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?

You’re hilarious.

Proves a point. A woman in a bad financial situation and not prepared to change anything in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, shouldnt have to be abstinent. Thaya apparently hilarious.

But the man should be abstinent or get a vasectomy.

Gender- how so ? Is it because you know I’m making sense ?

Likethisone, legally a court could go either way. Plus Cost Orders can be awarded in the mother’s favour under Sch 1, again it could go either way. Court action is always a risk.

As for being unconvinced at the number of women who have had contraception failures, well that’s only your opinion. I worked for years on a maternity unit and I’ve no reason to disbelieve the majority of patients who admitted to a contraception failure. In fact I had a contraception failure myself whilst on maternity leave with my eldest.

Oh and Purple has said if a woman’s unemployed and won’t have an abortion they should have abstained.

Considering most contraception is over 97% effective it suggests some of those women werent taking or using it properly.

A lot of people dont actually know what "properly" is.

And what would I do if the father wasn’t in the financial situation he is in? Then I would have no other choice than to quit studying and move back in with my mother

If an NRP was to study and not provide enough for their child by working because the rich RP can do that instead, there would be uproar on here. The RP would end up subsidising the NRP’s choice to have the luxury of studying if maintenance stops or goes down significantly.

I’ve seen many threads about this. I don’t see why it should be any different for an RP who wants their ex to subsidise them going to uni.

Women’s lib has come a long way with us able to do and be what we want. It’s cheapened every time when someone gets pregnant and refuses to stand on their own two feet cos the man should pay.

It’s not remotely cheapened by a woman looking into her legal options. Which she has in this case as his income is over the amount which CMS can assess.

Women’s lib is much better strengthened by people telling the OP of their legal options and then their experiences. Women should know all of the legal avenues open to them and all of the tactics men use to avoid paying a penny more than they need too (or simply avoid paying a single penny in many cases).

There’s a world of difference between “Yeah you can legally go to court for a top up, but it costs/men tend to suddenly get demoted/it only lasts a year” and “don’t be a gold digger, I only get £7”.

The father has clearly checked out all the various avenues so there’s no reason the OP shouldn’t.

I haven’t read the whole thread but that amount is more than enough to cover the expenses of having a baby. YABVU to expect him to subsidise your living.

Likethisone it’s hilarious because it’s an unachievable goal. Humans on a whole won’t abstain, regardless of their situation. You only have to look at countries with high levels of real poverty and little or no welfare. So no Purple you don’t make sense.

How do you know contraception is 97% effective? Perhaps its based upon a view that “those women weren’t taking it or using it properly”

Silly women.

I ask the women advising OP to go after more money a question:

You have a son, he does really well for himself, good job, has casual girlfriends, one gets pregnant, he does the decent thing and says I’ll pay what the CM website tells me I should pay, despite not wanting a child... yet the girl wants more of the money he works hard for because she now feels entitled to it... how would you feel?

Zebraaa although I haven’t advised this I’ve advised it’s legally a possibility.

I’ve also said previously that I would expect my son to pay child support at a sum relevant to his earnings not the minimum he can get away with.

I’d feel ashamed if he acted otherwise.

Likethisone, legally a court could go either way. Plus Cost Orders can be awarded in the mother’s favour under Sch 1, again it could go either way. Court action is always a risk.

Which is what I said.

As for being unconvinced at the number of women who have had contraception failures, well that’s only your opinion. I worked for years on a maternity unit and I’ve no reason to disbelieve the majority of patients who admitted to a contraception failure. In fact I had a contraception failure myself whilst on maternity leave with my eldest.

I clearly said on MN. Ronald of women come on here apparantly having contraception failure. Its not a failure if you take it incorrectly. That's human error. Lots of people say 'contraception failure', when they mean 'failure to use it correctly'. Again, you can not vouch for which category the women you see, fall into.

They may say failure to you. Doesnt make it true. My own auntie got pregnant because she didnt realise having a vomiting bug would make the pill ineffective. She now has a 22 year old son. She never read the leaflet. For me that's failure to use it properly.

And yes. If men sonr want to risk pregnancy at all the should abstain. As should women. You wont answer why, op knowing her situation, is any less responsible for providing for the child. Or why he is responsible for putt her through uni?

And I did say it was my opinion. Not entirely sure why you are posting and just repeating what I said.

Oh and you still haven't answered how she is going to pay for the court case. If she loses. That needs considering massively.

You cant go into thos on the assumption that you win AND have legal costa covered.

I'm amazed at the responses here, shocked.

