Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To agree that DH should reduce maintenance

434 replies

Tiamaria86 · 27/08/2023 13:16

I have a DSD. We previously had her 2-3 nights a week in general. Sometimes it was more and sometimes less.

Her Mum has decided to retrain in a different career and this has meant late nights and early starts so we now have DSD more like 4-5 nights a week.

DSD has her own room with us and has friends round and we take her to all her hobbies and clubs etc.

DH pays for half her uniform and we buy her clothes and trainers and electronics etc.

DH has approached DSD mum and suggested that maintenance shouldn't be paid anymore. He's happy to go half's on anything she needs as well as continue to buy her things but really monthly maintenance is no longer appropriate.

DSD mum doesn't agree and is really shocked he has suggested this as we are a 2 income household and she will really struggle without it.

DH has suggested paying a lesser amount for now as a transition period which I think is really reasonable. DSD mum is really unhappy about it and can't even believe its been suggested.

My PILs also think DH is unreasonable and should continue to pay.

Am I going mad? Maintenance isn't appropriate in these circumstances is it? Or are we wrong?

OP posts:
FloydPepper · 28/08/2023 21:06

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 18:29

Legally as others have said, Mum should potentially be paying CM. However morally if she's already on a tight budget then that would be a dick move. The main reason she's obviously retraining is to provide a better life for her and her daughter. That said she can't expect your hubby to foot the bill for maintenence whilst also having their daughter at yours the majority of the time? That's just unfair.

So getting a nrp dad to pay what cms say he should would also be a dick move?

aSofaNearYou · 28/08/2023 21:12

If you live in the SE she could be reduced to living in a studio flat with her daughter and still not be able to afford her bills!This would be so totally inappropriate and morally wrong.

I just can't go over the complete lack of logic, not to mention hypocrisy, of this mentality.

Many, many NRP dad's live in studio apartments, house shares, even with their parents as it's all they can afford and are still firmly expected to provide maintenance on here. In fact, there would be absolute outrage if he didn't.

Mumuser124 · 28/08/2023 21:35

I'm honestly appalled at the women who are justifying the mother receiving payments based on morality. It actually makes me feel embarrassed to be a women when so many of my gender justify sponging off a family and their children to support her choices.

The payments need to stop, I think op and her husband suggesting a reduction in the short term is a very kind thing to do considering they are providing well beyond what the non resident parent is contributing.

Ap42 · 28/08/2023 21:57

FloydPepper · 28/08/2023 21:06

So getting a nrp dad to pay what cms say he should would also be a dick move?

Show quote history

The difference is often the nrp has had years of freedom to build a career as they don't have the same childcare responsibilities that the resident parent has. I've clearly stated it would be unfair to allow Dad to carry on paying maintenence and I believe a compromise should be reached. If the Mother is already on a low income, her cm payments would be minimal anyway, so why bother for peanuts. Instead I would try to reach a reasonable solution between the parents .

Blueblell · 28/08/2023 22:08

It sounds like you all have a sensible relationship and you want a fair outcome for everyone involved. Clearly, your DH doesn’t need to pay maintenance with your current set up. However, DSD mum is trying to increase her earning potential by doing this course and as we all know mums do often put their earning potential on hold in the early years. It would seem the decent thing to keep the maintenance going (assuming it is not being used for luxuries and she needs it to keep the household going) until she has completed the course.

shehasglasses48 · 28/08/2023 22:14

This is his child. Stop seeing her as a financial burden

SD1978 · 28/08/2023 22:19

As far as I'm concerned he should be reducing and potentially stopping it. You have your SD 4-5 nights a week, and will continue to going forward. You will have the extra costs involved in that, which mum no longer does. I don't understand where feeding, heating and housing the mother becomes your responsibility?! Yes it should be reduced/ stopped and I can not understand why people think that it shouldn't!

Backagain23 · 28/08/2023 22:19

shehasglasses48 · 28/08/2023 22:14

This is his child. Stop seeing her as a financial burden

All children are financial burdens. Apparently this one is too heavy for her own mother to be expected to help carry.

