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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Payrise and maintenance

341 replies

Lillo7 · 19/02/2024 07:05

Keen to hear people's opinions about this.

Two DC, father is married with more children. Mother is single.

Father is not on a great wage however his wife has received several payrises in the years they've been together and works in a professional career which means as a whole their household is quite well off and can afford quite a lot of luxuries.

Maintenance is paid by the father based on his low wage. Mother is struggling a little as also on a lower wage.

Mother argues that they should pay more as a household instead due to wife's higher pay, obviously not officially through CMS as they don't take new partners into account, but morally. Wife disagrees and says what she earns is nothing to do with the mother and is for her household/children/ stepchildren when there, not at their mums.

Father stuck in the middle a bit.

Random poll options

YABU - wife should subsidise higher maintenance.

YANBU - Mother and father should care for their children on their own respective wages and what wife earns is nothing to do with the mother.

OP posts:
Britpop123 · 19/02/2024 20:48

MississippiAF · 19/02/2024 20:46

I think the reply was… inadequate

Have you considered you might be as stupid as me?

PinkEasterbunny · 19/02/2024 21:01

The dad isn't buying new cars, his WIFE is WITH HER BONUS, which just happens to be none of the exes business.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why the OP should fund additional child support for her step children.

What the OP does with her money is not the exes business. Even the CMS recognise this.

Well most of us seem to understand this …

blahblahblahblahblahsc · 19/02/2024 22:58

Lillo7 · 19/02/2024 09:22

Maybe. But surely that's just life? If she were the one with the partner and DH single I doubt she'd have any sympathy about him having a bit of a harder time juggling childcare.

I mean she can go and find a partner if she really wants?

I get that you don’t want, and don’t have to, top up from your income. But the above comment is absurd. “Go and find a partner”?!?!

All this shows is your lack of imagination or understanding of what it’s like to be a single mother. Perhaps if when they split your H had the bulk of responsibility for the children she would have a new partner by now! Perhaps if he hadn’t had the expense of getting married he would have had more money to put towards supporting his children.

It’s really not straightforward from any angle (including, of course, yours) so why try to force it to be so? Although there has to be a system for maintenance etc (despite any system being flawed and the CMS one especially so), it really makes no sense to me why people think things have to to be so binary.

You don’t say much about the ages of your H’s children, the ages of your children, what the set up was between your H and his ex before you and he got together etc etc. but it’s hard to believe that her earning potential and general situation has not been seriously impacted by the end of their relationship and single parenthood (possibly in a way that his is not?)

If their children are happy spending more time at hers and so is she then that’s great. Also great if he is happy to have them more. But perhaps she is worried that a more equal split of time, or sending the children over more often even on an ad hoc basis, would result in your H reducing maintenance which she possibly relies on to pay essential living costs. Perhaps she is worried that it will be somehow used against her, especially now he has a nicer lifestyle.

I imagine if your DH said he wanted to increase his payments from his income that you wouldn’t penalize his lifestyle/your joint lifestyle as a result. So he could help if he chose to - or is that something you would actively refuse to support?

If you and your H wanted to help there are so many ways to humanize the interaction and make it happen if it makes sense (without setting a precedent which would personally damage you financially). Perhaps his ex is being grabby and unpleasant - but have either of you stopped to ask what’s going on with her? Is there some interim/short term help you could give? Saying ‘oh if you can’t afford the children we will take them more’ is not only unkind, it has a load of emotional ramifications for the children and her, but also really doesn’t decrease costs much when she is still keeping a roof over her children’s heads.

Do your SC do extra curricular activities? In which case does your H pay half of those, half of school trips, half of new shoes etc etc plus maintenance. Or is the maintenance meant to cover housing, bills, food and every other expense because unless he is paying a serious amount over CMS then on a lowish income it’s doubtful that what he contributes touches the sides.

I get it’s not ‘your problem’ in one respect, and if you were struggling to get by yourselves that would be one thing. But these are your step children and your children’s siblings. They will (one hopes) be in your life forever. They are learning how adult relationships work from all of you (as are your own children).

No-one’s saying you can’t do anything (eg fancy holiday) unless everyone else can do it too, but there’s a middle ground here. Perhaps if the conversation was less punitive and hysterical, and more compassionate and pragmatic you might find there were some really easy wins to be had.

I read something interesting recently about not focusing on decisions but on outcomes, and then putting steps in place to try and get to the preferred outcome. So perhaps instead of focusing on whether or not you should part with an extra £50/£100 a month right now, you and your H should think about the kind of relationship you want to have with his DC, the kind of relationship you want all the children to have with each other, the way you’d like them to regard you as they get older etc. and then put steps in place to make that happen.

The way you lay out the situation on this thread I’d be very surprised if your H’s children didn’t quickly grow to resent their siblings (or you might prefer the term HALF siblings), and by extension you. Which could make for some unfun teenage years…

You got involved with someone who has children - I can’t imagine why you didn’t think a certain amount of ‘unfairness’ (or compromise) was going to come along with that… suck it up.

