Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To expect ex wife to pay her way with 50:50 shared care

506 replies

youknowitmakessensedunnit · 03/03/2020 13:55

Women's view please! I got divorced about 2 years ago and went to court over child arrangements with ex wife eventually getting a court order for 50:50 shared care for our 1 child.

I work, ex wife doesn't
We both own our own homes
I have flexible job which allows me to have full freedom to do school runs, hobbies etc in school hours
Child has completely independent life in each home, e.g. no shared stuff
I pay for all school activities and one offs

My ex wife rather than getting a job chooses to claim child maintenance from me via the CMS, child benefit and state benefits, maintaining a position that she is the child's primary caregiver because she doesn't work.

AIBU to think she's a lazy git who should stop sponging?

OP posts:
itsallthedramaMickiloveit · 05/03/2020 08:03

Press end send or bloody soon. Why is there no edit button 😭

Kirkman · 05/03/2020 08:12

Right. But there is no main resident parent.

CMS clearly think there is. Which he needs to take up with them. Either they are right or wrong.

But that's not impacted by her not working.

frankieandi · 05/03/2020 08:14

*I remember being a choosey choice 22 year old who hadn't seen the worst of the patriarchy yet. Still young and cute enough to benefit from benign sexism, scoffing at older, wiser women who saw through the bullshit.
*
Oh trust me, I've seen the worst of the worst. And I would hardly say this man comes close.. my ex claims shared care and doesn't pay me a penny when in reality LO stays at his mothers two nights a week so I can go to work. I am not naive to the world as you seem to believe and specialise in family law so I could go on if you wishSmile

But as of personal opinion, although she may not be claiming state benefits why is she claiming anything from the father if she is so wealthy due to her family? It's just a little greedy and out of spite in my eyes. And no fair enough, not having a job does not make her lazy but if she does not want or need to get a job then she should not want nor need CM. Does she not wish to pursue anything further with her Masters degree? She is obviously rather wealthy if she has never worked and is educated to that standard so to me, claiming £200 a month from father is unnecessary

I just feel that if he has had to express this thought via MN, predominantly a women's forum he must want some genuine advice on the matter, even if parts do seem cloudy I can't see the apple falling far from the tree

Frankola · 05/03/2020 08:18

I'm going to be controversial here.
Your ex wife needs to get a job and stop expecting you to pay for her so she doesnt need to work.
If you genuinely have 50:50 you can open an appeal with CMS.
Before I get flamed, I'm a mother. I also work. I believe very strongly that those able to work should do so to provide for their family.
I dont agree that after a divorce the ex (of either gender) should be funding the others lifestyle so they can stay home if they are fit to work.

ChrissieKeller61 · 05/03/2020 08:20

I just know how hard it is for so many people to actually get Cm of any description so for them to award her child support the court paperwork simply cannot state 50/50

MarieQueenofScots · 05/03/2020 08:20

Your ex wife needs to get a job and stop expecting you to pay for her so she doesnt need to work

With the best will he’s paying £50 a week. I hardly think that’s supporting her in her life of Riley whilst he slaves Grin

Kit19 · 05/03/2020 08:21

Exactly @kirkman

CM does not care about people’s choices or feelings or morals

It is simply a formula that is applied based on the information provided

If OP feels the amount of CM is wrong then he should appeal it.

Kit19 · 05/03/2020 08:22

Also isn’t CM to support the child not the wife?

bluebluezoo · 05/03/2020 08:23

I'm going to be controversial here.
Your ex wife needs to get a job and stop expecting you to pay for her so she doesnt need to work

Not controversial at all. Read the thread- the ex doesn’t need to work, she owns her house outright and is independently wealthy.

Her choice and nothing to do with o/p. The issue is her going to the CMS, whether out of spite or entitlement- and them making the decision that they don’t have shared care and he needs to contribute.

If she has lied to CMS over the split of care or CMs has made an incorrect assessment, o/p needs to take it up with them and get it reduced to 0

Tennesseewhiskey · 05/03/2020 08:23

Your ex wife needs to get a job and stop expecting you to pay for her so she doesnt need to work.

Not controversial at all. Wrong though. She doesnt work because she self supports/has a wealthy family.

She does infact provide for her family.

The CMS he pays isnt why she doesnt work. She didnt work before she had her son.

Benefits do not pay for mothers of school age children to not work, unless theres other issues. Op is wrong about benefits. She does get child benefits, but that's not being funded by state benefits.

CMS isnt based in her circumstances at all.

Again, she can go to work tomorrow and he would still have to pay the same.

He needs to take it up with CMS if he feels it's wrong.

Micah · 05/03/2020 08:48

With the best will he’s paying £50 a week. I hardly think that’s supporting her in her life of Riley whilst he slaves

As he points out upthread, it’s their family holiday. £200 is a lot if you don’t have it- the only place i could shave off £200 a month is by reducing food and heat, and I have a reasonable job.

You may think £200 isn’t much, but it would make a pretty big difference to us.

NomDeDieu · 05/03/2020 08:48

Are people really getting so upset that someone can live wo having to work that they expect those people to still work to make it fairer? Grin

Sotiredofthislife · 05/03/2020 08:56

although she may not be claiming state benefits why is she claiming anything from the father if she is so wealthy due to her family? It's just a little greedy and out of spite in my eyes

so a parent shouldn't have to support their child if the other parent can afford to do so? where is the line drawn with that? There are thousands of women out there supporting children because their exs don't. Clearly we are able to afford it. So why should they pay?

