Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
GrannyGoggins · 27/08/2023 15:53

babyproblems · 27/08/2023 15:46

I also think you should ask CMS and officially decide who is the primary carer.
I always feel there is an underlying note of cruelty in these posts - it’s their child fgs. He should be happy to pay and also ensure her mum is not some run ragged woman which I suspect she is. There’s always an element of keeping the single parent in a tough place which I think is horrible. You said you can afford to pay - I personally think you should just continue paying it. If you are primary carers officially then you could rethink it but her mum clearly needs more support.

It's not up to the father to support his ex though! Would you think she should support him if the roles were reversed?

It's also not his fault that she is a single mother in comparison to him not being single. He is allowed to move on which doesn't mean he continues to support his ex when the kids aren't there.

FasciaDreams · 27/08/2023 15:53

babyproblems · 27/08/2023 15:46

I also think you should ask CMS and officially decide who is the primary carer.
I always feel there is an underlying note of cruelty in these posts - it’s their child fgs. He should be happy to pay and also ensure her mum is not some run ragged woman which I suspect she is. There’s always an element of keeping the single parent in a tough place which I think is horrible. You said you can afford to pay - I personally think you should just continue paying it. If you are primary carers officially then you could rethink it but her mum clearly needs more support.

They can't really though. They're being financially very stretched.
The OP isn't saying that they are on the breadline, presumably because that would be insulting to the people who are actually on the bones of their arse. Needing to resort to food banks, no money for anything other than the ABSOLUTE bare essentials, etc.

But they are at the stage of having to cut back.

We don't have the figures so we don't know the truth. If DSD mum would, say be unable to pay the electricity bill then maybe, but if it means that maybe she can't afford to pay her half of all DSD clubs then maybe DSD will have to drop one. Doesn't make sense for, say DSD to do loads of stuff that her siblings have no chance too because the money goes out as maintenance to her mother to pay for it.

FWIW I don't think the mum's a chancer unlike other people on here she's trying to better herself so she's not a lazy layabout expecting to be funded. I'm confident they can come to an agreement.

Puppalicious · 27/08/2023 15:55

I have to say my mind is absolutely blown by the double standards shown in some of these posts. The father has the child the majority of nights, why on earth would be paying the mother, the money should be going on the child? There is no way on earth anyone would say that a mother who has a child 4/5 mights should pay maintenance to the NRP, even if her household had more money. It’s bonkers.

MeridianB · 27/08/2023 15:55

It’s likely that under the new arrangement CMS would expect to see the ex paying maintenance to your DH.

It sounds like he wouldn’t expect this but he definitely shouldn’t be paying any maintenance to the ex.

He can demonstrate the sums to her on the CMS calculator. And then she might realise that it’s a reasonable compromise, especially if she keeps CB.

aSofaNearYou · 27/08/2023 15:56

It’s petty that it bothers the OP enough for her to start a thread about it. The maintenance is between the biological parents, obviously the stepmum is resentful of paying it. The child still lives at the mum’s house for some of the week and unless the single parent is now out-earning the dad and stepmum I just think it’s petty to want to stop maintenance.

Well yes, most people would resent paying money they don't owe unless they have loads to spare.

cinnamonfrenchtoast · 27/08/2023 15:56

Puppalicious · 27/08/2023 15:55

I have to say my mind is absolutely blown by the double standards shown in some of these posts. The father has the child the majority of nights, why on earth would be paying the mother, the money should be going on the child? There is no way on earth anyone would say that a mother who has a child 4/5 mights should pay maintenance to the NRP, even if her household had more money. It’s bonkers.

It's batshit isn't it?

If OP posted to say her ex was quitting work to re-train and would now be having their child for 2-3 nights less each week, he'd be slammed a deadbeat and everyone would be telling her to go after him for as much CMS as possible.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 27/08/2023 15:57

babyproblems · 27/08/2023 15:46

I also think you should ask CMS and officially decide who is the primary carer.
I always feel there is an underlying note of cruelty in these posts - it’s their child fgs. He should be happy to pay and also ensure her mum is not some run ragged woman which I suspect she is. There’s always an element of keeping the single parent in a tough place which I think is horrible. You said you can afford to pay - I personally think you should just continue paying it. If you are primary carers officially then you could rethink it but her mum clearly needs more support.

