AIBU to think my ex should pay more child maintenance when he earns £720k a year?

[Pashpash24]

I’ll try to keep this as short as possible while giving some back story.

I was with my ex-partner for four years. We had a son together, but he walked out before he was born. He saw him a few times as a newborn, but I had asked that he didn’t bring his new partner. My son was six weeks old when he turned up at my door with her, even though I’d said it was too soon.

He took me to court saying she should be allowed to meet him. The court agreed it was too soon and suggested maybe when the baby was older.

Because of that, he told me he would never see his son again. I was devastated and said fine, she can meet him, because I didn’t want him to walk away. But he still refused and never saw him again.

For six years, he had no contact — no visits, no messages, nothing. The only thing he did was pay child maintenance. It was a decent amount (£1,277.50 a month), and I never asked for more.

He went on to have three more children with his now wife. I just got on with life until one day my son came out of school and asked, “I must have a dad, right?” I’d never told him about his father because I didn’t want him to feel abandoned.

When he started asking more questions, I texted his dad to say I was going to tell him the truth — I wasn’t going to raise him on a lie. I’d messaged over the years, even sent photos, and he’d read them on WhatsApp but never replied. So I didn’t expect a response this time either.

Surprisingly, he replied and said maybe it was time to meet. This was when my son was six (he’s now nearly nine). In the last three years, he’s probably met him in person about 10 times. He calls roughly once every 10 days, which I think is poor — it should’ve progressed a lot more by now.

Anyway, to the point. I recently logged into my Child Maintenance account after receiving an unusual notification. It showed his salary: £720,000 a year.

I’ve always been paid £1,277.50 a month because that’s what CMS caps it at. He could earn £1 million a week and I’d still receive that same amount — you have to go to court for any increase.

Would he be able to afford more? Absolutely. I know it’s a decent amount, but he only pays it because that’s the legal minimum CMS tells him to.

I’m self-employed and work part-time so my son can do after-school activities — he’s football mad and trains/plays four times a week. I’m essentially raising him alone; my dad moved 40 miles away, and I have no relationship with my mum. I rarely get a break, but that’s been the reality since the start.

I’ve never asked for an increase, but life is much more expensive now. £1,277 doesn’t go as far as it did six years ago, and £720,000 a year is a huge income.

To put it into perspective — CMS only calculates maintenance on a maximum salary of £156,000 a year. My ex earns over four times that, but I still only get the amount they’d set for £156k — just over 2% of his actual income. Unless I go to court for a “top-up order”, that’s all I’ll ever get.

AIBU to ask for more?

No she didn't. She asked that he not bring a stranger to meet the tiny baby and the court agreed.

Yes, agree. People keep saying that 1k is a lot, it is on absolute terms but relative to that salary it is not.
on that income it’s normal for the child to be going to private school , holidays etc, which OPs child is not.
i think it’s odd on the dad that he has that level of earnings yet is happy that his oldest child is not benefitting from it.
even taking his salary out of the equation, half of OPs rent and bills is roughly 700/month. Then add in transport costs, food clothing activities clubs. In reality it should also cover part time child care/ wraparound costs as OP is sole caregiver. I don’t think 1k is enough

Whilst I’ve voted YANBU, I wouldn’t ask him for more cash, because you have plenty to cover what you need right now, child maintenance isn’t factored into UC etc so no, you don’t need more money now. But I’d have a conversation with your ex about a trust or savings account for your son to mature at 18 or 21 so he has a house deposit or savings to go to uni.

On a side note, please think about how you will be financially when your son turns 18, all but very basic welfare support will stop and you’ll be on a very low income, and have no child maintenance to fall back on.

This is not about the mother, but about the child who would benefit from more money in his household (either through better upbringing or through savings for the future).

People should stop focusing on OP working PT, bringing up a child is a full time job and more, and she is doing it alone.

How do tens of mothers fail to understand the concept of household income in raising a child? What's is this 'solely for the child' and 'he shouldn't be funding you' stuff. Wild.

Exactly and it sounds like the father benefits from two mothers bringing up his children while he makes the money.

I’m sorry but I haven’t read the whole thread but you need to make a Jones v Seymour calculation.

Following a legal case of that name the judiciary have provided a formula as to how maintenance should be calculated when the non resident parent earns more than the CMS threshold.

The ‘legal advisor’ early in the thread saying what you receive is enough is so so wrong.

You could also consider making an application for capital support under schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Good luck to you and your son whatever you decide to do.