Regardless of independent wealth, both parents have a responsibility to ensure that their child has what it needs. If maintenance is due - and it is not really clear here whether it is or not - then maintenance is due.

You may think £200 isn’t much, but it would make a pretty big difference to us

absolutely. But the point that was made was that £50 a week is not what is stopping the ex in this scenario from working.

MarieQueenofScots · 05/03/2020 08:57

As he points out upthread, it’s their family holiday. £200 is a lot if you don’t have it- the only place i could shave off £200 a month is by reducing food and heat, and I have a reasonable job

You may think £200 isn’t much, but it would make a pretty big difference to us

Which is why he should go back to the CMS. Whether she’s rolling in it, or scraping by on it is completely irrelevant.

Either way he isn’t subbing her at the moment, he’s paying £50 a week towards his kid.

WoofAndWhiskers · 05/03/2020 08:58

Nonsense @Micah

This is a person apparently doing 50:50 care but still assessed as needing to pay £50

That's a high earner ( and/or a liar)
I would bet anything that he is absolutely not cutting back on food or heating to pay it. He just doesn't want to. Well, fair enough then, get a reassessment done via cms.

Kirkman · 05/03/2020 09:11

although she may not be claiming state benefits why is she claiming anything from the father if she is so wealthy due to her family? It's just a little greedy and out of spite in my eyes

CMS is either applicable or it's not. And why did he posts she is living off him and state benefits, when that's not true. State benefits do not pay for single parents of school age children to not work.

The fact that he said this makes it dodgy in itself. Why state something that's not true? Or is he just assuming alot about the situation?

It's nothing to do with the claimants income. End of.

He didnt say it's the difference between a family holiday. He said it's the difference between a family holiday and a 'nice' family holiday.

She claimed. CMS decided she was entitled to £50 per week.

He needs to take that up with CMS.

It doesnt make ger a scrounger. Note he was happy to be shagging her and making a baby with her when she didnt work. He said himself she didnt work before the child either.

NeverKnewThat · 05/03/2020 09:14

OP YANBU

You shouldn't have to pay CM to your ex when you have shared care and split other costs. If the ex needs extra money, she should work.

Me and the ex did shared care for years and it worked very well, however it did stop when DC was 13ish because he wanted to be on my area after school to see friends. At that point CM was paid directly to DC as we set up a system of pocket money for him to budget for himself.

Babytigerrr · 05/03/2020 09:21

Because you are over the opinions he is entitled to an opinion on what she does, when it doesnt impact him

anyone is entitled to an opinion on anything whether it impacts them or not.

Babytigerrr · 05/03/2020 09:24

With the best will he’s paying £50 a week. I hardly think that’s supporting her in her life of Riley whilst he slaves grin

it doesnt matter whether its £50 a week or £5 - they have shared care he shouldnt be paying her at all. it says this on CMS own website.

Op said he has been back in touch with CMS so presumably they will have to do something about it.

They are a shit service, and it really does depend on who you speak to on the phone to what decision you get.,

bellabasset · 05/03/2020 09:25

From the post there is an imbalance in capital assets as the ex has a mortgage free property due to family wealth whereas OP has a mortgage.

There's nothing to stop OP going back to CMS for a reassessment of his liability to his ex. Unfortunately if his ex comes from a wealthy family who has her lifestyle subsidised by them he might not be able to get it reduced. I am afraid that while I think he has a point about paying her to stay at home he can only look at this as this is supporting his child. If he loses he always has the option to keep trying.

Babytigerrr · 05/03/2020 09:25

He just doesn't want to

well thats fair enough isnt it?

would you want to?

i wouldnt!

Kirkman · 05/03/2020 09:26

anyone is entitled to an opinion onanythingwhether it impacts them or not.

I disagree. If it's not impacting you, you dont have a right to an opinion or to label someone a scrounger

Let's be realistic, it's not just here that he expresses that is it.

He had a child with someone who didnt wor. She didnt work before the child was born. Her not working, does not impact him.

Why is he now entitled to an opinion on her still not working, when it doesnt impact him? Its non of his business.

Babytigerrr · 05/03/2020 09:29

@kirkman so you dont have an opinion on anything that doesnt affect you?

yeah right.

He is entitled to an opinion on ANYTHING. Just as the rest of the population are.

He can have an opinion on Boris Johnsons latest child, he can have an opinion on whether people panic buying is justified or stupid, he can have an opinion on the woman next doors new haircut, he can have an opinion on his colleagues lunch if he so pleases.

It doesnt mean he can do anything about any of those things, but he can have an opinion. Just like anyone else.

If you're saying you dont have an opinion on anything, ever, that isnt directly related to you - you're lying.

ffswhatnext · 05/03/2020 09:29

If the ex was posting as a sp refusing to work, she would be ripped apart for sponging off tax payers.

Why does she need to get a flexible job?
She could do like the rest of us and pay for childcare. And because she worked she would be able to get a big chunk towards this. Something like 75%. The op could pay half the remainder, which would be a better solution than paying twice for his own child.

Ok so it has to be flexible. Zero hour contacts, bank work and agency would give her the this. And result no childcare needed.

Her parents might have money, doesn’t mean she has anything in her name. Could be a case of mommy/daddy I need a ..... and they get it. Legally she doesn’t have to declare the new 70 in tv.

Babytigerrr · 05/03/2020 09:29

Let's be realistic, it's not just here that he expresses that is it

please dont state your opinion as fact.