No one has questioned this guys wealth, or his family's wealth. His father pays him £180,000 a year after tax, plus he has a personal fortune and other investments. He is very rich. £1300 a month is nothing to him. My guess is it's old money, but even if it isn't, no one gets that wealthy without exploitation. Throughout history families have accumulated and retained vast wealth by exploiting the workforce. So all those stating they get 2p from their ex or only live off £1300 a month for 40 hours work do you never ask yourself why we live in such an unequal society.

So what happens when he marries and has children. They all get a pony each while Hanny3's kids is relatively poor.

There is way more he could. I know of someone whose ex's family bought a flat for her to rent from them. She was able to use housing benefit which paid the mortgage, there was an agreement she could stay as long as she needed. She has since moved out and married but it gave her a secure home and they had a good investment with a reliable tennant.

23 pages and the op has posted 4 times...
And no details.....

Yeah right

Most likely because she’s been chased off her own thread by some of the nasties marbles

It’s a lot of money to most but to her ex it’ll be pocket money. Agree completely with @fruitbrewhaha

Ilikethisone

• “Oh and you still haven't answered how she is going to pay for the court case. If she loses. That needs considering massively. “

“You cant go into thos on the assumption that you win AND have legal costa covered.”

I know how the law works that’s why I said it can go either way. It would be for her legal representative to help her make an informed choice. There’s always a risk of adverse costs and that would need to be explored. There’s also a chance that a higher figure can be negotiated by a Consent Order.

Oh and your anecdotal aunty story is just that anecdotal.

So what happens when he marries and has children. They all get a pony each while Hanny3's kids is relatively poor.

But she, according to some posters will be a good earner in future because of the degree.

No proof of that but that seems to be the assumption.

And also, if he is married to that woman he has entered a financial partnership with her. So it's their money that's providing it.

The man isnt obliged to pay to out OP through uni now, incase he has kids and spends money on those possible future kids.

Wherearemymarbles

• “23 pages and the op has posted 4 times... And no details....

Yeah right”

What details do you need? He’s going to be a father and she’s going to be a father. What else do you need?

It really is quite remarkable that as a society the wealthy have trained us to being so passive that we consider their crumbs so worthy. £1200 is pocket change to this man and whilst the OP wouldn't get that much going through legal channels it comes to something when we're not questioning what's wrong with the system. Instead we're castigating the OP for wanting her child to have the same standard of life as the child's father.

Remarkable when you think about it.

No one has questioned this guys wealth, or his family's wealth.

I guess because OP doesn’t really know for sure. She only knows what he said, and how he acted - if he seemed rich. It’s nit like a situation where they were in a marriage, or even a committed cohabiting relationship where finances were well discussed and understood. For all OP knows he’s a bullshitter of the highest order or indeed a multi-millionaire in his own right.

So Court would be a gamble - and crucially with an 18-year-relationship to sustain for her baby on the basis of a very thin emotional tie, is it worth that gamble? Her losses could be huge (as has been pointed out endlessly, because he could probably easily hide his wealth) and she wants to act in the best interest of her baby.

I did actually suggest the property-as-a-tenant idea, and that’s an avenue I’d pursue privately with him if I were the OP.

But in answer to the original OP:

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?

No one knows if she’d get more by going to court - it’s a gamble for all the reasons discussed and it needs a lawyer to advise.

And no, NBU to think he should pay more for two years or longer, if he can afford to. But VU to expect him to, because that’s naive in the extreme.

I truly hope this thread has given OP pause for thought on the best way to move forward.

@Genderfree you arent actually answering anything. I have said several times it can go either way. You arent the only one who knows how the law works.

My question is, how would she pay if ahe loses. Because that needs considering. But you dont have an answer.

And yes, the story of my aunt was anecdotal. Its clear that it was because it waa one example. I said it to demonstrate that lots of people claim contraceptive failure. When actually it's because they failed to use it correctly.

Again, doesnt really address the point about the women you see at work.

You are simply just repeating what I post, ignoring direct questions and trying to point out the obvious to avoid answering those questions.

You keep saying the parenta need to be responsible. But wont address that she is a parent and needs to be, in part, responsible for the child.

Yes I agree with Fruitbrewhaha too.

Also, what mother wouldn’t want the maximum she could get for her child. The fact that some people get peanuts in comparison to the child support she will be getting, is not her fault.

The OP lives in London. £1200, doubled to reflect the mother’s contribution, is hardly any money at all. A full time nursery place in London is at least £1200. You can’t rent a two bed flat for less that £1200 either. What are they supposed to live on? I’m really surprised by this thread.

Also, what mother wouldn’t want the maximum she could get for her child.

She isn't wanting it for her child. Ahe is wanting it to out herself through uni. She says that in her op.