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?

Again please provide an actual quote where she says that. Nothing, huh?
You may find it does not exist because you didn't read the op properly.
The boy does not even live with his dad yet and no amount for her to pay has been established.

No, of course it's not wrong. Anything that encourages people to better prepare for old age is a net positive to society. There is a reason these policies exist in the first place.

She's not "finding a way to lower it." She used the incorrect calcuation in the first place, because she's been the primary provider all these years and never had to calculate CMS before. People pointed out the correct way to calculate what she would owe, and she should follow that advice.

OP is not required to live at the lowest common denominator and shovel any and all excess toward her son. He has a father who should be making up arrears by doing the lion's share now.

You can contribute up to £60k pa into a pension so to make up for all those missed years I would make increased payments for the next 2-3 years while CMS looms contribute more into your workplace pension so it comes out before tax. Speak to your employers HR / benefits team. Work out what you need and calculate the % to top up.

still contribute to your husband and give something to your son so he has his own spending money but at lower rate.

you could also agree something with ex without CMS he might not be bright enough- start by suggesting what he is paying you now.

Anyone, of either gender, who actively avoids paying their kids what they owe

She doesn't owe him anything. She's over paid for the last 16 years. It's OK for her to have a think about her own retirement. It's the responsible thing to do.

This is so unfair . You have no idea what her outgoings are and situation - no housing association would ask her to leave earning that amount - the son may well come back anyway. £65k is a decent salary bit it’s not very wealthy in anyone’s eyes. Private rent is astronomical and that’s without finding deposits etc. This mum has raised a child alone, worked and progressed her career and is contributing to society by working , paying huge taxes and raising a child for the future. It’s always the women that get bashed in these circumstances it’s so unfair.

No - Son's don't need their Dad's more. I think that's quite sexist to say. What happens to single Mum's where the Dad has never ever been involved? My husband was brought up without a Dad and he is like gold dust when it comes to men being angels.

If you share the custody 50/50, you don't need to pay any child maintenance. What's more - His wife/GF should have been paying you CMA all these years. Child Maintenance should have asked her for an attachment of earnings and she would have had to cough up on top of husband. You could look at having that backdated.

It works both ways. What's good for the goose...

And when she gets to the point her kids are older and she's earning decent money, will you kick her out? Will you put her back into an unstable net income bracket so that by the time she gets to retirement her rent will eat into her state pension and she will be in absolute poverty for her elderly years.

Or will you support the building of new social housing to prevent some of the private sector greed that is exploiting your friend?

Sons don’t need their dad more suddenly when they hit their teens, that’s nonsense. Strong male role models sure and he can still see his dad the same amount he currently is, which sounds like it’s fairly often.

I personally wouldn’t let him move there. You’re in London so I’m assuming there are good transport links to his new school? Many kids have to travel a fair amount to get to school and trust me, kids in rural areas sometimes walk for miles to school so your DS will be getting off lightly hopping on a couple of tubes or whatever.

I wouldn’t want to pay my ex 3x as much in CM as he has ever paid me either so figure out a way for DS to stay with you.

@MustWeDoThis "If you share the custody 50/50, you don't need to pay any child maintenance. What's more - His wife/GF should have been paying you CMA all these years. Child Maintenance should have asked her for an attachment of earnings and she would have had to cough up on top of husband. You could look at having that backdated."

Er...no. That's not how it works, a deadbeat dad is a deadbeat dad. They don't come after their partners for maintenance

It’s not shocking at all. This is mumsnet, where a man should pay more than the cms amount or he’s awful, but a woman should avoid paying it where possible as he’s awful for expecting it.

Why would someone who no longer needs something that it meant for those more in need give it up for those more in need?

fuck me, does that question even need to be asked?

You missed that bit where he hardly paid anything for years resulting in her ending up in debt.

Of course they need it - where would they live if they gave up their home?

The original purpose of social housing was to provide stability. I find it bizarre that people think someone should give up their home and stability for someone else's perceived greater need.

I find it bizarre that the person with greater need is unable to be helped as the person lesser (or no need) retains the asset that should be used for the best social good.

I absolutely agree with a pp that there is not enough social housing. I think given the limited resource, that resource should go to those in need.

Do you have personal experience of social/council housing or are you looking at it from a 'good of society' viewpoint?

Your are suggesting that people give up their homes. Would you give up your home for the 'greater good'?

It’s not “their” home, though. It’s social housing, which is issued based on a list, which is prioritised based on need. There is a flaw in the system when someone who no longer has that high need is essentially blocking the person at the top of the list per their needs from using the government-owned asset.

I do think it's shit that you are expected to pay three times more in child support than your ex has ever paid you, especially as he could clearly afford it, but just decided not to support his kid so he could buy designer clothes. On the other hand, though, paying him £450 a month is a LOT less than it costs to take care of a 12-year-old boy. My teen son costs me about £450 a month in berries and yoghurt alone! (I am joking...mainly). If you're definitely going to do this and let your son move in with him, then I think you just have to try and rise above your irritation for the sake of being sure your son is looked after properly.

Who gets to define "need"?

Whomever is in charge of the list for social housing—they obviously have a system in place, and I am not privy to it.

If your son is going to be living half the week with his Dad and the rest with you, why does there need to be Maintenance in place? Is he paying you anything for the days you’ll be having your son?

Why can’t you both feed your child, wash his clothes etc when he’s with either of you and split any other costs for him 50/50.

It's not their home? Of course it's their home. I cannot believe you're suggesting that someone's home should become a temporary stop gap until someone with a greater 'need' comes along. The original purpose of social housing was to give people stability. You're suggesting that no-one should have that stability - because someone else might come along who 'needs' it more.

People complain about the insecurity of private rentals yet don't seem to want tenants in social housing to have that security either.

Well, then so long as OP is complying with "the system," and she clearly is, everyone needs to mind their own business about her housing situation. Support isn't only for people who have made total messes of their lives.

I think that’s exactly what they are suggesting and I agree. A social home should, given the scarcity of that resource, be for those with the greatest need and not a home for life, even if/when you no longer need it.

i’m astounded anyone could fail to see the issue with people who don’t need it, holding a resource so that those who do need it are unable to access it, but it seems a fair few people hold that view so it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree here

We will have to agree to disagree, as you suggest.

There is talk of 'need' as if the people being evicted wouldn't need a home, sorry, a resource. Where are they going to go? Or do they not matter?