To feel resentful over paying child maintenance

[kittycats100]

I know I'm being unreasonable but hear me out. I've been the full time parent since me and DA dad split up when he was 2. DS goes to dad every other weekend and half holidays. Over the years child maintenance payments have varied from his dad paying nothing on the beginning to then me getting some CMA. The first years was £120, it went up to £300 for a year then back down to £120, there was two years I was getting nothing and some years of around £100. Currently it's £55. From secondary school, DS will be living with his dad most of the week so I'll be liable for child maintenance and I'm sure he will claim from me. I've just done a calculation and it's worked out I'll have to pay £450 p/m. I feel really resentful by this because I'll pay it with no drama but I had to struggle along for 8 years with no help with anything other than the CMA amount.

I need to come to terms with this and just accept it's for my son but it's really pissing me off. I had a convo with my partner about this and he thinks it's only fair as I claimed against my ex which has annoyed me even more.

Do you think I'm being unreasonable to feel like this?

Because it will be at least half the price of private rental….it is a lifetime tenancy ….so you have security…..she can apply for a mutual exchange but thsi takes time

I’m in the NW ….housing association and council rents are the same….there is no difference….we have stock from at least 4 HAs ( 3 are local and 1 is national)

This is all that's wrong with the system. Not your fault OP, id do the exact same thing. But it's a warped system for sure. HA properties should be for low earners and people who need that help.

Aside from that, I don't agree that teen boys need their dad. They need the best parent available, whether that's the mum or dad. They need the one that's kind, reliable and a positive role model (non gender specific). I'd have kept him with me personally.

There is nothing wrong with maxing out your pension. In fact, if you have been neglecting it, you have been missing out on years of compound interest building on itself, and are far behind. It’s a smart thing to do, whether or not you have child maintenance payments.

So it’s not full rent, like others have said?

HA properties should be for low earners and people who need that help.

Why?

If my husband started doing that and paying less maintenance there'd be outcry

@TakeMeDancing what are you talking about ?

You need to go and learn about what council housing is and how it works

op pays the full rent that’s charged in her property same as anyone else would pay? How are you not getting this

Yes, it’s the full “subsidised” rent. Or the full cost of the “reduced” rent. It’s not full market-value rent, as others have implied. Perhaps, as others have said, it’s a flawed system when a person on double the national average salary gets to occupy a subsidised property for life.

In isolation... yes.

The context is that he's dodged his (both financial and practical) responsibilities for 16 years!

And? The kid needs support now

Your DH is well within his rights to do a projection on his retirement outcome and to determine whether or not he can fund his desired retirement based on his current contributions. If he sees a black hole in his retirement future, he has every right to increase his contributions. I decided this April that my fund needed more money thrown at it every month, and upped my contributions at work accordingly.

The kid is a teen, near adult. He's not going to suffer if his mother prioritizes her pension for a change.

His dad can provide it then.

Lucky Dad that he won't have to pay full time nursery fees like the OP did.

Thanks @fupoffyagrasshole

I cannot believe people don't understand social housing. Paying full rent means they are paying the rent themselves out of their earnings, not having it paid for them via UC or housing benefit. Why should someone be turfed out of their home because someone else 'needs' it 'more'? Who decides 'need?

Morally, us - hopefully. Though looking at the thread, maybe not.

One of my colleagues earns very little over minimum wage, she has 3 kids and in the last 2 years has had to find new properties twice, because the landlords she lets from keep selling. Both times she’s had to move, the rent has gone up. It went up this time for a smaller property.

So her. She needs stable, affordable housing.

I, on the other hand, rented after I left my ex husband, and didn’t even consider social housing. Because I can afford not to, and I don’t need it. I’d rather it went to the people I’ve just described above.

What has that got to do with giving your own son less money. It’s not her ex partners money, it’s her son’s, it’s for him.

Anyone, of either gender, who actively avoids paying their kids what they owe, which is what we’re now talking about with changing pensions etc, should get the outcry for it.

Assuming he’s left you to cover all expenses before, why should you cover uniform, clothes, lunches and school trips? This is going to be extortionate. School trips are £600-£900 each at secondary, uniform very expensive, lunches £80 or so per month. You should both contribute.

If your employer has a salary sacrifice pension scheme they would deduct from your gross pay and CM should be calculated on your salary after the salary sacrifice.

You are absolutely correct. Private rents are insane.

Could you please quote where OP said she wont be paying?

She is not in any way, shape or form paying less than she "owes." Do you think she would be the only parent maxing out her pension and then paying CMS based on the post-pension earnings? That's how the system is designed.

She's paid the lion's share for 16 years. If her son has needs beyond what is covered by her CMS payments, the ex can muster it up, getting a second job if need be.

Saving for retirement is paramount and the only way lost time can be even remotely recaptured is by maxing out now, immediately. The OP has been her family's provider and deserves now to focus on a secure and comfortable old age. Time for the boy's father to step up.

I did say she was avoiding paying what she owed, because she is - she’s avoiding paying the £450 by putting more into a pension with the aim of bringing that figure down.

I don’t think she’d be the only parent intentionally moving funds into a pension with the aim of paying less CMS, no.

But I think all the ones who do, are wrong.

We all do need a plan for our future, of course, but if you’re doing that with any amount of intention of taking money that is due to be paid to your own child, however small a part of your thinking that is, you shouldn’t do it IMO.

But the only money "due" her child is the amount calculated by the existing system, which allows for maximum pension contributions before CMS is calculated. She is not "taking" anything. She WILL be paying what is due.

And no doubt OP will be providing for the teen in other ways, too, not just via her CMS payment. Which is a hell of lot more than his father has ever done. Stop acting as though the boy is going to suffer just because the OP for once is able to provide for her own well-being.

Okay, so you don’t think that checking what the figure would be, and then finding a way to lower it, is wrong?

You don’t think it’s wrong when fathers do the same thing?