Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think he should be paying more?

125 replies

Aqueo517 · 05/07/2019 12:54

Split with DH a couple of years ago, we have 2 children together. He earns 3k a month and pays me £400 per month. He’s living with his brother so has none of the usual household bills (I know this for a fact, he doesn’t contribute, his brother owes him so this is his way of paying him back until he buys his own place).

In the mean time I’m struggling to cover all the costs of having 2 children. Aibu to think that while he’s living the life of Riley he could help me out a bit more?

OP posts:
PettyContractor · 05/07/2019 16:08

I don't think his outgoing are relevant.

I do think the solution to unfairness in may such situations is to not just offer but to by default require the man to have the children 50% of the time. Faced with all that entails, I reckon many would voluntarily offer quite big inducements for the mother to take them more than half the time. In this case, the hit on his earnings from 50% custody would cost him a lot more than £400 a month.

Juells · 05/07/2019 16:08

Because you know, kids are his responsibility too.

You'd think that it was a terrible imposition on poor fathers - I once heard a woman I worked with say "It's so unfair that a man has to pay for years for one mistake", because she knew someone who had to pay £25 a week to his ex-wife in child maintenance. One mistake - a marriage and children.

ithinkmycatistryingtokillme · 05/07/2019 16:09

It looks like the figures have been calculated on his net pay of 3000 a month, if you look at the cms calculator it works on gross pay not net in which case he should probably be paying more

herculepoirot2 · 05/07/2019 16:10

Helmlover1

It depends on his genuine outgoings (morally speaking). If he is earning 3k a month and isn’t paying a £500 a month fail ticket or similar, and actually has £3k to live on, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be able to up his contribution to his children's needs by a couple of hundred quid a month.

Helmlover1 · 05/07/2019 16:10

Then she would be living in a house she could no longer afford to she would need to either downsize/reevaluate her lifestyle, y’know like you would if you lost your job or took a reduction in pay? Surely you’re not suggesting that the OPs ex is responsible for her mortgage?

herculepoirot2 · 05/07/2019 16:14

Then she would be living in a house she could no longer afford to she would need to either downsize/reevaluate her lifestyle, y’know like you would if you lost your job or took a reduction in pay? Surely you’re not suggesting that the OPs ex is responsible for her mortgage?

He is partly responsible for keeping a roof over his children’s heads.

GPatz · 05/07/2019 16:15

Oh it's 'her' mortgage now. Maybe 'her' house has two bedrooms, but hey, she can downgrade to one bedroom, her and the kids can squeeze in.

And yes, providing a roof over his children's head means having some responsibly towards the mortgage

GPatz · 05/07/2019 16:20

Why is it perfectly acceptable for women to rearrange their lives to accommodate for the daily loss of a parent and take on the extra financial responsibilities for that (extra childcare etc...), but men just have to pay a bare minimum otherwise 'poor them'.

£400 wouldn't even cover childcare for DC for a month, let alone feed and cloth them.

Helmlover1 · 05/07/2019 16:21

Gpatz what world are you living in? Even CMS don’t take mortgages or rent into account when calculating maintenance. Why on earth would he paying for a mortgage on a house he doesn’t live in? That makes so sense whatsoever. So you think the OP should also be contributing to her exe’s mortgage/rent? Stop making stupid comments.

swingofthings · 05/07/2019 16:26

He could be paying into a pension which could be over £500 a month. So his disposable income after maintenance could be £2100. How much do you get in benefits? You might not be that far off when adding to the £1400 you get a month.

GPatz · 05/07/2019 16:31

Because his kids are living in it.

Helmlover1 · 05/07/2019 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

herculepoirot2 · 05/07/2019 16:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

itwasalovelydreamwhileitlasted · 05/07/2019 16:42

Presumably you stayed in the family home? So maybe he can't pay more than is required because he needs to save for a new home which is big enough for the kids to stay in when they are with.....

itwasalovelydreamwhileitlasted · 05/07/2019 16:42

Presumably you stayed in the family home? So maybe he can't pay more than is required because he needs to save for a new home which is big enough for the kids to stay in when they are with.....

