Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

ex partners!

105 replies

2blessed2bstressed · 20/05/2010 10:00

Ok, I'm prepared to be pounced on here...but, is it really unreasonable to wonder if my new partner might be able to reduce payments to his ex slightly since she is now living with someone else full time and they are getting married? It appears that the CSA only look at net pay and take no outgoings into account. They also advised my partner that the maintenance is for his ex and she can spend it how she chooses. Let me make it clear - this does not appear to be on the two children!

OP posts:
buttingin · 20/05/2010 12:53

Wow, some of you are being quite vicious. Obviously there's no question about whether he should be paying for his children, of course he should, and the OP has already said he is. I assume that the CSA works out how much he should be paying based on what her earns, and I thought they did factor in living costs. Has he asked for it to be re-assessed since his job changed? I don't think this would unfair to either the ex-p or the children, as it would be worked out acording to the CSA's calculations on what he can afford, not how much the mother, the OP or the man thinks he should be paying.

If she's on any other benefits because of being on her own that she will lose because of getting married, that's none of your business.

Whether the maintenance is being spent on the ex-p or children is a separate matter and not one that you have any control over.

cestlavielife · 20/05/2010 12:58

PR won't give him the right to dictate how she spends the money.

give him right to medical reports, school reports, decisions on education etc.

moonsquirter · 20/05/2010 13:13

CSA don't factor in living costs, but for 2 children it should be 20% of net salary (a bit less if you have the children for a certain number of overnights/year). It's not exactly a huge proportion when you think that mum has to provide housing with sufficient bedrooms (hence pushing up utilities) food, clothes, holidays etc.

Isn't it the case that the 20% paid out is suffered most by those that earn very little (and who therefore have very little disposable income to start with) but then mum is having to make up the difference and probably suffering more. If your DP earns enough that he (or you...) thinks he's overpaying for what the children actually NEED, then I suspect he can afford it and will just have to accept that that's the way the rules work.

OldMacEIEIO · 20/05/2010 13:35

Why do I get the feeling that I would never see THIS from 2blessed

'My partner has just landed a plum job and his rent has been halved. Therefore our standard and quality of life has rocketed because we share. I think it is reasonable that he share our good fortune by upping his payments for his dc and the cyber bitch from hell'

WombFrootShoot · 20/05/2010 13:52

The GALL of it! "I will suggest he gets in touch with the csa as he is paying more than they say..."

Keep your sticky beak out!

BarmyArmy · 20/05/2010 16:29

Isn't there some definition of a misogynist somewhere that has it down as a man who hates women almost as much as women do?

These responses seem to bear that out, alas.

Chill out everyone and stop responding from the confines of your own very subjective positions!!

WombFrootShoot · 20/05/2010 16:40

What a load of shit

ChickensNeedOpposableThumb · 20/05/2010 16:44

Did you say that in your best Catherine Tate 'Nan' voice, WFS?

WombFrootShoot · 20/05/2010 16:47

It's a fucking LIBERTY chickens!

Patronising little snidey posts get my gander right up.

porcamiseria · 20/05/2010 16:50

They're still his kids and he should still support them irrespective of whether their mum gets remarried or not. AGREE

how much is he paying, bet its not much , never is when CSA involved

zippy79 · 20/05/2010 16:57

YANBU. Whilst it is compuulsory that your partner does provide for his children it is not unreasonable to feel like this.

In a lot of cases the money the father provides is not being spent on the children but on the ex-partner. In an ideal world I think that the father should be given a list on a monthly basis of what he is required to purchase for the child. Afterall, the father has a responsibility to the child not the ex-partner.

I am probably going to be slated for saying such a thing but far too mant women view having children as a convenient way of making money at the expense of an ex partner

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/05/2010 16:59

I don't really understand all the vitriol here. It does seem a bit unfair to me that CSA payments are based solely on the man's circumstances, while the mother's financial situation doesn't come into it at all. THe mother could be remarried to a millionaire and the dad on minimum wage, and he would still have to pay. Why can't a women's finances be taken into account? Especially if she moves in with a new partner, who could be providing the mother and chid with both a home and also helping to support them financially.

