ex partners!

[2blessed2bstressed]

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!

Yabu, men should support their own children financially, its a big ask of her new husband to do it !

Oh dear. Is it cos the single mum is the blight of all society?

No, honestly, I have no axe to grind with single mums, and I am completely in favour of fathers paying for their children.

I'll try again: it just seems to me that the CSA, in deciding what the father should pay, takes into account only the father's circumstances and not those of the mother. This seems old-fashioned and skewed, that's all.

So if I earn more than my ex me and my kids should be penalised for it and he should benefit?

By the way- I didn't mean that the mothers have no responsibilities!! I just meant when it came to setting out finances via the CSA

very interested thread.

My e-p pays nothing for DS 5, and I've long acepted he is a waste of space!!

He says he can't afford it with rent etc altho both him and his fiance work full time and have no children and I have my wage only and our child!???

I am not making a fuss at the mo but if he were to have more children when he 'can't aford' the one he has then I think I may have a few things to say .

OP its a hard one I wouldn't want my ex-p to pay more than he can afford but it does go down to different peoples ideas on whats necessity and luxury. IYSWIM

Just adding my twopenneth...I was the sole earner in my relationship and Ex did very well out of our split.
We are both now in the same set up - married, another child with DH/W - he has a DSD the same age as our DS. He also now works and has done fairly well over the years, annual pay rises e.t.c. I am significantly better off than him and no longer need to work.
He pays about 75% of what he should as defined by the CSA (and he is still paying arrears through a deduction of earnings order as he eluded them for so long). It really grates on me that he doesn't pay what he should as to me that says that the other 2 DCs in his life take priority and I'm sure it will appear that way to DS as well. I don't see why my financial situation should lessen his responsibility? ATM his maintenance goes towards the running of our home, but if he paid his extra it would add into the savings that DH has for DS, so would directly benefit our DS. Its not right in my book to allow fathers to 'get away' from their responsibility jus because they were lucky enough to have an ex that went on to do well.

Joolyjoolyjoo - thanks so much for posting - I knew it might upset people when I asked the question but I honestly didn't expect so much vitriol - this is the thing, my partner is on a low wage and he's literally left with nothing at the end of each month, but he really doesn't grudge any money for his children. I asked the question, not him - and he isn't the ex of any of the other posters here!I genuinely don't want his kids to be worse off, but can anyone explain this? If he moves in with me, because I have children, his payments can be decreased because they will assume - whether rightly or wrongly - that he is contributing to MY household. How come then that his ex's new partner is not assumed to be contributing to HER household? Not cross or anything, just truly don't understand. And ladies, please, sometimes, just sometimes, the mum IS a beeyatch, sometimes she doesn't care about her kids like you all do, and sometimes, she really is trying to deliberately bleed her ex dry. Just sometimes.

The law as I understand it is that the "children should live to a manner that the father can afford". That is pretty outdated as often the mother can provide a beter one, but in that instance, it still must be the fathers earnings that are taken into account. The percentages that are set are deemed to be what a person can give up in order to provide that lifestyle. Often lifestyle will decrease with these payments, but that is the nature of being a parent.

It is worth saying that it is the same for absent mothers.

It should only be his earnings and circumstances that are looked at as he is the one paying it. If the ex had married a millionaire it doesn't let him 'off the hook'. Legally there is a general understanding that if you are absent from your children, you will be payng a lot less for them than if you lived wih them.

When it comes to setting out finances via the CSA, Joolyjoolyjoo, the CSA take what they think the father can afford, not what they think the mother needs.

It's a rare set up where the father is paying everything that's needed. The mother has to either work her arse off to meet the rast, or she has to not work and be both bored and poor.

I have a friend who talked to the CSA and got agreement to buy food and clothes and submit receipts rather than giving his ex-wife money (she was living with a convicted drug dealer) but he had to prove that his dd was being neglected.

I think it has to be pretty extreme though - no shoes or underwear for example.

I'm not explaining myself well at all, here

I don't think the father should get off scot-free if the mother has a good income. Of course they should still pay. The difficulty is that when you are in a relationship, both parents contribute an amount they can afford to the general budget. When there is a split and the CSA get involved, the CSA decide only what they deem the man can afford, rather than the amount the child needs. This could lead to the mother getting the extra, despite her earning far more than the man, iyswim??

I do feel strongly that men should pay. But I have heard stories of men driven to despair by the demands of the CSA, while the ex goes on to meet a new partner and is living well- it's difficult to envisage a system that would be 100% fair, but I'm only saying maybe it could be done a bit more fairly than it is currently??

Couple of things...

Firstly, at risk of boring repetition, this has got nothing to do with you. If your boyfriend is paying more than the CSA say he should, then that is up to him.(Oh, and I think it shows that he is a good man) You don't live together, and I presume his lack of money is not impacting on your household income.