Utter hogwash.

The ex should have sorted her own income long ago.

GrannyGoggins · 27/08/2023 15:57

Puppalicious · 27/08/2023 15:55

I have to say my mind is absolutely blown by the double standards shown in some of these posts. The father has the child the majority of nights, why on earth would be paying the mother, the money should be going on the child? There is no way on earth anyone would say that a mother who has a child 4/5 mights should pay maintenance to the NRP, even if her household had more money. It’s bonkers.

👏 couldn't agree more. I'm astounded at the double standards.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 27/08/2023 15:58

I think it's better morally to facilitate her career change, rather than effectively force her to stay in the previous role that would have been dictated at least in part by her needing to care for her child - especially as removing maintenance would be screwing her over for another 5-10 years when she could be established and earning far more, fully self sufficient and support her DD in University/early adult life if you continue as you are.

He's proposing pretty much sweeping her feet out from under her financially just when she's trying to do something better.

FasciaDreams · 27/08/2023 16:01

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

Well it really depends on what the maintenance is used for, isn't it?
Being unable to fund essentials, such as utility bills is different from being unable to afford any extras.

Of course this is just an example but if DSD Mum can no longer afford to pay her half of all activities some might have to be dropped. Many, many families have had to do this with the cost of living crisis anyway.

aSofaNearYou · 27/08/2023 16:01

NeverDropYourMooncup · 27/08/2023 15:58

I think it's better morally to facilitate her career change, rather than effectively force her to stay in the previous role that would have been dictated at least in part by her needing to care for her child - especially as removing maintenance would be screwing her over for another 5-10 years when she could be established and earning far more, fully self sufficient and support her DD in University/early adult life if you continue as you are.

He's proposing pretty much sweeping her feet out from under her financially just when she's trying to do something better.

She should never have expected maintenance to continue if she was having her child less than half, the rug hasn't been pulled from under her, she should have assumed and expected this.

And nobody is being screwed over by not being bolstered up by money that isn't owed to them.

cinnamonfrenchtoast · 27/08/2023 16:02

NeverDropYourMooncup · 27/08/2023 15:58

I think it's better morally to facilitate her career change, rather than effectively force her to stay in the previous role that would have been dictated at least in part by her needing to care for her child - especially as removing maintenance would be screwing her over for another 5-10 years when she could be established and earning far more, fully self sufficient and support her DD in University/early adult life if you continue as you are.

He's proposing pretty much sweeping her feet out from under her financially just when she's trying to do something better.

No, she's doing that to herself.

CwmYoy · 27/08/2023 16:02

Agree with using the CMS calculator. She's taking the piss.

FasciaDreams · 27/08/2023 16:02

NeverDropYourMooncup · 27/08/2023 15:58

I think it's better morally to facilitate her career change, rather than effectively force her to stay in the previous role that would have been dictated at least in part by her needing to care for her child - especially as removing maintenance would be screwing her over for another 5-10 years when she could be established and earning far more, fully self sufficient and support her DD in University/early adult life if you continue as you are.

He's proposing pretty much sweeping her feet out from under her financially just when she's trying to do something better.

We don't KNOW that, unless we know what she's spending the maintenance on. She could be really struggling to cover essentials. She may just be unable to afford extras. We don't know.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 27/08/2023 16:04

A decent person would have proactively said "hey, as you're having the DC most of the time, no need to continue the maintenance." Not act surprised and shocked that guidelines are being followed.

LoveThisUsername · 27/08/2023 16:04

Nevermind31 · 27/08/2023 14:36

With this sort of reasoning all those dead beat fathers that have their child EOW shouldn’t need to pay maintenance, and should really receive some from the mother, as it doesn’t make a difference that they only have their child 1 day out of 7. They still need to put a roof over their child’s head during those times…

Show quote history

I know of quite a few fathers that can't afford a roof over their heads because they are paying so much maintenance, plus going halves on one off costs and buying things themselves for the children.