Look at it the other way- if a single mum met a new partner would you expect him to refuse to have the child in his house without getting rent from the biological father? Would you happily acquiesce to him refusing to pay for any food or clothing, and demand a contribution to the heating bills? Obviously things change when relationships move on, but it seems to me that the mother can move on, have more children if she wants , whereas the man has the sole burden of financial responsibility and therefore possibly can't afford more children.

I'm all for absent dads contributing financially, but it seems very old-fashioned to imagine that mothers and step-fathers can't contribute at all.

WombFrootShoot · 20/05/2010 17:00

Yeah, I know loads of women who only had kids in order to bleed the poor fathers' dry once they had split up.

Weirdo

ChickensNeedOpposableThumb · 20/05/2010 17:04

Erm, because they're his children regardless of how much money the mother has? If the mother is married to a millionaire, why would the father suddenly not be responsible for his children? Are children a transferable debt? I am genuinely baffled by the notion.

Ladyanonymous · 20/05/2010 17:05

100% of my income goes on my kids whereas 20% of their fathers goes on his kids.

Yea, I thought "easy money this" being a single mum and having to deal with brining up 3 kids alone while their dads critisise me and their new partners openly attack, me, my job, my life.

Yep, easiest money I have ever made.

I suggest the OP minds her own business and lets her partner sort out his own business with the mother of his kids.

CheekyPinkSox · 20/05/2010 17:06

Look at it the other way round, If you had kids with your partner now, got married then divorced and he made a payment monthly to you, which his new partner thought was too much and tried to make him lower it would you be happy? She is bringing up his children, maybe not on her own but yet she is still providing for them.

colditz · 20/05/2010 17:06

YABu

They have not ceased to be his biological children just because another man has moved in. DNA is not like upbringing, and can't be negated by a better influence.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/05/2010 17:06

No, of course he is partly responsible- that is the whole point. Is the mother in NO WAY responsible?

Ladyanonymous · 20/05/2010 17:08

How much more repsonsible do you want the mother to take Jooly ?!

FFS!!!

ChickensNeedOpposableThumb · 20/05/2010 17:09

The mother is responsible! How many fathers pay the total running cost of the household their children live in? All clothing, food, bills etc? I'm guessing not many.

Ladyanonymous · 20/05/2010 17:10

Sorry - incapable of spelling or typing today.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/05/2010 17:21

All I'm saying is that when it comes t the purely financial stuff, I don't understand why the mother's financial status doesn't come into it at all.

I realise there are lots of you on here who will have been stung by payment-dodging arseholes, but there are some cases where the father hasn't made the decision to leave, but the woman decides they are to split. She can then move on, but often the guy is financially unable to do so, in terms of supporting 2 families, 2 homes etc. I'm not saying he shouldn't pay, I'm just saying that both parties situations should be taken into account, is all. In our marriage I contribute financially, but this wouldn't be taken into account if we were to split. I'm not sure that is entirely fair

ChickensNeedOpposableThumb · 20/05/2010 17:24

But...it doesn't matter who earns what. Both parents are equally financially responsible for raising their children. It's not a debt you can palm off on someone else, it's yours. So, if the mother has a decent job, and can afford to get by without any maintenance, do you think the father should be able to pay nothing?

colditz · 20/05/2010 17:29

Joolyjoolyjoo - how the HELL does my ex "bear sole financial responsibility for the children"

I spend the majority of my wages, all the tax credits, all the maintenance and all the child benefit on maintaining my children, the house they live in, and the life they lead.

he pays £30 a week

They cost a lot more to maintain than that.

Ladyanonymous · 20/05/2010 17:33

I work around having 100% responsibility for getting my children to and from school, oh and have to take a lower wage to work a term time only contract thus damaging my career chances.

Does my ex worry while in meetings at work about whether he is going to be late to pick the kids up from school?

All these things have to be considered...and jooly - what on earth does it matter who wanted to split or whose "fault" it was?!

Deal with the facts as they are. Who is to "blame" had nothing to do with maintenance - should I have stayed in a marriage I was miserable in to be "fair" to my ex?

He didn't want to leave but he wasn't the husband I envisgaed he would be - whpse fault is that?