Child maintenance from rich ex boyfriend

[Hanny3]

I recently found out I'm three months pregnant. I'm no longer together with the father. I will be raising the child by myself as the father doesn't won't anything to do with the child.

He has said he will pay child maintenance. He's a very rich guy and comes from a very rich family. He said to me when where together that he earned £15,000 per month after tax (by working for his dad) and that he had other incomes from his investments. He also has a large personal fortune.

He has said he will pay £1,273 a month in child maintenance. He claims that is the maximum he has to pay according to law.

I'm a student and don't have much money. I have asked if he would be willing to pay more the first two years so I can really focus on finishing my studies. He said no.

My mom and my friends are telling my if I take it to court I would get more per month, and are encouraging me to do so. My ex on the other hand says I would get less if I take it to court.

So I was wondering if anyone knows if I would get more per month if I took it to court? And I'm I totally unreasonable if I think he should pay more the first two years while I'm a student?

Oh, and the loans, they count against your UC award.

Basically, the message of it all is that the government is no longer willing to treat people who've procreated very much differently from those who haven't or waited till after they've finished education in terms of benefits or free cash.

There is UC/childcare support for students with children who work same as there is for non-students with children who work.

Op £1273 a month works out at £318 a week...are you seriously saying you can't clothe and feed your baby on that per week?...and just because he has money doesn't mean he has to support you too...he only has to give money for the baby, ....if he is providing that money, you do know you are expected to provide towards child costs too...

Your mother and friends sound like gold diggers....the man is giving you money, just because he is wealthy doesn't mean you suddenly get a free pass to the high life for 18 years...he only has to pay for his child (as in the money he gives is for spending on his child, not you,)

@RolyWatts

And everyone is responsible for their own reproduction @AE18. Everyone. I can say I don't want to get fat but if I keep eating biscuits there is a fair chance its going to happen. I would put money on the fact that there is not one person on this thread who doesn't know someone who has had a contraception failure. Any man who puts his future financial freedom and personal autonomy at risk is a fool. It is up to him to ensure he is protected.

You can keep saying that 1000 times if you want, it's not going to change the fact that I don't agree.

Everyone is responsible for the risk of getting pregnant, yes, but a very small number of people use more than one type of contraception because they are widely presented as 99% effective. For the 1%, the woman has the choice to abort the baby or put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. But if the man doesn't want it, he still has to be responsible for it if the woman decides to keep it. She has a choice, he doesn't.

There are two points where a choice is made - when you have sex, and there is a maybe 1% chance it could result in a baby, and after the woman is pregnant, when depending on her choice there is a 50% chance of it resulting in a baby. The woman has complete power over the second choice, so I am of the belief that if the man says clearly at this point that he would rather they terminate and does not want to be a part of the child's life if she should decide to keep it, then he should be allowed to walk away without being viewed as "scummy" and having constant calls to give away half of what he's earned on something he would have chosen to prevent.

Now I have agreed that he should pay an amount that allows the woman to pay for the basics for the child, but I think it is excessive to say it should be above and beyond any reasonable cost of those basics, regardless of how much he makes. She does not need that money, she just wants to bulldoze over his opinion that they should not keep the baby and take all she can from him against his will.

She made the final choice, he should not be forced to pay for it when it was avoidable and he made his feelings very clear. It's all about choice in my opinion, and her choice to keep the baby knowing he wanted to terminate and did not want the child should come with the understanding that she will be doing so largely alone.

Why shouldn’t a child benefit from his fathers financial position. Why should he/she be worst off than a child with divorced parents. Yes I know many divorced fathers get away with paying a pittance or nothing at all but there’s many who pay according to their income. It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom

Its not a race to the bottom but it doesnt cost that much to raise a child. Why should he throw money at op?

No matter how much he gives the op in maintenance, she’ll still get whatever benefits she’s entitled to because maintenance is disregarded.
So say an NRP was paying £5k a month maintenance, the RP would still get universal credit/child benefit.

So quite frankly, those people who are saying why should the state support a child when the NRP could be paying more instead. I’m sorry but it really is a red herring. Any old excuse to grab more money eh?

How many RPs would cancel their benefit claim out of moral superiority because their baby daddy is giving them 5k a month? lol, not many!

Full time nursery costs on average around £1000 a month. A father should be paying half of this. As well as a contribution towards the other living costs, rent or mortgage, gas/electrics, food, clothing, furniture, school items. Then if you're feeling particularly generous you might think that a child deserves such things as toys, or after school activities like learning to swim that I personally think the nrp should also contribute towards

Rent and bills arent his problem.