Toomuchtrouble4me · 28/08/2023 23:56

Well you were having her 3/7 nights, now it’s 5/7 nights. That’s an increase of 28%, therefore reduce maintenance by 28%.
You can’t just stop it, her mother still has expenses for her, you have the agreed maintenance, just adjust it.

aSofaNearYou · 29/08/2023 00:08

What this thread really shows is that many people on here simply cannot compute the notion of the woman not automatically being the one to receive maintenance.

Backagain23 · 29/08/2023 00:12

aSofaNearYou · 29/08/2023 00:08

What this thread really shows is that many people on here simply cannot compute the notion of the woman not automatically being the one to receive maintenance.

Indeed, this thread has been a peach.
"The mother has expenses" indeed. What the fuck do people think the dad is doing -spending Monopoly money feeding and clothing and housing his child the majority of the time? 🙄

Thelnebriati · 29/08/2023 00:20

The inequality between the mother who has to be the default parent and limit their earning potential and pension, and the non resident father who can outsource his parenting responsibilities is lost on so many posters. No wonder so many older women live in poverty.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 29/08/2023 02:06

Thelnebriati · 29/08/2023 00:20

The inequality between the mother who has to be the default parent and limit their earning potential and pension, and the non resident father who can outsource his parenting responsibilities is lost on so many posters. No wonder so many older women live in poverty.

It's been 10 years. And she was not the default parent.

RTFT.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 29/08/2023 02:07

Toomuchtrouble4me · 28/08/2023 23:56

Well you were having her 3/7 nights, now it’s 5/7 nights. That’s an increase of 28%, therefore reduce maintenance by 28%.
You can’t just stop it, her mother still has expenses for her, you have the agreed maintenance, just adjust it.

The RP isn't required to foot all expense. The bio-mother needs to finance her own household ffs.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 29/08/2023 02:08

SD1978 · 28/08/2023 22:19

As far as I'm concerned he should be reducing and potentially stopping it. You have your SD 4-5 nights a week, and will continue to going forward. You will have the extra costs involved in that, which mum no longer does. I don't understand where feeding, heating and housing the mother becomes your responsibility?! Yes it should be reduced/ stopped and I can not understand why people think that it shouldn't!

Agree. This woman had had a decade to figure it out. Enough is enough.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 29/08/2023 07:39

Toomuchtrouble4me · 28/08/2023 23:56

Well you were having her 3/7 nights, now it’s 5/7 nights. That’s an increase of 28%, therefore reduce maintenance by 28%.
You can’t just stop it, her mother still has expenses for her, you have the agreed maintenance, just adjust it.

Comments like this are just unbelievable. WTF is wrong with people?

Yes, the mother has expenses. She has expenses because she has a child and she is responsible for paying for 50% of the costs of that child. As her ex now has the child for more than 50% of the time, he is already covering more than 50% of the costs.

So why the fuck would he need to pay any maintenance to the child's mother, who only has her for 2 nights a week?

drpet49 · 29/08/2023 08:13

Mumuser124 · 28/08/2023 21:35

I'm honestly appalled at the women who are justifying the mother receiving payments based on morality. It actually makes me feel embarrassed to be a women when so many of my gender justify sponging off a family and their children to support her choices.

The payments need to stop, I think op and her husband suggesting a reduction in the short term is a very kind thing to do considering they are providing well beyond what the non resident parent is contributing.

This

CrabbyMcPatty · 29/08/2023 09:21

Toomuchtrouble4me · 28/08/2023 23:56

Well you were having her 3/7 nights, now it’s 5/7 nights. That’s an increase of 28%, therefore reduce maintenance by 28%.
You can’t just stop it, her mother still has expenses for her, you have the agreed maintenance, just adjust it.

Hahahahahahaha

Fact is she's no longer the RP, she is the NRP. NRPs pay maintenance to RPs because they naturally have more expenses than a NRP. The fact this RP has a penis shouldn't mean the ex doesn't need to pay maintenance but actually receive it instead!!!

