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

To ask what would happen with maintenance in this situation

145 replies

MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 12:48

A and B are separated, have one DC. B pays maintenance to A.

B has another DC with C. C and B decide B will become a stay at home parent and C will go back to work.

What happens with maintenance for A and B's child together?

OP posts:
Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 23:27

This is my view, stitched. and that you shouldn't have more children if it means you can't provide for the ones you or your partner already have as well

I asked him surely C would be contributing were DD to move in with them. He said no, because I will pay maintenance Hmm

Either way it's never going to happen.

OP posts:
Oswin · 01/03/2018 00:51

Wow so she wouldn't even contribute to her when she's living there. And he thinks having this prick around his daughter is a good thing. What a pair of scumbags. They are disgusting.

Julie8008 · 01/03/2018 00:58

But C to would be massively contributing because she would be paying for the mortgage, electricity, gas, council tax, car, water, furniture, food and pretty much every domestic cost.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 01/03/2018 09:10

I agree Julie, but either she doesn't see it that way or she thinks I will be paying enough maintenance to cover her entire share of the food, electric, etc. Hmm

Would 50/50 be awarded in this situation? I keep hearing courts like 50/50 nowadays and that worries me.

OP posts:
AnneLovesGilbert · 01/03/2018 10:16

Not with a 2 hour distance OP, how would that work when she's at school? He's bluffing. Sorry they're both such wankers. You and DD deserve better.

prh47bridge · 01/03/2018 10:33

He is right that you would have to pay maintenance if your daughter moved in with him (assuming you are earning). However, it is very unlikely the courts would agree to a change of residence without your agreement.

The courts like to award shared care but that doesn't mean 50/50. It varies from case to case but for a young child they would typically be looking at alternate weekends with one overnight plus some holiday contact. If your ex lived closer they may also order an evening a week. Given the distance involved they wouldn't order that in this case but they might compensate in other ways - a little more holiday time, for example.

Given that their decision that he should be a stay at home parent is based on the fact that they would be better off because they won't have to pay maintenance to you it is possible you could argue that this is deliberate deprivation of income, in which case your ex would have to pay maintenance as if he was still earning. Once the CMS has given a nil assessment you will have to apply for a variation. I am not saying you would definitely get it and you may have to go through the appeals process but it is a possibility.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 01/03/2018 13:08

He currently has EOW but this hasn't been consistent because he seems to think contact only goes ahead if it doesn't interfere with his plans for the weekend Hmm we meet halfway for drop off/pick up. DD sees more of her godfather than she does her dad.

I have no proof this is why they have made this decision, but knowing what he earns and that she earns slightly less, I think that much is obvious. He was very quick to tell me it would mean there would be no more maintenance.

OP posts:
user1471447863 · 02/03/2018 01:37

How do A's earnings compare to B/C's?

pallisers · 02/03/2018 02:04

How do A's earnings compare to B/C's?

How does this matter - except as it means possibly - and luckily - the child will not be plunged into poverty by his parent's choice?

If a woman has a child with a wealthy man does that mean she has no responsibility to support that child?

Lillygolightly · 02/03/2018 02:53

I was C in this scenario, B stayed home with our DC because I was able to earn more with less hours during a time when B was unwell. B had always worked and paid maintenance to his child with A. I took over the maintenance payments to A because that was what was fair and I didn’t want anything to change or possibly upset DSDC. We also asked to have DSDC more since one of us was now a SAHP.

However I fully realise that there was no legal requirement to continue maintenance (which is mad quiet frankly) I took over the payments because I loved DSDC and it was the right thing to do.

ShapelyBingoWing · 02/03/2018 03:24

I no longer speak to friends who are B and C in this scenario because I can't look them in the eye. Completely lost my respect for them and was recently very pleased to hear that C is now getting very frustrated that B's stay at home parenting has evolved and consists almost entirely of the school/nursery run and playing video games. C has ended up working full time, doing all the house work and still looking after DC on her days off.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 02/03/2018 10:30

I work part time. Part time due to lack of childcare options. Up until now he has paid minimum maintenance dictated by CSA, sadly it doesn't even come close to childcare! I would be fine financially if he stopped paying, but that really isn't the point. If they can afford to pay while C is on maternity, they can afford to pay with B as a stay at home parent. They just don't want to.

B's argument when I pointed this out was that as he will be becoming a stay at home parent, he can have DD full time, I can go back to work full time and pay maintenance and have her EOW Hmm

OP posts:
Keepingupwiththejonesys · 02/03/2018 15:49

Imo most dads that won't pay maintenance for their children definitely don't actually want them to live with them permanently... As they are well aware that even with you paying maintenance it will cost them more. Its an empty threat

donners312 · 02/03/2018 19:31

Just wow!! you really don't need to justify what you are paying as the resident parent.

I do think if C takes on financial responsibility for B then she should be responsible for all his financial responsibilities . For example presumably she must be paying for his credit card debt or car loans - are they going to say "no you don't owe anything now because you wont work". It is wrong and disgusting. Horrible people and I would concentrate on getting your child out of their equation!

Original poster
MaceWindu · 02/03/2018 19:33

I don't think they're doing it so much because he doesn't think he should have to pay maintenance as because it's a spiteful thing he can do to me so he will, sadly. He has made noises about wanting 50/50 before, although you are right, it has never come to anything. It may well be an empty threat. The maintenance thing definitely isn't though.

OP posts:
SometimesMaybe · 02/03/2018 19:47

Keep a record of dates, when he has failed to turn up etc, what he has done for holidays etc. The courts sometimes get it wrong but generally they can spot a CF at a thousand paces. They are interested in the best interests of the child. In this case the best interests of the child are to be with you.

HughGrantsHair · 02/03/2018 20:00

As others have said, B won't have to pay anything.

Personally I think if an NRP has a child/children to pay for through the CSA/CMS they should have to sign on to Job seekers like RPs with children over 3 years have to.

Yes I understand that RPs with a partner can be a SAHP but their partner is financially supporting the family.

An NRP should NEVER be allowed to pay nothing towards the upbringing of their child.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 02/03/2018 20:09

I will be amazed if he doesn't put off going back to work until the last possible moment.

They will have one good salary and full time free child care, meanwhile I have to choose between working and stupidly expensive childcare or part time working, less childcare and less pay while his maintenance disappears Hmm

OP posts:
HughGrantsHair · 02/03/2018 20:10

Macewindu, I'm in your position. It's a been a few years now. I'm on my own. It's very frustrating. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 02/03/2018 21:03

It's ridiculous, isn't it Hugh? he doesn't have to pay a penny, and yet if I take her home to visit my family (abroad) he gets to object to me taking her out of the country Hmm

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread