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

Child maintaince with a greedy ex

484 replies

EveOnline2016 · 17/09/2016 00:02

My brother has his daughter a lot.

This is how it breaks down. 1/2 the school holidays. EOW plus every Monday Tuesday and Thursday after school. Also 1/2 the cost of school uniform.

EOW is Friday after school till bedtime Sunday.

Still ex wants CMO payments.

While he has his daughter he feeds and clothes her and washes and irons the school uniform to send back.

My brother has now stopped the £100 per week maintence or he can't afford to have his dd.

Is this fair.

OP posts:
Ego147 · 17/09/2016 16:18

He is paying nothing at present, remember

I'll rephrase that.

Has he been paying the CSA expectation?

Was his current financial situation unexpected?

Trifleorbust · 17/09/2016 16:20

If we accept that every parent who currently has to pay CM should just have their child more so they don't have to pay, we cease to do what is in the interests of the child. She comes first.

But also, I don't believe for a second that he can't afford to pay ANY maintenance for his DD.

Atenco · 17/09/2016 17:46

If we accept that every parent who currently has to pay CM should just have their child more so they don't have to pay, we cease to do what is in the interests of the child. She comes first

Well said. The last few posts make her sound like a parcel.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 17/09/2016 18:27

If we accept that every parent who currently has to pay CM should just have their child more so they don't have to pay, we cease to do what is in the interests of the child. She comes first

If the reason they want greater contact is due to money then yes that is wrong.

50/50 shared care however can be in the best interest of the child and I know of many instances where it works very well.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 18:43

If the reason they want greater contact is due to money then yes that is wrong

I wonder how many people don't want increased contact because it could mean they get less money as the other parent has more contact?

AgnesNitt1976 · 17/09/2016 18:47

I would happily lose money if my DD dad had more contact with her.

One week in the summer is all he has her for since before she started school ten years ago.

Joan0fArc · 17/09/2016 18:55

Same here.
For different reasons perhaps. My x not a great father but by absolving himself almost completely of parenthood he's robbed me of the opportunity to meet somebody new. I have my children ALL the time which has skuppered not one but two fledgling 'relationships'

AgnesNitt1976 · 17/09/2016 19:01

Joan I have after 12 years of being single finally embarked on a new relationship. Part of the reason I waited was due to not being supported by ex with child care.

Xmaslover · 17/09/2016 20:53

Ego I wonder how many people don't want increased contact because it could mean they get less money as the other parent has more contact

Most RP want their child to have frequent contact with RP as it is good for the child to develop a good relationship with the NRP and it is good for the RP to get a break and is much better to have 2 loving parents involved than doing everything alone.
I think very few people would stop contact on the basis they would lose money.
Check the figures on the average a single parent receives in maintenance is £34.
You really think a resident parent would not allow say 1 night a week extra for the NRP and would be thinking they will lose approx £5!!

Xmaslover · 17/09/2016 21:03

In fact Ego your comment has really annoyed me. I get £11 from my daughters dad a week as he lies about his income.
He can't even be bothered to see her, but if he did bother you really think I wouldn't allow her to see her dad overnight as I could lose £1.57 . Get real.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/09/2016 21:17

Outrageous that he just stopped paying CM like that - this could have a serious impact on his child.

And having them overnight makes a huge difference. It's not just giving them a bit of tea after school - whoever they stay with overnight does bedtime routine, including hot water for baths etc, and does the whole getting them up, breakfasted, ready for school, into school.

So yes, he should pay up. If he wants more overnights with his child, then this can only be negotiated with the child's best interests in mind - not just so he can get out of paying maintenance Hmm

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:22

Get real

Some NRPs are crap and pay fuck all and don't want to see their kids. That's crap. I don't understand how a parent could do that.

Check the figures on the average a single parent receives in maintenance is £34

I am more than aware of what single parents get. It's crap.

This thread is about a Dad who has his daughter 3 evenings a week during a school week after school. Who does EOW. Who has half the holidays. Who has paid for clothes etc. And who has been paying £400 a month as well to his ex. And yet he's still being portrayed by some as a crap Dad.