A stranger to her.

Not to the other parent. No different to anyone OP introduced to the baby that the ex hadn't met.

She can't play "I'll choose who you can introduce to your own child whilst I introduce whoever I like" then act the victim when the person who didn't want the child with her anyway says, fine, I tried to see him, you had to be difficult about my partner being there.

OP didn't think his partner was a danger. OP didn't want the person in the place she intended for herself around and refused out of jealousy.

They didn't even live together. This is not a man abandoning his family. This is a man who didn't want a future with OP, and when she became pregnant, left. That's doesn't make him a "shit". Leaving a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is perfectly normal. Both parties are allowed to not want a to keep a pregnancy you know. Except only the woman has a choice. Equally the other parent can choose not to be involved. Both absolutely fine. You can't complain that someone isn't raising a child you solely chose to keep knowing they didn't want it with you, but still chose to have. Take some accountability. Your body, your choice, your consequences.

All the comparatives to his three children with his wife are strange. All children are equal. But their household lifestyle isn't suddenly supposed to be, when the mother and father were not married nor even lived together. OP's baby is in the household he always has been, at the standard he has always known. His lifestyle is exactly reflective of their relationship when he was conceived and then born. Mum living in her rental, Dad living elsewhere. She gets exactly what she should, which is the highest CMS calculated amount available. All the whatabouttery of his children in his household with his wife is irrelevant. That wasn't and was never going to be OP and her baby.

She could easily work more if she wanted to have more money for her own child. She just wants more because she's seen her ex's pay packet. Look how well it worked out for the child when she decided she was calling all the shots at 6 weeks. This isn't one of the children he wanted, with his wife, that he would fight to keep contact with. This is a child he didn't want and doesn't have that bond with, so any contact between the two is already fragile and completely on dad's terms. If she asks for more money, then going on previous, dad more than likely will just cut ties again.

But then OP went to court to try and keep his wife out of the picture from the start, but made sure she got her CMS application in. So unless her priorities and morals have suddenly had a U-turn, I'm sure the court will give her a top up, and her son's relationship with his dad will again be the price for it.

The OP is doing everything right - she's working, she's sacrificing, she's raising a child as best she can. CM is basically covering rent and the OP is finding and resourcing everything else, financially and in terms of time. And yet it's her who should be doing more? Because god forbid a man think about inflation at the very least. He CAN afford it and he SHOULD be contributing more.

The dad continually cutting ties because he wants absolutely nothing asked of him beyond a legally required bank transfer every month is actually the actions of a shit.

So what? Sounds like she's doing the basics to me. Hardly award worthy.

It doesn't just cover rent at all. It's more than £300 above what she pays in rent. And she should realise how fortunate that makes her, he has absolutely no obligation to pay her full rent, that's not what it's for.

This thread is unbelievable.

How can so many people think that one child should receive so much less than then the other three just because they have different mothers when the father earns such a huge amount of money.

This little boy has not had his dad in his life until recently. Eventually he will get to meet his half siblings. How would anyone justify the differences in their lifestyles and not want to even it out a little bit. The dad should be falling over himself to support his son financially going forward.

And the attitude to OP, calling her selfish and begging when she just wants her son's biological father to give him what he's entitled to and deserves.

I would ask nicely and have a conversation OP. Then take it to court if that didn't work out.

She already said he is a professional sportsman of some type. Presumably not a footballer. A court would have to take into account his earning potential over his sports career when looking at top up awards. This is why the OP needs actual legal advice rather than moral outcry.

James v Seymour isn’t applicable to OP’s case. Firstly, it’s only applicable to an income of up to £650,000. Secondly, OP would still need to establish that she needs more money to meet her child’s needs.

Both of those are clear in the judgment. I assume you’ve read it before running around “correcting” people?

Is that your definition of women who don't want to keep a child they happen to conceive as well?

Why should she be grateful? Because some men are bigger shits? The bar is on the ground for men as per but sky high for women.

Once again, I refer to the concept of household income. It absolutely is for costs incurred in raising a child.

I know it's normal for people on here to fail to understand what they're reading, but I didn't mentioned anything about wanting or not wanting to keep a child, I explicitly referred to the idea of him cutting ties with the child on the basis of a tantrum over his mother asking for anything.

This is the truth that isn't palatable to so many.

