My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To not want to pay extra £££ for DSC?

218 replies

Dontwanttopay · 04/10/2022 22:17

Of our current basic overheads my DHs salary covers about 35% so my income pays for 65% of that plus all other extras (going out, entertainment, random extra DC expenses, uniforms, etc...)

His exWs DP has decided that he doesn't want to do his job anymore, so my DHs exW has said that considering they're going to lose that her DPs income, they're going to need more money.

I'm 100% against it. When I was made redundant and we lost my income we never asked for any reduction (considering I'm the higher earner) AND they could claim for UC. Something she'd never let us do, when it could have been handy to have the extra £££ and maybe at that stage we would have gotten more than them.

Any money comes from my income, something I do t have to fork out for THEIR life decisions, and if my DH doesn't want to fight with her, well he's welcome to get a second job.

AIBU?

OP posts:
Report

Am I being unreasonable?

1841 votes. Final results.

POLL
You are being unreasonable
3%
You are NOT being unreasonable
97%
Hearthnhome · 05/10/2022 10:13

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/10/2022 10:01

Everyone jumping down my throat for my comments about reasonably equal lifestyles, it’s literally how courts approach it when it’s a financial settlement after a marriage.

”The needs of the parties, in particular the housing needs, in particular of the children”

Firstly that’s for divorce settlement and splitting of assets.

Its not then revisited years later to make sure things are all equal. Like in this situation. He met a higher earner, she didn’t. Divorce courts don’t then try and equalise it again.

and ‘meeting housing needs of the children’ doesn’t mean ‘both households and lifestyles should be the same’

Report
Dontwanttopay · 05/10/2022 10:16

He's always paid what he's supposed to + a tiny bit.

They've always had average/standard salaried of teacher and TA. I obviously don't know the ins and outs of why he decided against being a teacher and instead become some sort of instructor (if it's driving or sports related I have no idea) but it's irrelevant to me.

It's only from last year that I stopped being underemployed (thanks COVID!) And previous to that we were doing OK but we're never swimming in £££.

OP posts:
Report
Rosscameasdoody · 05/10/2022 10:28

ironingboredrefusal · 04/10/2022 22:30

Let's not pretend that in most cases what the CMS says non resident parents pay is the right amount by any means. Especially as it depletes when the non resident parent has more children or lives with someone who has children. It's shocking what non resident parents are told they have to pay and the fact if they go around having more children or live with someone else who has kids that that amount goes down. Should be a set amount of at least £1000 a month to be realistic.

Do I detect a hint of bitterness ?

Report
GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/10/2022 10:28

Is it fcuk.

I have personal experience of this and a judge was very comfortable making my child and I homeless. X claimed that the child could live with him which was clearly impossible and would’ve required major upheaval changing of schools etc Judge didn’t care.

Im really sorry about your experience.

I also have personal experience, and this was the approach taken both by the judge at FDR (she actually said I settled for too little) and then by different judges when I had to apply to enforce the original order.

I am paraphrasing a bit but it is basically supposed to be able the needs of the parties, esp children.

Report
aSofaNearYou · 05/10/2022 10:29

DrinkFeckArseBrick · 05/10/2022 09:32

£20 above the bare minimum isnt much to be honest. Assuming they are living with her for the majority of the time it wont really put a dent in what it costs to raise them, especially with the cost of living increase which will be costing her (but assume that he hasnt increased his payments in line with recent inflation).

So I think he should pay more because of this. The circumstances of her partner are irrelevant

The cost of living crisis affects him too. Unless his wages have gone up there's no reason for that to mean an increase in maintenance.

Report
GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/10/2022 10:30

Just as well as X spends his whole life trying to sabotage my career by messing with me/ with child arrangements.

We could all get multiple promotions if we had the complete headspace to focus on our career.

Report
JudgeJ · 05/10/2022 10:31

Givenuptotally · 04/10/2022 22:25

We’ll this isn’t your problem. But why do you think that maintenance should be reduced because you were made redundant?

She doesn't, she says they didn't ask for a reduction. The ex wife is wanting the OP's husband to make up for her lazy partner, she seems to still look on him as a lifetime meal ticket. Maybe the OP's partner should decide not to work and hence be unable to pay her.