T1Dmama · 29/08/2023 11:35

This is just my opinion, but if the daughter is living with you more than half of the week and you’re paying towards clothes etc then maintenance is not appropriate… surely if you are providing the majority of the care then mum should be paying maintenance to you!!
Maybe it would be appropriate to go to the child support agency for advice regarding this. Maintenance is for the child and not to support the mother to go back to college, if child is living with you then maintenance isn’t applicable??
(Presuming you are now doing the majority of feeding and clothing, washing her clothes etc) what expense has mum actually got??

T1Dmama · 29/08/2023 11:42

Also as the main carers your husband is well within his writes to apply for the family allowance payment. You don’t get to have your child for 2 days a week only and still claim the benefits for looking after them. I’d apply for a change in the custody terms and get it written up that you now have the main parental responsibility … if this changes in the future and she lives back with mum majority of the time again once she’s qualified then obviously payments restart. Until then, sorry no but that isn’t what maintenance is for…. It’s CHILD MAINTENANCE not SPOUSAL PAYMENTS.

T1Dmama · 29/08/2023 11:58

Also surely DSD’S mum is entitled to benefits to help her during her studies. She maybe entitled to universal credit, help with rent and significantly reduced council tax etc!
I think you’re both extremely kind to still pay maintenance.

eminem120176 · 29/08/2023 12:33

cannaecookrisotto · 27/08/2023 13:39

It really all depends on the financial situations of both households.

The rule is he shouldn't pay anymore if you're having her 50/50 or more and she could even be required to give him maintenance, however, if her salary isn't that high then this isn't really practical and could put her into financial difficulty.

Likewise, she could rely on the maintenance to pay bills and put food on the table and by stopping maintenance you could put her financial security into jeopardy- aka your DSDs way of life.

In reality, I (as in your DH) would want to understand the consequences of removing the maintenance before I did it and if I was in a financial position where I could comfortably carry on paying (and stopping would cause detriment to her finances) then I would continue.

If it's a middle ground kind of situation where you really need the money to support the extra time DSD is staying with you then I would taper the maintenance off rather than just stopping completely.

It's hard to say who is BU without the financial status of both households.

Role reverse here - There are hundreds of women bleeding men dry a month and they don't care. The guy could and should stop maintenance and demand from her. Consideration of each others finances never hapens with the CMS

aSofaNearYou · 29/08/2023 12:41

Role reverse here - There are hundreds of women bleeding men dry a month and they don't care. The guy could and should stop maintenance and demand from her. Consideration of each others finances never hapens with the CMS

Exactly. Next time I see a thread where a RP mum is discussing claiming maintenance from a NRP dad I will point out that his income might not be high and she could be putting him in financial hardship, and refer them to this thread. I wonder what response I will receive!

Backagain23 · 29/08/2023 12:55

aSofaNearYou · 29/08/2023 12:41

Role reverse here - There are hundreds of women bleeding men dry a month and they don't care. The guy could and should stop maintenance and demand from her. Consideration of each others finances never hapens with the CMS

Exactly. Next time I see a thread where a RP mum is discussing claiming maintenance from a NRP dad I will point out that his income might not be high and she could be putting him in financial hardship, and refer them to this thread. I wonder what response I will receive!

You'll have seen me arguing exactly that on more than one occasion (It's Yousee) as I do believe that if the RP household is actually wealthy (not just about scraping by for now like OP) then it's morally, if not legally, wrong to be taking money from an involved NRP, which is just going to sit in a bank account somewhere instead of benefiting the child with their NRP.
The OPs situation though is completely outrageous and detrimental to all the children involved if it carries on.

aSofaNearYou · 29/08/2023 13:06

Hi @Backagain23 👋, didn't know you'd name changed!

Yes me too actually, but it always goes down like a lead balloon and "people have a duty to provide for the children they produce, it doesn't matter how wealthy the other household is" is quoted near unanimously. Plus as you say, not at all reasonable when neither household has surplus money!