AIBU to think my weathy friend is wasting her time?

[firstworldproblemsss]

I've just been told that my best friend, who's on a 6 figure salary (not beginning with 1!) is about to take her ex to court for child maintenance and housing allowance.

On one hand, her ex turned into a total twat in the split (10+ year relationship, owned house together, planned baby) - he walked out on her for OW when the baby was 1 and as she was just returning to her high powered job after mat leave. Also, he's absolutely loaded (and semi-famous) - probably a millionaire several times over.

On the other hand, she's doing very well herself, and should easily be able to support herself and her child. They live well, in a nice house, she has a nanny, good support network, and a lovely new partner.

FWIW the dad only see the child once a fortnight. All the heavy lifting is done by my friend. This was a mutual agreement and everyone seems happy about it.

I don't know if I'm BU in thinking she should just carry on with her life and not spend 5 figures and loads of time on legal expenses when she can't need the money? But then, of course the child's dad should support the child... What do you think?

(I'm afraid it might sound like I have a case of jealousy here, yes and no - I've known her since we were tiny, and think she absolutely deserves her life, and I'm really glad to be part of it. But of course it does seem like a massive first world problem too!)

Serves her right if he demands and gets the child 50% of the time. He can hire a nanny just as well as she can.

When I divorced my husband 40 yrs ago I did not go after the child support $ I had coming to me because I knew if he thought he was getting away with something he’d leave bed us alone. And he did. He was not a good influence.

Of course she should get him to pay towards his child. She’s doing her best by them already. Her new partner may well be happy to contribute but it’s not his child.

It’s all very well saying the child will make their own mind up when they’re old enough to understand dad was a dead beat wanker who didn’t think they were worth a penny, but by trying to get what she and their shared child are owed she’ll be able to tell them in future that nun tried to give then as many opportunities and as much support as she could.

He’s awful for not doing it himself. He can’t complain when she tries to make him.

Serves her right if he demands and gets the child 50% of the time. He can hire a nanny just as well as she can.

Serves her right? And we wonder why feminism is needed. Good grief, she’s a mother trying to illustrate to a feckless, selfish dick that responsibilities are not optional. Not some kind of money grabber!

Charolais that’s an appalling thing to say.

Any parent who wriggles out of paying maintenance for the upkeep of THEIR CHILD doesn’t deserve to see that child.
To me not paying maintenance towards the upkeep of your child is abuse & plain evil.
So yes your friend should take her ex to court regardless of whether the money is needed or not.

For some reason or other it is seen as totally socially and legally acceptable for men to not pay for their children.

It shouldn’t be. Men who do this are disgusting. We should treat them as the disgusting losers that they are. (And yes - ex friend there is a reason why I never call you back. I know. Of course I don’t want you to “buy me a pint” - that money belongs to your children - it would disgust me.)

Instead everything conspires to make it almost impossible to force a father to pay for his child.

• The CMS is completely crap.

-It is so accepted that men don’t pay for their children that benefits no longer allow for maintenance as so many families were forced into poverty due to non-payers -The court process is expensive and difficult

• Women who try and get just what their children are legally entitled to are described as greedy, as money grabbers, “she’s doing it out of spite”, “it’s for her benefit not his”, “it would serve her right if he went for 50:50”.And that is things said by other women on a site well known for being full of feminists!

The child has 5e right to this money. Yes - she is well off but presumably not in the tunes of “many millions” as he is. A proportion of that money will be huge. And still make a massive difference in the child’s life. Top school rather than good private school, house owned outright rather than a deposit, mum able to cut her hours if the child needs her to.

And most of all one less man laughing in the pub about how he doesn’t need to pay the gold digger and encouraging all his mates to not bother to. “She took me to court, I got stuffed with all her costs plus the judge made me pay more than CSA! Just pay her mate.” Is a far better message from him.

The thing is, OP, that the child is his, too. Why should twats like that get away without paying a penny or doing anything to care for their child?

I've just looked up his potential contribution on the child maintenance calculator. If he's earning £5,000 per week, so £250,000 per year, he has to pay £294 per week to your friend. At £1,200 per month, she could be saving u

Of course he should be paying towards his child

She may well want to save up the money for her child, she may want it to treat her and her child its doesnt matter but however much she earns should not have any impact on how much he supports his own child

Yes she should. Why let Mr Multi-Millionaire off the hook for supporting his child, just because she also works?

It's his responsibility too not just hers , regardless of whether she can afford it. It's the principle. Also she could invest that money for her DC for later in life if it's not needed day to day. He already shirks the bulk of the childcare and day to day responsibility.

Why should he shirk his responsibilities because she is successful?

The child has a right to be supported by both parents. The father in this case is clearly not stepping up to his responsibilities- good on your friend, who is acting in the best interests of the child.

She may also be attempting to secure longer-term contact and financial security by being able to prove that the child is a dependent of his or her father - could perhaps affect things like life insurance/ pension dependents etc.

I think I agree with you OP. The energy and bitterness that this kind of thing takes up can just consume a person.

If she's well off herself, she should just try and get on with her life. Unless, of course, she wants his balls for a pair of earrings because of the circumstances of her split, in which case she's unlikely to listen to reason anyway.

Not being au fait with all this stuff really, but if Dad refuses to contribute, can he still have access? Thanks.

Ah,OK, smeddum - I see

Although I agree totally with the view held by many on here that of course the father should pay cm, I fear that the family court will take a very different view. The decisions made by family courts are not transparent, not visible. There is a definite prejudice towards mothers now. I don't think she would get good advice from a family lawyer about her "chances". They seem to hide behind the statement that each judge is different and there are many factors to consider. I wish your friend well but it sounds as if it will be a long painful road.