Compared to the utter contempt some Dads treat their ex's and the total lack of contact they have, I think this is not bad.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:24

And having them overnight makes a huge difference. It's not just giving them a bit of tea after school - whoever they stay with overnight does bedtime routine, including hot water for baths etc, and does the whole getting them up, breakfasted, ready for school, into school

As does the picking them up from school. It also has a big impact. Picking them up, appointments, homework, feeding them, buying clothes etc.

eyebrowsonfleek · 17/09/2016 21:26

If the RP was purely money orientated then they would encourage access purely because childcare fees plus petrol/time getting there as well as fewer hours worked because they are RP will almost ways be more than the reduction in maintenance.
I.e. Allowing NRP access saves money for RP.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:30

You really think a resident parent would not allow say 1 night a week extra for the NRP and would be thinking they will lose approx £5

If a NRP increased their contact from say 40 / 60 (which is pretty good contact) to 50/50 and that meant the RP (who is that when it's 50/50) got no maintainance, do you think some people might be concerned at the potential loss of maintainance?

A decent parent would hopefully ensure that their DC was not losing out at their ex's house because of the lack of maintainance though.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/09/2016 21:35

The RP in this case is still having the dc overnight - so it's not 50-50, not nearly. He has them eow and half the holidays, plus 2 afternoons after school. Of course he should pay up.

Ego, I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending this man who has just unilaterally stopped paying CM. His child is entitled to it.

Xmaslover · 17/09/2016 21:36

These statistics are for anyone on here who thinks RP use NRP as a 'meal ticket'

From child maintenance statistics
Average maintenance amount including cases assessed at nil liability £11.90 a week.
Excluding nil liability cases the average is £39.50 a week (this has gone up as I thought it was £34)
82% of cases receive £30 a week or less.

So no I think the number of people withholding contact so they don't reduce maintenance is very slim indeed.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548610/csa-quarterly-summary-statistics-jun-2016.pdf

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:38

Someone on £500 a week in theory has to pay

£43 a week if it's 2 nights a week

£34 a week if they have their child 3 nights a week.

If it's more than 3 nights, that's £23 a week.

I know many people get a lot less than that. Which is crap as I know what it costs to bring up a child and to run a house - and the balance between working / childcare and being at home.

I would be interested to know if the OP's brother was paying the expected amount or above expected.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:40

I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending this man who has just unilaterally stopped paying CM.

I think the situation and the 'economics' involved is more complicated - but I do think he shouldn't have stopped. However I think the situation about what is expected is more complicated than just looking at the overnights.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/09/2016 21:41

The meal ticket thing is something that men's rights activists (f4j types) like to chuck around at women who are raising their children. Its really crap.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 17/09/2016 21:44

but I do think he shouldn't have stopped.

But he has. And now his sister's on MN asking if he's being fair.

No, OP - he is not being fair. Tell him to pay CM for his child.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 21:47

nd now his sister's on MN asking if he's being fair

I saw the OP as asking if the £400 a month on top of everything else he does was fair.

He's not being fair to stop.

But as for the £400 a month on top of what else he is doing, I think that's a debate. It needs more information to see if it's fair.

marinablue · 17/09/2016 22:07

WomanActually:

"He sounds like one of those types of men who think the ex should live how they think they should, that if he saw her in the shop buying something like a bottle of wine, then she's obviously spending his money he gives for his child on herself and either thinks if she has money to spare for something for herself then he's giving her too much, or not providing and denying the child things to fund haircuts, nails or whatever for herself so cuts or stops his dds money."

You are completely spot on with this, this describes my own dcs dad perfectly Grin

JellyBelli · 17/09/2016 22:08

Ego147
I wonder how many people don't want increased contact because it could mean they get less money as the other parent has more contact?

I dont know anyone who would say that. I dont think you know many single mothers.

AyeAmarok · 17/09/2016 22:14

My brother has now stopped the £100 per week maintence or he can't afford to have his dd.

Is this fair.

Strange Ego that you read something different into this very clear question than everyone else on the thread.

And are so doggedly determined to make it not about what the OP asked, NOT about the fact that he unilaterally decided to stop paying the CMO payments, that you alone are responsible for almost a quarter of the posts on a 400-post thread.