MamaDollyorJesus · 19/02/2024 23:04

@Chocolatebuttonns it's not really insignificant when they first brought that rule out my ex moved in with his girlfriend & her 3 DD's - for every £100 of his take home pay her DD's were entitled to £25 of it whereas my DD's & his other child were entitled to £18.75 of it!

Of a £2,000 take home pay that's over £40 per month difference per child - this would have covered the cost of my DD's swimming lessons.

That is absolutely not a fair rule.

So yeah I do think if the new wife's DC (who are not the fathers biological children) are taken into account because they're now part of the father's household then the household income should also be taken into account.

I know the rules have changed to be calculated on gross pay now but overall the monetary amounts are roughly the same.

Goldbar · 19/02/2024 23:11

Great post @blahblahblahblahblahsc . I think that's sort of what I was trying (very badly) to say. What sort of relationship will these children (all of them) have with the adults involved and with each other when they grow up? Will they look back and feel that they were put first by those who should have had their interests at heart?

Chocolatebuttonns · 19/02/2024 23:21

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

Chocolatebuttonns · 19/02/2024 23:22

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

blahblahblahblahblahsc · 20/02/2024 00:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MamaDollyorJesus · 20/02/2024 00:45

@Chocolatebuttonns my DD's are adults now thank god so I don't have to deal with CSA/CMS anymore but his other child is 16 so the mother may well still be dealing with it & ex has gone on to have 2 DC with second wife (they'll be 11 & 13).

In our case back then it was 3 & 3 but the standard rates were:

15% for one child
20% for two children
25% for three or more

With the resident DC getting their chunk first & non-resident DC getting their chunk calculated on what was left of take home pay.

It's now 12,16 & 19% of gross pay but there's not much difference in the monetary amounts.

Goldbar · 20/02/2024 06:48

@blahblahblahblahblahsc . Thank you, I'm not feeling the least bit small, I assure you, just usual size 😂.

"It's not about money, it's about priorities" sums it up perfectly. Not sure why it's difficult to understand.

We didn't have lots of stuff or experiences growing up - riding and dancing lessons were an absolute no-no, which I was quite sad about at the time. But we had a mum who did tutoring and a dad who worked overtime to pay for our summer holiday. We knew that we were the centre of their worlds.

Optics matter. Here, the kids have a dad with lots of shiny new toys who doesn't pay much for them while they feel the pinch in their other home (whatever that means). That sends a message about his priorities.

GN637 · 20/02/2024 07:06

Priorities indeed. ExH pays around £800 a month for his swanky electric lease car as a salary sacrifice so that there's less income on paper for the CMS to take into consideration. He pays less than £150 a month for Dd. He's updating his car next month but dropping the maintenance. Dd knows where his priorities lie and it's not with her and her self esteem takes a battering on a daily basis due to him. He can't afford her pocket money this month to make things worse. He gives the child he lives with (her sister) about £100 a week to spend as she pleases. Men like him as scum and their children know it.

Toooldtoworry · 20/02/2024 07:19

GN637 · 20/02/2024 07:06

Priorities indeed. ExH pays around £800 a month for his swanky electric lease car as a salary sacrifice so that there's less income on paper for the CMS to take into consideration. He pays less than £150 a month for Dd. He's updating his car next month but dropping the maintenance. Dd knows where his priorities lie and it's not with her and her self esteem takes a battering on a daily basis due to him. He can't afford her pocket money this month to make things worse. He gives the child he lives with (her sister) about £100 a week to spend as she pleases. Men like him as scum and their children know it.

NRPs like him, who shirk their responsibilities, are shit but the OP is talking about her income not her DHs and he does not appear to be shirking his responsibilities.

Mumof2teens79 · 20/02/2024 07:20

Lillo7 · 19/02/2024 07:23

She doesn't exactly, but she does see them going away a lot, buying nice cars, living in a bigger house etc.. and when questioned is told its wife's income/she's recently received payrise.

Think it's probably fairly obvious I'm the wife.

This all happened because we bought new cars, me and DH, and she questioned it and was told it was me and I'd had a payrise recently (why DH felt the need to mention it I don't know). Since then she's been trying to guilt DH into paying more maintenance because "we" can clearly afford it.

The maintenance DH pays now is based on having DC 2 days a week less than she does and is slightly more than the calculator as it is.

I've said to DH, it's not up to me to subsidise her because she's single and doesn't earn as much.

I voted YANBU and yes it's not for you to subsidise the ex....but CM is not for the ex, its for the child.
We all know that if you were a man society would expect you to support your DPs existing children.
Also we all know that often the lower paid partner is part time or earns less because they do most childcare etc.
If that was the case then I would expect household income to be taken into account.
Also if the new partner is paying all or most household expenses then the Father is being subsidised and will have more disposable income because not paying mortgage etc.

So morally I think there is room for more than the minimum/basic cms amount.

