Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think his ex-wife-son are taking us for too much

335 replies

Shesonlyworth30 · 17/04/2019 21:04

Long time lurker, first time poster. It’s a long one so apologies in advance.

Been with my DF for almost 7 years, have a 3 (almost 4) yr old and getting married in the summer.

DF was married before (to C - she was also married before and had 2 other sons (both older) and has one son with DF (16 this year) who lives with C in Scotland. DF has never not paid for his son, he even chose to have it deducted straight from wages when CSA were in charge. He didn’t trust C and wanted there to be a proper paper trail if ever she decided to say she never received anything. Since we have been together the payments have been just shy of £200. I have never had a problem with him paying for his son.

C has never let DF speak to son or see him since he was 3. She tried to kill herself a few times (once when pregnant and once when son was born) so DF took parental responsibility for her 2 older sons and their own while she was sectioned. They split up when son was 3 and she told a court it would be detrimental to her mental health to allow DF custody and access. Court agreed. (DF living in north of England at this point and C in Scotland)

Fast forward to last year. CMS took over from CSA and they re-assesses him and told him his payments would need to be £500 a month. We argued that this was a massive increase. They said it was because of what he earned. However they were taking overtime into account which we said was wrong. His overtime was not guaranteed and he did that to pay for our wedding/holidays etc. They said they were right. He went to court and while the judge was sympathetic said there was nothing they could do. He even tried showing them that if he had a basic month, with no overtime, paid the mortgage (a not unreasonable £660) gas, elec etc he physically would not have enough to pay the CMS. They didn’t care. They don’t take household expenses into account. He then said he had another child to support (ours) they said they had allowed £30 pcm for her. £30 bloody quid. That’s not even a day in nursery.

Because C doesn’t want him to know where she is she wants everything doing through the CMS so he has to pay their admin charge (extra £83 pm) and now we are in a vicious cycle. He worked more OT last year to pay her and still have money for our savings but because he earned more he now has to pay more this year £634 pcm!!!!

I’m fed up with it. My daughter doesn’t have £634 a month spent on her from her dad. I expected his payments to go up but AIBU to think this is grossly unfair and there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. Surely if CMS believe 2 children should cost £664 then that money should be split between the 2?

His son can leave school at any time now but we know she won’t tell us so this could be ongoing for another 4 years because there isn’t a doubt in my mind she’ll make son stay at school if she’s getting £550 odd quid a month. Oh and she’s back with her first husband!! 🤬🤬

OP posts:
FudgeBrownie2019 · 18/04/2019 13:52

If he is not allowed to see his children he shouldn't have to pay anything at all in my world!

Your world sounds filled to the brim with wankers, tbh.

User987654433 · 18/04/2019 13:56

"Collect and pay isn't difficult to request; my cousin uses it as his ex would only agree to cash payments and wouldn't give bank details, he requested it to CSA so that he had proof he had made payments as she frequently claimed he gave her nothing. It's a very good way for non rp to prove they are making payments, especially in acrimonious splits."

The csa is different to the cms. The csa used to handle the money side of things taking the money from the nrp to give to the rp. The cms is the "new" system cms requires the nrp to still pay the money but you put it into the rps bank account directly.
If you dont pay the rp the rp has to ring up and let the cms know that you arent paying. The rp has to keep faffing about ringing up after the cms send out letter after letter urging the nrp they must pay or they will have to go through collect and pay where the cms charge a fee to both the nrp and rp to take the money for you and handle it. The nrp can get away missing many payments before anything is done this can roll into many months of non payment.
I know the system @Bookworm4 I have dealt with both the csa and cms Both let the children go without and benefit the nrp a whole lot more than they do the child.
I spent years chasing money through both systems and gave up as it was more stress than what it was worth.
I think I spent more money ringing them than I ever received.