OP isn't a hero for raising the child "more". She's doing exactly what she made happen. Raising a child in a one parent family because she chose to keep a pregnancy the other parent was clear from the outset that they did not wish to keep. She's supposed to be doing it all. He's not a "shit" because she chose to become a single mother. She can do what she likes. So can he.

He's supposed to pay CMS. He does.

Maybe think harder about how you'll deal with the consequences you choose for your own child, rather than pretending any of this is unfair and that she's some kind of passenger in her own life. OP knew exactly what she was doing. Ex didn't send mixed messages. She knew what the situation would be. She made the choice.

Fuck me no wonder things are so difficult for mothers. Women on here are fucking cracked.

They think it because they're male identified, in feminist terms. They identify more with the father than with the mother.

Yes, it's for dads part of the portion of the household costs that relate to the child.

Not the majority part that relates to OP.

Some women seem to think anyone they get impregnated by needs to fund their entire household simply because it also houses a child. Newsflash. Mum has to pay for her own costs.

OP is supposed to be funding herself and her child. And the 50% that relates to just the child, £1200 a month more than covers.

No, it's not comparable to a separate household that OP not her son were, or ever would have been part of. The ex boyfriend isn't there to fund a lifestyle she and the child never had in the first place.

OP - you're giving your son a good life, you've made sacrifices for him and worked hard. You've facilitated his football and are giving him good life skills. For some reason some people think that's the bare minimum but I know it's not, and you've made all those decisions on your own. The life of a single mum is a hard one. Ask for more money.

Really how well did he know the women if he was still having sex 10 months early. Also completely bypass the fact a judge agreed. Her ex threw his dummy out when he didn't get his way. All 4 kid's came from him, his sperm didn't differentiate between which women was wife material and who was just a shag. If with we go with your way of thinking a man doesn't want baby gets a free pass. Women need to be able to afford a baby without any support from government or father if she can't, then abort baby, poor guys wanted to get there dick wet, it's not there fault so why should they be punished and have to pay . No wonder men doing the bare minimum for there child is celebrated by women . All the abusive posts to op on here are the reason having children is always going to disadvantage women and the cm will never be overhauled, as clearly so many of you support these feckless men. Other women clearly need to be working them selves to death while doing every single for their child and not getting penny of support from ex are worthy.

We don't know what the judge agreed. Unless the wife was a danger to children, she wasn't banned from seeing the child.

More likely OP saying she wanted home visits from just the dad with no other person present to start. Which she did purely out of jealousy. And yes, the wife can't just force entry to someone's home. OP then describes this set up as the judge agreeing the wife shouldn't be involved. No, just that the wife won't be in OPs house. Big difference. Either way, the father who already didn't want the baby, thinks "fuck this, I don't really want to be here anyway, I try and at my first attempt she's got to make it all about her vs my wife being present."

Yes if a man or woman who doesn't want a baby they get a fucking free pass! You think either parent should be forced to raise a child they don't want because the other does? Or is that just ok for women? Her choice is to have a child or not. His choice is to be around the child or not.

Women need to be able to afford a baby without any support from government or father if she can't, then abort

Oh my god, us poor women who fund our own food, house and children as much as our entitlement we expect from a man or the state, what an alien and awful concept.

It's called being accountable. Or are women just victims who just have to have children they can't afford to raise? We have 3 kids. I'd have loved 5 or 6. We didn't become wealthy enough to afford this until we deemed we were too old to consider more children. So guess what, we didn't have kids we couldn't afford then act like it was someone else's fault and we had no choice but to have all these children because we happened to fall pregnant.

Take accountability for your own life choices.

So because you had a difficult time, so should everyone else?
No, it's about hating women to make themselves dependent on men, and then using excuses as to why they have no alternatives.

OP sounds like an intelligent woman and I'm sure she knows deep inside that the lifestyle she chose is as much for her benefit as for her son. IF the reason for working PT is taking her son to football academy, I'm sure she would have already thought of asking his father to arrange a taxi to take him.

MN is a strange place. All talk about equality, women entitled to the same rights etc...but when it comes to standing on their own two feet and being self reliant, suddenly it becomes all about trying get as much as they can from a man.

This thread is not about options for the son. A number of posters have suggested him paying in a saving account, paying private school, I'm suggesting him paying for transport and I know this will be ignored because it's not what is is about. OP wants him to pay to secure her future investment (buying a house), holidays, etc...all the things that SHE benefits from too.

Ultimately, going to court, she could get a judge who decides that now the child is older, SHE has no good reason to not start being more self-reliant by working FT.