If you "genuinely don't want his kids to be worse off" then you have a funny way of showing it. A decrease in the maintenance he pays will have an impact on the children won't it?

I'm curious as to how long you've been together, and would advise you to tread very carefully WRT speaking to your boyfriend about this, because, honestly? If I were dating someone who started questioning my financial commitments to my children...I would be, well, let's say unimpressed

You knew he had children when you started this relationship. His commitment to his children does NOT end just because the mother of his kids has met someone else/married someone else/had more children by someone else.

If my partner moves in with me for a continuous period of 6 months or more it will affect my maintenance and I will have to give my ex his equity out of this house....?? So it does work both ways?

Oh yeah - and if I have learnt anything - its that ALL ex's are bitches - including me.

Wombfrootshoot - just over two years - long distance for about 9 months before he was moved back to our home town by work. We have one of those weird relationships where we talk about everything, what makes us happy, or sad, what upsets us, what makes us angry, how we do things together with his children and mine, and how we do things separately. He's happy to discuss everything with me, as I am with him, and if that's not how your relationship works then that's a shame for you.

Joolyjoolyjoo; The amount of money the non resident parent pays is dependant on the number of children and is a percentage of the net pay.

I know many mothers who receive the grand total of £5 a week because ex's stop working and start doing cash in hand jobs to avoid paying maintenance.......

Ex tried to get out of paying CSA, they eventually caught up with him, in the meantime and after the fact, I still pay for the lions share of the up bringing of my children. IME this is the case for resident parents, the resident parent spends on childminders, and school activities and daily life, more than the absent parent ever will. I work my hours around my children, ex cancels on them when he feels like demands contact when he feels like.... it doesn't matter I'm always their for my girls, and he knows full well that should he disappear out of their lives there is always at least one person in the world willing to lay her life down for our children.

In the event I marry a multi-gazillionaire, I would still expect ex to pay child maintenance, they are now and always will be his children. They are not to be palmed off or ignored because our marriage did not work out. The marriage broke down, ex's repsonsibility to me is absolved, his children will always be his and all the repsonsibility that goes with it. Altho personally I'm just waiting for him to suddenly drop off the face of the earth in order to avoid paying maintenance.

Actually my point here is, that the resident parent gets CSA, that could be a mother paying for her chidlren, it's not sexist as far as I can tell.

Oh and whoever said it was a lifestyle choice to have children and live off of ex, if that had been my personal goal I'd have married a rich old guy on his last legs, far better odds!!!!!

I think the father should be forced to have the children live with him 1 week in two or half the week so like single mothers with chidlren who work full time he has to organise child care pay of it, clear up sick etc etc. It's not enough just to pay. They need physical help and then they understand also about how much resident parents do.

Teh CSA rules set out the system which as you will know is about 20% of net income with deductions for the nights the children are with him - how many are those nightsi n a week or would that interfer with his new love life to have children to care for? if he moves in with you nad has a baby with you and he gives up work to care for it whilst you work full time he can avoid paying child support. There are lots of ways but most parents choose to pay

aw 2blessed - you really are a peach aren't you?

I'll tell you something about my relationship shall I? It does not involve me calling the mother of my partner's children a "bitch" and casting aspersions on her parenting. It does not involve me sticking my nose in where it does not concern me, and it certainly doesn't involve me trying to get my partner to pay less towards his children But hey, if that's not how your relationship works then that's a shame for you.

boohoo.

It's a set percentage of his wage. Regardless of his ex's circumstances, regardless of what the money gets spent on. None of that is any of your business anyway. You need to get over it, it's just the way it is. I think it gets reduced slightly if he has the children over night more than 52 nights in a year.

YABU

I don't think the op has issue with her dp supporting his dc. She DOES have issue with the money being paid not seeming to be spent on the dc by the ex wife and the dc being sent to the dads house with dirty clothes that the children have outgrown, while the mother seems to be spending lots of money on herself. It is a bit her business as she is supplementing the dc by paying for school trips etc. If I was the dad I think I would want to pay for things directly (like clothes/rent) rather than hand over money and have no idea if it was being spent on my dc

So what you are saying Saslou is that us ex's can't be trusted to run our own financial affairs yet we can be trusted with the children...??

Its none of her business what her partners' ex spends the maintenance on.

I also find it very hard to believe she (when she doesn't even live with the DC's dad) has paid for school trips, how did she get the letter from the school for a start?!

hey op - i can see why some think you are bu but i can kind of feel your frustration on the other hand. my best male friend is in a v similar situation.

only thing i can suggest is that if the kids are a bit older can dp negotiate that instead of just giving exp the cash can he take the girls shopping for things they need/pay some stuff direct? btw i know nothing about csa before anyone corrects me

LA - I'd be very interested to know exactly how much he's paying if he's on a very low income.

OMG - I have never heard such deluded rubbish in my life!!!

Are any of the people who are suggesting that the ex has some say in what the maintenance is spent on actually have kids with someone they don't live with??