In regards to your cousin using the old system if they havent already they would be moved over to the new system although they should have been by now.
If he wants to request collect and pay he may be likely to as he is the nrp but the RP cannot just request it, They can only obtain it through the nrp refusing to pay for a long period of time.
The system is a joke and it doesnt work, there is a reason why billions in arrears are owed to children in this country.

archivearmadillo · 18/04/2019 14:25

LadyRannaldini what a shitty place your world must be. A parent could be convinced of physically and sexually abusing his children and that would mean, in your world, that hed he'd no longer have to contribute a penny to feed, house and cloth them.

Criminals and abusers get out of jail free, do pass go, and do collect £200 in the wonderful world of LadyRannaldini

nrpmum · 18/04/2019 14:30

@ColdTattyWaitingForSummer definitely been times when I've been on my knees mentally and physically.

@Ratatatouille I am. I got so stressed it brought on meningitis. It really did destroy me, and so many thoughts of how I deal with the situation for DDs sake.

The hardest part and this might be why I bit is that I have found people judgemental because I am a non resident mum.

outpinked · 18/04/2019 14:32

Firstly, you have never met her so know absolutely nothing about her life or who she is. The only things you do know have come from your ‘D’F so frankly, it could be a crock of shit. Don’t be so naive.

Secondly, he has made the shittiest excuses imaginable for not seeing his son. He was busy working and was only 25 at the time simply won’t wash. Plenty of people are fantastic and responsible parents even younger than that and most parents are ‘busy working’ Hmm. Also, no Scottish or English court would have denied him access. Even with a history of DV, many courts grant supervised access. He has made shitty excuses but the truth is, he abandoned his first child. I would guess his DS has been on social media for the past couple of years at least, not many 16 year olds don’t have some form of SM. Your ‘D’F could’ve found and attempted to contact him this way but hasn’t even been arsed to do that. Dick.

I also doubt CSA were so heavily involved due to her actions. It’s far more likely he refused to pay at first and she contacted them, don’t believe his lies. He has underpaid her for years as well as not bothering to see his son, what a great guy Hmm. Oh and yes, 16 year olds do cost a lot more than your 3 year old does. Their clothes and shoes are extortionate and lets not get started on their technology and the sheer amount of food they eat...

Finally, you chose to quit your better paid job and take a 9k salary cut. It was a choice to make your life more convenient. Either get a better paid job or quit complaining.

DantesInferno · 18/04/2019 14:32

@LadyRannaldini
If he is not allowed to see his children he shouldn't have to pay anything at all in my world!

yes, because he cba to fight to see his dc, he shouldn't have to pay to support them... Hmm

nrpmum · 18/04/2019 14:34

@LadyRannaldini why do you think that? Genuinely curious. My exh frustrates contact enormously but I do, and I feel I should pay. I also save separately for her which is obviously my choice to do.

Lizzie48 · 18/04/2019 14:55

Also COMPLETELY irrelevant and NONE of your business. If she had serious mental illness that could be why.*

This. And with his ex being seriously mentally ill, your DH should have been pushing to be involved in his son’s life, not staying away.

Your comments about mental illness are disgusting and diablist especially ‘mad as a box of frogs’. A lot of us on here have MH issues and do all we can to be good parents, your words insult all of us.

And it’s irrelevant that she’s back with her ex, none of your business.

Purplejay · 18/04/2019 15:04

The ex tried to kill herself and was sectioned and you say she has been ‘playing the system for years’. 😮

Lizzie48 · 18/04/2019 15:42

*So, in short. Not all RPs are angels, and not all NRPs are arseholes.

I don’t think think anyone is suggesting anything of the sort. Just that this particular NRP sounds like arsehole material.

AuntieCJ · 18/04/2019 16:44

@AuntyCJ I'll tell you what is "vile". Hoping and wishing that a child who was abandoned by his father also ceases to get any financial support from the feckless arsehole. Your morals are in the gutter.

Oh dear. Looks like I touched a nerve in the vipers' nest.

Some people seem to have missed that the child's mother refused access and got a court to agree.

But carry on pretending that all natural mothers are saints ... Most of us know better.