So 500 for childcare and then another 700 on top for everything else. I think thats fair enough dont you?

I am modified by reading this post. The child isn't even born and you are already wanting more money. Unbelievable.

Just checked. If higher education-

Childcare grant of up to 85% including non term time
Parents Learning Allowance
Additional bursaries and grants may be available

None of the above are repayable and are additional to the usual loans/grants

Rent and bills kind of are his problem though.
Because the typical student shared accommodation just wouldn’t be suitable for a baby. And then instead of being able to share bills she will have bigger ones as a lone parent.

I disagree with the government giving benefits to those who have children whilst still in education . You shouldn’t be able to take anything out until you pay in for a minimum number of years . Thankfully everyone gets loans now instead of non repayable grants. Taxes are not there to pay your way through university without running up the same debts as students without children .

And the poster who mentioned the woman chasing after the footballers . Of course it happens - there are a lot of stupid gold digging lazy women around and they see a baby with a rich bloke as a golden ticket . How many famous footballers get their girlfriends pregnant within a matter of months of staring a relationship? Don’t tell me these are all accidents ?

No gorris theyre really not his problem. Theyre ops problem.

In your opinion bonjour

If a man is paying £7 a week that’s £364 in a year yet op thinks that £318 isn’t enough maintenance for a week 😂 this can’t be serious

Well yes but also legally he doesnt have to pay towards her rent or bills.

Cookingonwine she hasn’t been paid a penny yet but is merely looking at her legal position.

Pumpkin any man who pays £7 per week is a disgrace.

I agree with her @gorrisandhorace

There's such a thing as 1 bed apartments and it is not his problem she is a student. She could rent a house elsewhere for the money she would spend on a house share in London.

Her decision not to do so is not his problem.

I think you’re being greedy.

You’re a student and you can’t afford to have a baby . I hope you’re not planning in applying for benefits . You do know that’s not what they were ever designed for . You’re in a situation of your own making, you haven’ t fallen on hard times. Leave university , get a job and pay for your own child .
Thank goodness for universal credit.

I get £36 a week for my son from my ex.

Good idea Purple so only rich kids go to university. Wouldn’t that be great.

No matter how much he gives the op in maintenance, she’ll still get whatever benefits she’s entitled to because maintenance is disregarded.
So say an NRP was paying £5k a month maintenance, the RP would still get universal credit/child benefit.

So quite frankly, those people who are saying why should the state support a child when the NRP could be paying more instead. I’m sorry but it really is a red herring. Any old excuse to grab more money eh?

How many RPs would cancel their benefit claim out of moral superiority because their baby daddy is giving them 5k a month? grin lol, not many!/

The reason that benefits disregard maintenance as income is because the system to collect maintenance is utterly shite.

Previously maintenance did count toward benefits. It was counted as income just as any other income.

So, when the court ordered my father to pay my Grandparents £64 a week for us kids housing benefit, income support and the likes all counted my GP's as having £64 a week plus any other income.

However, CSA didn't collect a penny. Those two systems didn't tie together so every month my GPs were skint because the system judged them as having income they didn't have.

Later they changed the system to parents/carers on benefits only keeping £20 a week from maintenance and the remainder being due to the Secretary of State as a payment toward the money given. That system was scrapped because, once again, the collection rate was shite.

So, benefits could be reduced if maintenance was paid, however, we don't have a system that is reliable for collecting it. The reason it doesn't count is because no-one in successive governments is remotely interested in chasing nonpaying NRPS, not because single parents are money grabbers.

Plenty of men on benefits pay £7 a week

None of the above are repayable and are additional to the usual loans/grants

And if you are on UC, they do count towards your income for UC entitlement excepting help with childcare. It makes sense, why should those who don't wait to procreate until they're finished education be more rewarded than those who do?

And i’m not sure about that tbh.
I’m talking about London specifically .
You can rent in a really grotty houseshare with 10 others at lesser cost. A box room, even a shared room (lots of students now live in shared ROOMS in London) . So four girls one room etc.
Shared facilities. You’re probably going to have a few weirdos , night owls, people that never clean , people that like to take recreational drugs etc.
This is fine as a student (even normal ?) but would be a social services concern for a young mum. So I think a contribution to the necessary upgrade to studio apartment (btw far more sought after and pricey) would be fair enough.