Report
JudgeJ · 05/10/2022 10:34

properdoughnut · 04/10/2022 22:32

And her DP's income is irrelevant too.

Basically they seem to have forgotten that they are their child's parents and they are the ones responsible for paying for them. No one else. Both money grabbers, well suited after all!

The grabber is the ex, not an unusual situation.

Report
aSofaNearYou · 05/10/2022 10:37

AuntSalli · 05/10/2022 09:38

That’s the bottom line isn’t it the reasons why she needs the money you’re absolutely none of your business and she’s stupid to be sharing that level of information with you personally I would never do that.
but equally I’ve always said if the shoe was on the other foot and my children were living somewhere else I’d be sleeping in my car to make sure they got everything none of this two houses, extra kids nonsense.

Well done on your martyrdom. Meanwhile, you can try and dismiss someone's partner and further kids all you want, but they are actually just as important to that person as their first child/ren. My DP would never sacrifice his relationship and two DDs just so his DS could have "everything". He is comfortable, he doesn't need "everything" more than two other children and a happy relationship deserve to exist.

NRPs don't cease to be people just because they no longer live with their children full time. In the vast majority of cases they do not need to sacrifice everything and live in a car for their oldest children to be adequately provided for.

Report
Rosscameasdoody · 05/10/2022 10:37

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/10/2022 10:01

Everyone jumping down my throat for my comments about reasonably equal lifestyles, it’s literally how courts approach it when it’s a financial settlement after a marriage.

”The needs of the parties, in particular the housing needs, in particular of the children”

But this isn’t the same thing. The courts don’t keep ‘levelling up’ after either partner remarries or cohabits. And the housing needs of the children after a divorce is meant to ensure that the parents provide adequate housing - not their subsequent partners.

Report
funinthesun19 · 05/10/2022 10:38

Should be a set amount of at least £1000 a month to be realistic.

Yeah and then in your next breath you’d be moaning that so many NRP’s can’t afford to adequately house, feed and clothe their children themselves therefore they don’t see them.

Report
StoppinBy · 05/10/2022 10:43

I just did rough calculations, working on his kids staying 1/2 nights per week with you (I get the impression it's less than this but could be wrong).

Your household income is in the 6 figures and the maintenance calculator gave me an estimate of 66 pounds per week based on his income. If that's anywhere near accurate, that's terrible. 22pounds per child wouldn't come close to half the expenses, not even accounting for housing/electricity etc.

He needs to be getting an extra job anyway to help out more in my opinion, if he doesn't want to give the ex money directly then he should be supplying things for them instead out of the extra job.

Report
LemonSwan · 05/10/2022 11:01

whilst I agree in principal. I think the issue here is it sounds like you don’t want to allow anything - ie. do not want your DP to take on additional hours as that effects you, do not want him to pay anything additional (as obviously then you indirectly pay).

Well that’s untrue partly. The issue here is ex DPs job. But that means he’s been subsidising them/ the household.

You do seem potentially considering the 50/50 but RP might not want that.

Basically sounds like a shitshow.

What do you want as an ideal solution? I know ideally you don’t want this to be your problem. But it is. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking.

Report
properdoughnut · 05/10/2022 11:04

Dontwanttopay · 05/10/2022 09:15

It's a 70min round trip which doesn't seem extreme, but it means we'd always be late for work, and the earliest you the DSC can be collected is around 545. There's a bus but their DM is against it (search me!!)

Tough. On DH's time they can get the bus if he thinks it's ok.

Report
properdoughnut · 05/10/2022 11:06

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/10/2022 10:01

Everyone jumping down my throat for my comments about reasonably equal lifestyles, it’s literally how courts approach it when it’s a financial settlement after a marriage.

”The needs of the parties, in particular the housing needs, in particular of the children”

For the actual divorce though. They don't normally say if you get lucky and remarry someone rich or win the lottery you have to give more to your ex.

Report
properdoughnut · 05/10/2022 11:08

Dontwanttopay · 05/10/2022 09:47

In the grand scheme of things if I'm a high earner or the DSCs stepdad decides to change careers is irrelevant to the conversation.