GunpowderGelatine · 18/04/2019 16:46

Some people seem to have missed that the child's mother refused access and got a court to agree

Or, maybe that's just a load of crap spun by a shit dad 🤷‍♀️ courts don't just "agree" with what the mother wants, and abusive men often get access to their kids, if the court refused access he must have done something terrible to warrant that rarity.

AuntieCJ · 18/04/2019 16:52

Or, maybe that's just a load of crap spun by a shit dad 🤷‍♀️ courts don't just "agree" with what the mother wants, and abusive men often get access to their kids, if the court refused access he must have done something terrible to warrant that rarity.

Utter bollocks. Very naive view. Courts can be very perverse.

CanILeavenowplease · 18/04/2019 16:55

Some people seem to have missed that the child's mother refused access and got a court to agree

Hahahahahahahaha! Hilarious! You can just say to a judge ‘I don’t want my ex to see his son’ and the court says ‘on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, I agree!’

Graphista · 18/04/2019 16:57

Having been privy to several cases where the ex wife has been regularly hospitalised due to dv, and one where a child was raped by the father and those fathers STILL got supervised access to the children...IF he has genuinely been denied contact by court he must have done really appalling for that decision to have been made.

I suspect the reality is he's put absolutely zilch effort into staying in his sons life, there are numerous ways to do this, (the distance is NOT insurmountable, Blackpool is an extremely popular destination for scots weegies in particular often go there for long weekends, this weekend there will likely be a huge number of scots visitors there. I've a relative goes on weekend breaks there 4-6 times a year) it's 2019 ffs, I have an 18 yr old dd so 2 years older than the stepson. For the majority of her teenhood smart phones, SM, Skype etc have been very accessible and cheap to use absolutely NO excuse for NO contact with his son at all. He could even have applied to court for indirect contact to be arranged.

I suspect the op's extremely aggressive defensiveness is because she KNOWS this and is now having to face the fact that

she is with a man who has completely abandoned his child

begrudges financially supporting the child and has in all likelihood been forced to do so and is now having to stump up arrears

has lied to her about all of this (so what else is he lying about?)

Would in all likelihood do exactly the same to her and her child if they split!

But op's spiteful, prejudiced, ignorant comments about the ex wife and step son mean I have zero sympathy for any of this.

My ex has at times claimed to others and even tried to with dd that I prevented contact and "turned dd against" him - I have all the paperwork from the divorce and multiple court hearings which show all the evidence of him failing to turn up, cancelling last minute, being hours late, lying about me to others, lying to dd...

Dd also has her own knowledge of my (regrettably) making excuses for him, defending him, my fixing things when he cocked up (often at great expense to myself when his income has always been several multiples of mine), and as she grew older and I wasn't even involved in indirect contact his not calling her, not answering her calls, culminating in him BLOCKING her on every avenue available to her to contact him.

He's also blocked me on everything.

She has a disability and the last time she was in hospital I had to contact his elderly and frail parents to tell him, I received a short text in response letting me know he knew but he didn't even ask how dd was and blocked me again immediately after he sent it.

At one point he said to dd that he had evidence of my blocking contact, dd had him on speakerphone and looked to me for how to respond, I indicated to her she was free to ask him to provide her this evidence...he hung up!

"Simply put, when maintenance is reduced you are expecting your ex to make up the difference." Exactly! Also maintenance is generally woefully low calculated and bears little to no resemblance to the actual basic costs of raising a child.

The amount the op says he is paying sounds on the higher side compared to most BUT I do genuinely strongly suspect it includes arrears, and if not arrears then his regular taxable income is higher than either op or her df are claiming - and why shouldn't his son benefit from his level of income as well as the daughter he lives with?

Personally I'd make nrps who also don't have contact pay more cm.

"Let’s reverse it: my partner and I have had a child. WIBU to ask my ex for an extra £10 a week cos we’re a bit short with the extra child?