So many (mothers) mainly I know struggle day to day to pay for stuff because despite sharing custody 50/50 or there abouts they end up picking up far more of the incidental expenditure.
Simple stuff like....teen daughters hair and make up products....that mum buys but she takes to dad's. Hair cuts. Taking them to appointments...even if things like school shoes and glasses are split the parking or bus fair isn't.
Big items of clothing hopefully are split in cost (not always) but my friends are the only ones that buy socks and underwear. Or buy the birthday cards and presents for friends parties, or pay for brownies.

MississippiAF · 20/02/2024 07:29

I think the fundamental issue is that some people seem to think that if there is any spare cash floating round the NRP’s household at all, then they should voluntarily send it the RP’s way, to make things seem fairer, easier for the RP, and for ‘optics’ to the DC.

I disagree. Households might have disparate standards of living, that’s life.

Also, when you split, things change. Maybe factor that in before you have children with unsuitable people, rather than trying to justify how a new partner of the ex should fill the holes their parents created.

I didn’t have DC until I was well-paid, and didn’t stop working after they were born. DH’s ex gave up her low-paid job as soon as she was pregnant at a young age, and never went back. She is never going to be able to provide her DC with what I can, regardless of DH’s (maximum CMS level) payments. That’s not my issue to correct.

JacksonLambsEatIvy · 20/02/2024 07:34

god you really do think that the OP should be subsidising everyone don’t you @Mumof2teens79.

But you comparator is not comparable. A man who chooses to get into a relationship with a single mum is paying disproportionately into his own household. If he’s paying more of the mortgage and she’s not working FT… he’s had a choice in that. He doesn’t have to agree to that. The mother doesn’t pay maintenance - she receives it.

The OP here already pays into her own household and the SC benefit from that when they’re with their dad. Why should she pay even more of the mortgage or bills so that her husband can pay more to his children’s main household? She’s already doing the equivalent of the stepfather in your scenario.

Your equivalent situation would involve the stepfather either paying for everything in his home so money can go to the children’s father (as maintenance) or him paying that maintenance to his partner’s ex himself. Absolutely no one expects him to do that.

If this OP’s ex wants more - she needs to earn more. Or persuade her ex to earn more. That is how life goes.

Youcannotbeseriousreally · 20/02/2024 07:37

I think in the most part different standards of living are to be expected. My step kids have a much better standard of living when they are with us, in a bigger house in a much better area, we have nicer cars and holidays etc more disposable income. But I work full time and always have and their mum only wants to work part time, that’s her choice. She wants to live in a rubbish area with a crap school and not maximise her earning and life potentials then that’s cool, but it certainty isn’t my job to supplement her life choices ‘ for the sake of her kids’! That’s her job, my husband pays maintenance based on his salary etc but I’d never give her a penny of my money.

JacksonLambsEatIvy · 20/02/2024 07:38

I think the fundamental issue is that some people seem to think that if there is any spare cash floating round the NRP’s household at all, then they should voluntarily send it the RP’s way, to make things seem fairer, easier for the RP, and for ‘optics’ to the DC.

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?

Chocolatebuttonns · 20/02/2024 07:53

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

Chocolatebuttonns · 20/02/2024 07:55

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

JudgeJ · 20/02/2024 07:57

bottomsup12 · 19/02/2024 07:21

This, not the wife's problem but the dad should not be happy to see his kids have a worse life than his own

Then he should do something about it!

Propertynightmare24573 · 20/02/2024 08:01

JacksonLambsEatIvy · 20/02/2024 07:38

I think the fundamental issue is that some people seem to think that if there is any spare cash floating round the NRP’s household at all, then they should voluntarily send it the RP’s way, to make things seem fairer, easier for the RP, and for ‘optics’ to the DC.

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?

Imagine you're the child. You desperately want to go to football club or dance classes or brownies or whatever but your mum can't afford it. You know she can't because 3 weeks in 4 you eat reasonably ok but the 4th week for some inexplicable reason you get plain pasta and mum doesn't seem to eat as much. Your trainers are from Asda and a bit worn and tatty.

Meanwhile dad and his new family and your new half siblings are out at riding lessons, wearing the latest fashions in high end brands. They go on the school residential trips, and their snapchat stories are full of Starbucks.

Ok it's a bit extreme but it's not unheard of. How would you feel if you were that child?

Chocolatebuttonns · 20/02/2024 08:04

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

Propertynightmare24573 · 20/02/2024 08:07

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

Only it's not from my imagination. I know a lot of single parents and this is very similar to their lived experience.

Chocolatebuttonns · 20/02/2024 08:11

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the OP's request.

CassandraWebb · 20/02/2024 08:13

I've seen plenty of men move in with a new well earning partner, she had a baby and then they decide he will go part time to reduce the maintenance he pays to his ex. We all know it happens.

(And I say that as a high earner who wouldn't have indulged this if my husband tried to deprive his ex and children in this way. That said, I am equally not going to work hard and full time to subsidise his ex who chooses to work part time even though her children are secondary age)