I assume to HER it most be a strange setup that the children have to live in a 6 figure household Vs a lowish salary + UC top ups. But that's not my fault!

Yes exactly. If anything she should be grateful that you are willing to help support a nice lifestyle at their dad's. If he was by himself sounds like he'd struggle tbh. She's a right CF and can get her own 6 figure salary if she's that bothered. Not your fault she hasn't.

Report
properdoughnut · 05/10/2022 11:11

If it is the disparity that she's worried about maybe DH could offer to pay for their food etc himself rather than letting you pay for it. Lower their standard of living at your house? She wouldn't want that though would she.

Report
TwinsAndTiramisu · 05/10/2022 11:15

I find this so bizarre!

You already pay for the DC when they are with you, and whilst this is not your responsibility, but DH's, you are happy to do so. You are already covering what you should be, via everything you spend then the additional direct maintenance paid by DH.

The ex's partner wants to voluntarily quit work, and somehow, the ex ignores that it's her household choosing to cause her DC financial difficulty...but the answer is that your household should top up her lazy partner mooching around the house all day??

How have the two people that aren't parents ended up being the deciding factors in what gets paid??? Both ex and the dp needs to pull her finger out their arse and stop expecting other people to finance their poor choices.

DH still does the job he did when he was with her. She presumably still does the same. So they are both in the same situation. She now gets UC and CM and the DC are covered when they are not at hers. It matters not whether he shacks up with Paris Hilton, or an employed woman. Nor her. You don't get to whine "I've set up with an voluntarily unemployed lay about" then expect other people to gift you money because of it.

Report
TheGoodFighter · 05/10/2022 11:19

My DH has reached the top of his pay scale and I think he's been quite lucky about it

But he's on 24k? That's very little for a grown man, and certainly not enough to pay for two families. 24k wouldn't support one.

Report
InMySpareTime · 05/10/2022 11:19

If you had the kids all the weekends and school holidays that's pretty much half the nights anyway, without the disruptive school run.
You'd have to sort out holiday clubs etc, but that might be a solution without kicking the hornets nest re. The bus.
That's a problem for a different year.

Report
user443741922 · 05/10/2022 11:20

TwinsAndTiramisu · 05/10/2022 11:15

I find this so bizarre!

You already pay for the DC when they are with you, and whilst this is not your responsibility, but DH's, you are happy to do so. You are already covering what you should be, via everything you spend then the additional direct maintenance paid by DH.

The ex's partner wants to voluntarily quit work, and somehow, the ex ignores that it's her household choosing to cause her DC financial difficulty...but the answer is that your household should top up her lazy partner mooching around the house all day??

How have the two people that aren't parents ended up being the deciding factors in what gets paid??? Both ex and the dp needs to pull her finger out their arse and stop expecting other people to finance their poor choices.

DH still does the job he did when he was with her. She presumably still does the same. So they are both in the same situation. She now gets UC and CM and the DC are covered when they are not at hers. It matters not whether he shacks up with Paris Hilton, or an employed woman. Nor her. You don't get to whine "I've set up with an voluntarily unemployed lay about" then expect other people to gift you money because of it.

100%!!!

Absolutely love this reply.

Report
user443741922 · 05/10/2022 11:22

@TwinsAndTiramisu don't know why my reply didn't show! 😂
I said :

100%
Absolutely love this reply!!

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Dontwanttopay · 05/10/2022 11:28

Actually I did suggest having them all weekends (DH doesn't think she'd take that).

I've told him kindly that if they were still together, they'd get some UC top up (I know they did get tax credits) and that would be their lifestyle. He GOT LUCKY that's the crux of it, and I'm nobody's cash cow.

OP posts:
Report
sosoy · 05/10/2022 11:34

The bus is the obvious solution to some of this …

Report
DahliaDreamer · 05/10/2022 11:34

I've been in this situation and the facts are very clear. The amount payable is based on the paying parent's income and that alone. It is not based on the receiving parent's income. Your DH is not required to pay more unless his income goes up (assuming he's paying the amount calculated by the CMS).

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.