I don’t really understand your point here but yes you would be unreasonable" why? That's essentially what happens when a nrp has more children when they are able to reduce the maintenance they pay for their older children. The rp is effectively expected to subsidise the children the nrp has in addition to the original children. It shouldn't be the case. Especially when cm calculations are mostly woefully INadequate! How many RP's or non separated families do you know who only spend 15% of their income on their children?! I don't know any!

Having more children is NOT a necessity. I'm sick of hearing stepmums bitching they can't afford children/more children because their partner/husband already had children from a previous relationship and resenting that those children exist. It's disgusting.

If you choose to be with someone who already has children then THEIR needs (not just financial but also practical and emotional) HAVE to be considered when making major decisions that affect them to do anything else is completely unacceptable. Indeed they should actually be prioritised over the adults needs.

I am very privileged to know several excellent step parents who have acted with their step children's needs in mind, have supported them, worked hard to build a good relationship with them and even at times called their bio parent (the step parents partner/spouse) on their shit if they weren't being good parents. Some have due to circumstances become RP to their step children and they don't differentiate in how they treat their step children and bio children.

There ARE good step parents out there. Unfortunately they're far more rare than they should be.

As for deadbeat parents I don't understand their attitudes at all and think current U.K. Laws are wretchedly inadequate and enforcement is piss poor!

Personally I think all maintenance should be deducted at source (the dept is already under hmrc this really shouldn't be difficult. Reasonable nrps would have no problem with this, unreasonable ones would then find it much more difficult to avoid paying), the loopholes around self employment/cash in hand need seriously tightened up (as much for tax avoidance as this), contact should be much more tightly regulated & recorded.

If a parent doesn't make an effort with contact, doesn't support their child they should have their parental rights terminated. Ludicrous that this doesn't happen.

Headinhands - you're right to encourage op to ask to see evidence of his claims of financially supporting his son prior to their relationship starting. My ex told now wife 2 and his parents that he was paying "loads" of maintenance and I was badgering for even more!

He made the mistake of telling them himself that he was paying by bank transfer (I think he dummied up a copy of some paperwork to "prove" it) which I was easily able to prove wasn't the case by showing them copies of my bank statements. In his mothers case she was actually with me in the bank when I requested the copies and I handed them directly to her from the teller handing them to me.

At this point he still gaf what they thought and they were then able to shame him into paying. Unfortunately this didn't work long term.

Ditto contact, he tried to claim I was blocking contact, again I was happy to show them evidence this wasn't the case.

Ditto the divorce - he was telling now wife 2 that I was dragging my heels on the divorce and that's why they couldn't marry. Truth was he was sitting on various paperwork despite several letters from my solicitor chasing - which again I was able to show her - that started a humdinger of a row with them!

I also find it very interesting that not one of the posters agreeing with the op are using a username I have ever seen on mn before and I'm on a lot! Suggesting they've either Nc (and lacking the courage to have these views associated with their regular usernames) or they've signed up just to support this post. Odd.

AuntieCJ we haven't missed anything! We're just capable of reading between the lines, having the life experience that strongly suggests it's highly likely that op's partner never even went to court to try and get access, or that he was in some way extremely abusive and that is why he has been refused contact.

Also none of us have said all RP's are perfect or that all nrps are evil. We've responded based on op's rather nasty, bigoted and prejudiced posts about a woman she's never even met!

GunpowderGelatine · 18/04/2019 16:58

@AuntieCJ Utter bollocks. Very naive view. Courts can be very perverse

How so? Do you think courts favour women in custody cases?

MrsSteve · 18/04/2019 17:01

My DH pays £600 for his daughters (CMS).

My DS dad pays £190.

I know which I think is fairer Grin

Lizzie48 · 18/04/2019 17:08

If the OP’s DH had really fought hard for contact and been denied for years, you would have expected the AIBU to be about the injustice of him being denied access to his child. But it isn’t, is it? The AIBU is simply the OP whining about money, when she chose to take a £9k pay cut.