They live with aunts, in garden rooms, shared houses.

How is that acceptable? They have no chance of having their kids stay with them for any length of time, but I suspect that's the aim to keep the maintenance rolling in.

GrannyGoggins · 27/08/2023 16:05

Plenty of non resident fathers can't afford to pay maintenance but have to anyway. So why should the mother get to keep it when it's not being spent on the children? If she can't afford to live without the CM then she will have to cut her cloth so to speak.

Thisismynewusername1 · 27/08/2023 16:05

NeverDropYourMooncup · 27/08/2023 15:58

I think it's better morally to facilitate her career change, rather than effectively force her to stay in the previous role that would have been dictated at least in part by her needing to care for her child - especially as removing maintenance would be screwing her over for another 5-10 years when she could be established and earning far more, fully self sufficient and support her DD in University/early adult life if you continue as you are.

He's proposing pretty much sweeping her feet out from under her financially just when she's trying to do something better.

So if the child’s dad decided to retrain, stop paying maintenance AND expect a contribution from mum that would be ok?

he’s only trying to better himself and will be in a better position to support the child through uni.

bottom line is it’s nothing to do with the parents situation or income.

cms is for the CHILD. it’s payable to whoever has main responsibility for that child.

if the mum continues to expect maintenance she’s taking from her child twice. Once the payment to her, and second the amount she should be paying for the child.

deadbeat mum not paying her share of her child’s costs.

Original poster
Tiamaria86 · 27/08/2023 16:06

FasciaDreams · 27/08/2023 16:01

Well it really depends on what the maintenance is used for, isn't it?
Being unable to fund essentials, such as utility bills is different from being unable to afford any extras.

Of course this is just an example but if DSD Mum can no longer afford to pay her half of all activities some might have to be dropped. Many, many families have had to do this with the cost of living crisis anyway.

Show quote history

I think this is it really. Try and have an open conversation. If the situation is the electric bill can't be paid or there won't be food on the table without the amount that's already paid then maybe it will need to stay as it is.

If the situation is maybe the maintence goes on some luxuries then it can be reduced.

I don't know the answer the really! Hence the post.

OP posts:
Floweryx123 · 27/08/2023 16:09

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

Thisismynewusername1 · 27/08/2023 16:09

Tiamaria86 · 27/08/2023 16:06

I think this is it really. Try and have an open conversation. If the situation is the electric bill can't be paid or there won't be food on the table without the amount that's already paid then maybe it will need to stay as it is.

If the situation is maybe the maintence goes on some luxuries then it can be reduced.

I don't know the answer the really! Hence the post.

Show quote history

If she can’t pay her electric bill it’s not your responsibility to pay it for her.

before she decides to retrain she should have calculated the affordability of doing so. If she hasn’t, she’s an adult and shouldn’t expect hand outs from you.

cinnamonfrenchtoast · 27/08/2023 16:09

GrannyGoggins · 27/08/2023 16:05

Plenty of non resident fathers can't afford to pay maintenance but have to anyway. So why should the mother get to keep it when it's not being spent on the children? If she can't afford to live without the CM then she will have to cut her cloth so to speak.

Exactly this.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 27/08/2023 16:10

What is her living situation, OP? Does she have enough space to take in a lodger? Could she downsize to a smaller flat?

FloydPepper · 27/08/2023 16:10

GrannyGoggins · 27/08/2023 15:11

Let's reverse this:

NRP father wants to retrain and further his career so he asks his ex (who has the kids most of the time) if he can stop his maintenance payments to her and she pay it him instead so he could afford to retrain even though he wouldn't be having the kids much.

There is no way anyone on here would agree to the above.

Exactly

that this is even a debate shows how skewed mumsnet is

an nrp should pay an rp in line with (or preferably more than) the cms payment. To fail to do that makes them a deadbeat parent. Is that only true for men on here?

FloydPepper · 27/08/2023 16:11

Itsnotrightbutitsok · 27/08/2023 15:23

I agree.

The mother is also still receiving child benefit and UC top ups, despite the fact that she’s not having the child as often as the dad.

Show quote history

Rp should also receive child benefit surely?