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

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:
ArcheryAnnie · 17/09/2016 10:14

Am also here to say that the ex isn't in the least "greedy".

As the others have said, OP, if your brother wants full custody he needs to go back to court. In the meantime if he wants to do the best by his daughter then he needs to pay the full maintenance that has been agreed. It's what a half-decent father (and a half-decent human being) would do.

(And if he's struggling to pay £100 a week when his daughter doesn't even live with him, he's going to have a nasty shock about what costs and limitations are like when you are the resident single parent.)

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:14

Ego147 by continually saying "takes the pressure off his ex" your implying that it's not his responsibility and he's just being nice. It's every bit as much his responsibility, the child is his, she spends the majority of her time with her mother, therefore costs are higher for the RP. I really can't see where you're coming from with this argument. Surely he'd need a home and a car whether his daughter lived with him or not?

Careforadrink · 17/09/2016 10:14

Because 2 nights out of 14 isn't equal obviously. Nowhere near.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:15

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

That's the question - and the tricky one - especially with shared care. If they had 50 /50, the costs wouldn't be that different - except the mum would not get £400 a month.

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:17

The Mum wouldn't get £400 a month because the cost of raising the child would be halved equally between both parents in that instance Ego147. Currently it's not, therefore XW is entitled to maintenance.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:18

she spends the majority of her time with her mother, therefore costs are higher for the RP

But how much higher?

by continually saying "takes the pressure off his ex" your implying that it's not his responsibility and he's just being nice

No - there is pressure of childcare and the implications that has for work. If a parent is looking after their child - as a parent should - then they aren't being paid for it.

It is a responsibility to look after your child - either parent. But that comes at a financial cost - by doing the after school childcare 2 x a week, isn't that giving his ex an opportunity to work and support herself?

RebootYourEngine · 17/09/2016 10:19

We dont know why or if he even is struggling to pay it. He could be struggling or he could be just saying that because he doesnt want to pay for his child.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:19

The Mum wouldn't get £400 a month because the cost of raising the child would be halved equally between both parents in that instance

Yes - but in this case, how much 'extra' do you think the cost is?

The biggest cost of a child is probably lost earnings.

Petal02 · 17/09/2016 10:19

So in the case of a true 50/50 split, neither side is eligible for maintenance?

ArcheryAnnie · 17/09/2016 10:20

And also, for the record, I have found that non-resident fathers report their own involvement in their kids' lives as far more that they are in reality, so I take the brother's account of their involvement with a pinch of salt. (I know there are paragon absent fathers, but I do not assume that all are so.)

(Eg "I have my kids half the holidays!" often translates to "I did nothing until the holidays begun, so my kids didn't know if they'd see me at all, then I booked an extravagent holiday for me and the kids at the last minute and demanded my ex change all their holiday plans to fit in with my wishes!" I speak from bitter, bitter experience and the bitter, bitter experience of many of the single mothers that I know.)

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:20

And also, for the record, I have found that non-resident fathers report their own involvement in their kids' lives as far more that they are in reality

Again - projecting onto this case.

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:22

Ego147 Are you in a situation where you resent paying maintenance for a child? It really sounds like it. Arguing about childcare and money and costs is petty and ridiculous. Any parent has the responsibility to step up for their child, without making the other feel like they're being done a favour. Which is how you make it sound talking about "taking pressure off" and "giving her the opportunity to support herself". You forgot to add "and her daughter" by the way. Clearly you've never been a single resident parent, especially with an X who doesn't do nearly enough to support their child, because let me tell you it's not easy.

ArcheryAnnie · 17/09/2016 10:23

Am speaking from experience, Ego. The brother might be an absolute paragon, but the experience of many, many women tells me I should not assume this is the case.

Somerville · 17/09/2016 10:24

Ego The starting point for what is fair/reasonable is always what is legal. Once NRP has discharged their legal responsibility by paying the legal minimum amount they can then look at anything else they think it would be in the child's best interest to change. (Such as inceeasing the amount to pay more than the minimum, or offering free childcare from parents, or trying to negotiate an extra overnight if the child would like that so that although the maintenance payment will lower a bit, the RP can have another night/early morning available to work and therefore will be better off.)

If OP had phrased this differently, being honest and open about the overnights situation I think she would have received better advice. From the way she has done it, it very much looks like the NRP wants to get more residence merely to avoid paying maintenance of only £100 per week.

With this level of selfishness the eight year old will have picked up on her father and his families selfishness already. Stingy with money, stingy with love. Poor kid.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:26

Which is how you make it sound talking about "taking pressure off" and "giving her the opportunity to support herself

There's always people arguing on here that they can't do well in a career because their ex works full time and does fuck all with childcare and expects the RP to do and pay for childcare.

It seems that this NRP is trying to do the right thing by the RP. The RP does have the chance to work and not worry too much about childcare.

ayeokthen · 17/09/2016 10:28

Because that's the bare minimum he should be doing! Ffs he's not doing anything special, he's parenting his child. Basic responsibility, not paving the streets with gold for his ex to live the life ofn Riley!

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:29

Such as inceeasing the amount to pay more than the minimum

The op has not said if this was the minimum.

eyebrowsonfleek · 17/09/2016 10:29

ArcheryAnnie - Here too. My ex told people he had the kids half the summer holidays but he took them away for 10 days and had them twice overnight.

mixety · 17/09/2016 10:29

I think Ego has made some fair points. But data does show that an astonishing amount fathers dont pay any maintenance, and also we all know women's careers and earning power generally suffer more from having children. So I'm not surprised that people are reluctant to give the brother the benefit of the doubt here.

At the end of the day, either he follows the law and pays the maintenance. Or he and his ex both agree to work together to come up with something that they both feel is fair based on the real costs they both incur and both their salaries.

Careforadrink · 17/09/2016 10:29

How can stopping paying child support ever be doing good the right thing?

Somerville · 17/09/2016 10:29

It seems that this NRP is trying to do the right thing by the RP.

How the fuck can anyone think that about this man who is currently not paying a penny in maintenance. And thinks his child's mother is greedy for expecting maintenance.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:31

Because that's the bare minimum he should be doing! Ffs he's not doing anything special, he's parenting his child

Yes - so should he also be supporting his ex to the degree of £400 a month as well.

He is parenting his child. He is giving his ex the chance to support herself - and that's nothing special.#

So why should he also pay £400 a month as well?

StripeyMonkey1 · 17/09/2016 10:31

She is not greedy and it is unhelpful to call her greedy. She is getting pretty basic child maintenance from him, to which she is entitled.

Starting a fight with the ex over child maintenance will ultimately hurt the child the most - who wants to deal with squabbling parents? It also gives the message that the child is a burden, which I am sure an eight year old will pick up even if you try to hide it from them.

If your brother wants full care or 50/50 he should go for that, but only if he thinks your daughter would be better off spending more time with him. If his motivation is purely financial however, he should not.

Ego147 · 17/09/2016 10:32

How the fuck can anyone think that about this man who is currently not paying a penny in maintenance

Umm. He' ;s been paying £400 a month.

Lelloteddy · 17/09/2016 10:35

Ego there is such an irony in you shutting other posters down by accusing them of projecting.

OP your 'brother' needs to support his child. Financially as well. His Ex is not being 'greedy'.

Swipe left for the next trending thread