. It is quite convenient for you that the selfish dick needs to be doing the right thing rather than giving you years of extra run-around and leaving you scraping for every last penny.

People use 'lucky ' as a figure of speech. She might have said 'well at least you aren't having to drag him through the courts', which is another perspective.

She supported you when you needed her, don't get carried away being annoyed at this comment. Just explain why you don't need to feel grateful for his money.

No, it doesn't make you lucky, winning the lottery is lucky. A parent paying for their own children should be standard, it's shit that it's not, but from your post I would suggest you aren't in a 'lucky' situation

Yanbu!
From what you've said though after the five years is up, he wont be seen for dust. It's a sad indictment of our times that NRP paying the minimum legal amount is 'lucky' but I do agree with perhaps pointing this out to your friend but let it go as a poor choice of words. I'd think she meant the broad church of those who receive payment, and those who don't.

Maybe she meant you were lucky he had an alterior motive and decided paying up was beneficial to him.

Yes, lots of dead beat dads don't support their children, but that's not anything to do with 'luck' and everything to do with the 5% of people who are antisocial and neglectful of their children. Your ex is one of these. It's part of a personality disorder is what I reckon. They simply couldn't give a shit about their offspring and always put themselves first.

Thankfully, plenty of men and women don't have this antisocial personality disorder and don't need to be forced into supporting their own children. They do what is needed because they care about their children more than themselves and are able to give rather than think about receiving all the time.

So, not about luck. It's about whether or not someone is antisocial. Just so happens your antisocial ex sees that for the time being paying up is beneficial to him.

Luck : success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

There is no luck at all in this. It it not down to chance, but his own actions.
That the system is such that he feels forced to support his own children for his own gains is again not luck, it's the action of the government (or whoever).

YANBU

Agree with ijustate...you are not 'lucky', and it was probably a throwaway comment. It is lucky I suppose that his situation means for 5 years you dont have to worry as it sounds like from your description of your ex that he wouldnt have paid so easily without the incentive.

I don't think you are lucky. he is fulfilling basic requirements as a afther (and from what you say, just the basic stuff. He isn't going overboard)

What that sort of comments says though is that we live in a society where it's OK for fathers not to pay anything and you're lucky (as in 'he is such a great man. You and 'your' dcs are so lucky to have him in your life') that he is doing the basic minimum re looking after HIS children that are much HIS resposnisiblity as they are yours.

What you are 'lucky' about is the fact circumtances are playing in your favour. He needs you to say he is seeing his dcs and pays maintenance for his own benefit. If he didn't need to Visa stuff, I suspect he would have been a nightmare and wouldn't have paid a penny (or not wo a huge fight)

Does it matter "why" he's paying maintenance ?

He's complying with the law in that regard.

However, ethically, he should be stepping up an being an equal parent as well as financially supporting his DCs - and I'd be more put out about that if I were you than worrying about his possible motives for meeting his legal requirement.