Butterflyone1 · 05/07/2019 16:46

Another Mum expecting a free ride. You broke up therefore he owns YOU nothing.

If CMS have calculated what he should pay you and that's what he's paying you then that's it. If he had crippling debts and high outgoings, would you accept less from him? Of course not so just because he has a good disposable income don't expect more from him.

Get child care arrangements in place so you can work harder to provide the life you want for your children. Failing that you could give him the full custody of the kids then he maybe he would have to work less therefore have less income.

GPatz · 05/07/2019 16:52

Oh calm yourself down Hemlock and stop projecting. I am happily married with two DC.

If DH and I divorced, his calculated maintenance contribution wouldn't even cover the childcare bill for one DC.

My DH was shocked to see how little he would have to pay towards his DC according to CMS.

cuppycakey · 05/07/2019 16:52

Surely if he is on £3k a month net, it should be closer to £600 a month for 2 DC?

GPatz · 05/07/2019 17:03

'If CMS have calculated what he should pay you and that's what he's paying you then that's it'.

And that is absolutely fine, but the consequences are that he may need to step up in other areas, such as going part time to help out with child care.

flirtygirl · 05/07/2019 17:10

Cms is the lowest rate possible, it's 15 or 20 %. A good father pays more when able to because he wants to do the best for his children.

The cms rate should be 25 to 30%.

I get £45 a week and I'm taking it currently as my ex owes me lots of money. I'm using that towards the debt. When that is repaid then I'm not taking a penny as I don't think a father who pays the minimum should get to feel like "oh I stepped up and I paid for my child." As no you didn't step up and and want you actually paid is a pittance for your child. £45 a week is shit. I can and will do without this money and then have the satisfaction of knowing that before divorce I paid and raised my own kids alone (financial abuse) and after divorce too.

It means more to me to be able to stop him saying I paid for my daughter than it does for me to have that £45 a week.

And only the new women without a clue would label all ex wife's as bitter.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 05/07/2019 17:29

With his £400 support, you matching it plus child benefit it easily covers the cost of two children unless you have very expensive childcare.

Both of you would still need a roof over your heads and have bills to pay without the children so are responsible for your own each.

MrsxRocky · 05/07/2019 17:40

I think just because a couple split doesn't mean the man is then required to pay everything for child whilst mother lives it up on benefits and bloke ends up destitute.
Yes I've seen this happen in real life. It's disgusting.
What ever a man pays should be taken out of woman's benefits and maybe then you'd have less women having kids and expecting men to finance their lives whilst they do bugger all.

Coldemort · 05/07/2019 17:49

Good Lord.
I don't have children (so no bitter man hating here!) and can't believe the response on here.
Yes he should pay more. When he became a father he should have realised his financial responsibilities are now with his children regardless of whether he's still with the mother. I despair at the 'he needs money too' comments. What if the mother took that view? 'Sorry didn't earn as much as expected this week so not going to feed my children until week starting xxx'
As the OP is the main caregiver the logic of '£400' each and therefore '£800 to raise 2 children' is absurd. That would leave £600 to pay all rent/bills etc and I can imagine stepping up and earning more is a bit tricky as, well she has children to look after.
When are we going to stop making excuses for men who didn't consider the financial implications of having children?

OP - drop them off for a month with £400 and tell him you'll have them them 1 night a week. He'll have to cut his hours or arrange childcare. You won't do this but I wish women would.

TooOldForAllThatShit · 05/07/2019 17:54

If the father is only having the DC for 6 days in a month, as in this case, so the mother is doing all the donkey work for the remaining 24/25, and her earning power is restricted due to childcare, including illness, appointments etc, surely the father should have to contribute much more financially than the mother?

The OP's ex surely owes her for taking care of THEIR DC for 4 x the amount of time that he does IceCream. Benefits shouldn't come into it as any low income family would get them, single or not.

Cannot believe some of the responses on hereShock.

Pleasebeafleabite · 05/07/2019 17:55

It’s certainly rabid on here today

Anyone would think there was a F4J bot group coiled and ready for just this type of post to come along