AuntieCJ · 18/04/2019 17:36

How so? Do you think courts favour women in custody cases?

Undoubtedly. Statistics show it to be true.

LakieLady · 18/04/2019 17:36

Yes he does pay mortgage and everything else which obviously amounts to more than £600 but as I have mentioned C is on benefits so has never had rent/council tax to pay. Also claims disability benefits.

You seem to know an awful lot about her finances, considering he hasn't had contact with her for 13 years.

How does he know all this? After all, it's not like there's an online database of people on benefits.

Bronze · 18/04/2019 17:53

Be careful who you believe when hearing stories about ex wives. In my case, the truth about my (now ex) husband took 13 years to come out. I was lied to, very convincingly by my entire family-in-law. They happily let me & our children live with a ticking time bomb. Oh, & my ex told me virtually the same yarn re maintenance, lack of contact & 'crazy' ex. Be careful.

CanILeavenowplease · 18/04/2019 17:59

Undoubtedly. Statistics show it to be true

Because it is usually women that are working part time and/or have their lives set up to manage the day to day of having children and/or the children are very young and have had mum as a primary carer. It’s really not rocket science that if you have been looking after your child, doing schools runs, dentist appointments, taking time off work to deal with illness etc, etc, then the courts are going to consider it more appropriate to leave a child with you full time than switch residence to a dad who travels regularly for work, never takes time off and waves his superior financial position around as a means by which to prove he is so much better a choice as resident parent.

Ratatatouille · 18/04/2019 18:12

Oh dear. Looks like I touched a nerve in the vipers' nest.

Absolutely no idea what nerve you think you've touched @AuntieCJ. I'm happily married to the father of my DC. Neither of us have children from previous relationships. I am not "projecting" if that's what you're getting at. I just think the things you are saying are absolutely terrible and are obviously indicative of either massive ignorance or a total lack of morals. Given that people have very clearly explained the issues surrounding this man's abandonment of his child and we know you've read the thread because you keep quoting people, I'm assuming it's the latter. Unfortunately you have continued to be aggressive instead of actually addressing any of the valid points that people have raised.

Some people seem to have missed that the child's mother refused access and got a court to agree.

Irrelevant. Nobody is particularly defending her as we obviously don't know the full details, but whatever she did or didn't do, we DO know that this bloke put up absolutely zero resistance and happily walked away from his child without so much as a backward glance. Did you read the OP's list of pathetic excuses? Courts are not in the business of stopping good fathers from seeing their kids. Either he is lying and it never went to court because he just buggered off, or there is a damn good reason he's got no access. The amounts he is paying in maintenance also suggest a huge backlog indicating that he probably failed to pay at all for a number of years. This is all evidence backed. You, on the other hand, are just spouting nonsense.

But carry on pretending that all natural mothers are saints ... Most of us know better.

Nice straw man. Literally nobody has said this or even implied it at any point.

GunpowderGelatine · 18/04/2019 18:16

Undoubtedly. Statistics show it to be true

Funny that, how statistics show mothers are mostly awarded custody. Do you think that's by virtue of having a vagina? Or, do you think it's because actually courts always rule in favour of what's best for the child - and that just so happens the vast majority of the time that's the mother?

I'll tell you for free - it's the second one. I mean it's not rocket science - men are far more violent, abusive and controlling and judges see this a mile off. Women are awarded custody usually cause they're better parents. If men want to be better represented in custody cases they should be better fathers whilst they're still with their wives.

swingofthings · 18/04/2019 18:27

Women are awarded custody usually cause they're better parents
Utter nonsense. Mothers are more likely to be awarded custody because they are the main carer by default of the arrangement that was agreed. That doesn't extrapolate to mothers being better parents. They are more more sahd or single dads, that is when they are OK with the concept of being the man carer and they do a brilliant job.

My mum had custody of me when my pare ts divorced when I was two but my dad would have probably made a better main carer. They were both good parents in their own ways.