Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 09:55

4 nights a month is nothing really - half the holidays means nothing - it doesn't say she's living with him for that time - maybe he just pays for holiday club or his parents have her (as the OP has mentioned)

Or it could mean he has her O/N plus holiday time. If he pays for holiday clubs, it is a financial cost he has to bear.

ghostyslovesheep · 17/09/2016 09:56

he feeds her twice a week - she doesn't sleep there

mum provides a house and a bed on those days as well

I agree with the previous poster - take is to the CM people and let them sort it - he sounds to motivated by spite to think clearly!

ghostyslovesheep · 17/09/2016 09:56

yes - kids cost money - who knew!

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 09:58

he feeds her twice a week - she doesn't sleep there

She does - EOW plus half the holidays.

yes - kids cost money - who knew

For both parents. Even if they are separated.

QuiteLikely5 · 17/09/2016 09:59

There is no point arguing with what the law states is there? That is what you are doing and this is not the correct forum to do it!

I suspect you are the new GF rather than his sister!

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 09:59

mum provides a house and a bed on those days as well

As does the Dad when the DD is at the ex's house.

c3pu · 17/09/2016 10:00

If the dad wants to reduce the amount of maintenance he is paying, he needs to have the child stay with him more often. This is usually a good thing as it enables both parents to have a strong relationship with the child. If he's willing and able and it is practical then he should ask the Mum nicely to move to a shared care arrangement. If she refuses, he should take the Mum to mediation and court.

If he isn't willing to do the above, then he needs to bite the bullet and cough up. Nobody likes handing money over to their ex, but unfortunately it's just too bad.

mixety · 17/09/2016 10:01

The fact is it is more expensive to run two households than one. Especially when both households need a room for daughter, both will probably need a car, both will probably want to do (separate) activities and maybe holidays with daughter.

So it is unsurprising in a way that there is a lot of tension over what is "fair" and how much the NRP should be contributing towards the running of the other household. Unless there are new partners funding part of the home costs, the money the couple had when together is probably unchanged yet has to be spread over a hell of a lot more costs.

In this situation it seems like both mum and dad are able to do a lot of childcare, with dad particularly doing after school and mum doing before school.

Surely the best thing to do would be sit down together, and talk about how they can best split child care between them in order that they can both work and earn money to support their own households, while also getting enough time with DD. If it turns out that it is more logical for one parent to look after the DD a bit more than the other, then the other parent should pay some maintenance.

I think the whole 'how many overnights' thing is a very blunt tool. It would be better if they could work out something properly helpful and fair to each other and DD together. But it does require getting rid of any presumptions like "she is greedy" "he is penny pinching" etc.

One thing I don't get OP is why your DB doesn't have have his DD overnight on those 3 weekdays and/or why he can't afford to both have her AND pay £100 pw.

Careforadrink · 17/09/2016 10:03

Sorry my mistake I thought there was two.

But he still only has her equivalent of 2 out of 14. It's nothing compared to her mum.

Half the holidays so he damn well should.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:04

The fact is it is more expensive to run two households than one. Especially when both households need a room for daughter, both will probably need a car, both will probably want to do (separate) activities and maybe holidays with daughter

Exactly. The food costs are almost irrelevant when it comes to the actual cost of providing and running 2 homes - which is what it seems both parents want to do here.

Somerville · 17/09/2016 10:05

What's your point, Ego? That he shouldn't pay maintenance?

Many people have told OP, including me, that the father can take the matter to court if he wants more overnights. But in the meantime he needs to pay at least the legal minimum.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:05

But he still only has her equivalent of 2 out of 14. It's nothing compared to her mum

But he has her after school 2x a week, EOW plus half the holidays.

So he has a lot of the same 'running costs' as the mum.

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:07

XH told me I was a greedy bitch because I asked for £5 a week Angry never had money from him and I guess I never will. Maintenance of £100 will have been calculated based on time he has her overnight, and his income. He doesn't have day to day costs of raising a child, although he has her 3 afternoons and one overnight a week during term time. Really that isn't much though is it? Unless there are major concerns with the care her mother is giving her, why would he go for her full time? Money seems to be the reason, and that's a crap reason. Maintenance is for the child, and anyone that resents paying/doesn't pay is a twat IMO, male or female. It's your child, step up or fuck off.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:07

What's your point, Ego? That he shouldn't pay maintenance

My point is how much maintenance is 'fair' when he has her 2 x week after school - so that takes pressure off the ex re childcare, EOW plus half the holidays - again - relieving childcare pressures.

He has to provide a home - as does the Ex, They both pay for clothes, School clothes. The house still has costs when DD is not there.

What's 'reasonable' here ?

Sunnyfeet · 17/09/2016 10:07

I thought that even if the care was shared 50/50, that one parent would still be in receipt of child benefit, and would therefore be entitled to claim maintenance from the other parent (which is mad).

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:08

Maintenance of £100 will have been calculated based on time he has her overnight, and his income

Has the OP said that was the CSA calculation? Or just what the NRP paid?

mixety · 17/09/2016 10:09

Also can I just say that as a stepmum / 2nd partner myself, it is pretty galling to read all the "I bet OP is actually his second wife" "I bet shes the stepmum" comments. It isn't fair and really doesn't make mumsnet a very nice place for stepmums sometimes.

AliceInUnderpants · 17/09/2016 10:09

Yet another waste of space 'father' being enabled to continue to be a shit parent by those around him Hmm

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:10

Ego147 well if it hasn't been calculated by the CSA why is anyone bitching about it? If it's not been calculated, get it calculated. Job done.

stitchglitched · 17/09/2016 10:10

The law says he has to pay maintenance and overnights are how this is measured. So he doesn't agree with the CMS rules on this but I doubt he'll argue with the bare minimum amount they can enforce and offer to pay more! He can't have it both ways, picking which bits of the CMS guidelines he will follow.

ghostyslovesheep · 17/09/2016 10:11

'relieving child care pressures' or being a father?

to be fair none of us have a scooby about the situation - he could be earning a squillion quid a month while she's in abject poverty or vice versa - but on the face of it she is doing the lions share of care so is entitled to maintenance and CB/TC - because that's what happens when people split up - both parties need homes and food etc but the childs needs also have to be met - in their main residence and by their main carer

Careforadrink · 17/09/2016 10:11

2 out of 14 is nowhere near the same costs lol

For starters he doesn't have the restrictions on his earning power for those 12 unlike the mum

Sunnyfeet · 17/09/2016 10:12

PS - I agree with mixety, that when a couple split, their combined resources suddenly have to cover the costs of two households, instead of just one, and people seem to forget that sometimes.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:12

The op has not said if the £100 a week is the CSA expectation.

Some NRPs pay more than that. And some pay a lot less. Or none.

The NRP is struggling to pay £400 a month - and he does want to provide a house for his DD, takes the pressure off for his ex by doing the afternoon school run 2 x a week EOW plus half the holidays. He also pays half the clothing costs.

If he is struggling, what should give?

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:13

For starters he doesn't have the restrictions on his earning power for those 12 unlike the mum

Why not? He does 2 x school runs - and he has half the holidays.