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
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Feel so upset :(

55 replies

DonutKnow · 04/05/2023 18:04

This is a rant because I just feel really upset/stressed/annoyed.
Why is it that if a dad, who walked out when the child was a baby, chooses to have another baby with someone else then the maintenance towards the child goes down. How is this fair in the first child?
So, my ex had a baby and has gone and worked out the maintenance now that he has a baby and it's now less than it was. The cost of living has gone up hugely so again, we have more to fork out. Morally, how is this okay? He literally pays to the penny, what the Gov. calculates.
My husband pays WAY more towards his step daughter, and it'll be even more now. My ex spoils her rotten and us guys don't, we can't afford to go away all the time like they do or go out for meals every weekend we have her.
I feel sick to my stomach that he's okay doing this. And the reason is - he'll be all smug about it as he won't see it as his first daughter missing out, he'll see it as us having to pay more. F*cked off is an understatement. Sorry about rant but don't want to tell my husband as he'll be really upset too 😢

OP posts:
Milkand2sugarsplease · 05/05/2023 23:47

If I still lived with exH (shudders) and we had a second child, our joint budget would have to cover. Itv of those children - meaning the budget for child 1 would reduce as it also has to cover child 2.

I have a second child with DH so my money has to cover both children, I've not suddenly started to make double the money to cover them

If exH chooses to have another child then yeah, I know the maintenance would reduce because he'd have another child to fund too.

As frustrating as it is, it's also logical.
(And it's not like I get lots from exH in the first place as he's not on a fantastic wage, so it's not like I'm just saying it because it doesn't matter if it drops a bit).

Pallisers · 06/05/2023 00:19

But is it logical?

Non resident parent has a child and the maintenance due to his first child reduces - presumably resident parent makes up any shortfall.

Resident parent has a child and ... does the maintenance due from the NRP go up? Because resident parent now has to spend money on new baby so has less money for first child?

So it only seems to work one way if you have another baby. if you are the non resident parent you get a reduction. If you are the resident parent nothing changes even though your financial situation has also changed.

Anyway, OP. nothing you can do about it. Rant for a while. And then realise you are doing your absolute best for your child. You are married to a great guy now. The spoiling etc. - that isn't being a good parent. Try to let it go.

SemperIdem · 06/05/2023 00:28

It’s shitty. You are not wrong.

I bent over backwards, when I left my ex due to financial abuse, to ensure our daughter would still have a great relationship with him.

I never did CMS, he gives £50 a month in cash. He resents even that, once said to her “I pay for your mummy’s nights out” -I know because she repeated it.

I buy all her clothes, for both homes. I earn about half his salary.

I reflect, and I am so glad she is the happy, carefree child she is. But my god it pisses me off how much I have to just let go, to make it so. And will have to continue to do so for at least another decade.

Covering up her fathers inadequacies to make sure she has a happy childhood

Malarandras · 06/05/2023 00:35

When I read things like this I’m glad I am a widow and not an ex-wife. I get three lots of pensions monthly to cover myself and the kids and I’ve no nasty ex to deal with. Just a whole lot of emotional problems. Sorry that doesn’t help you OP.

Mari9999 · 06/05/2023 00:36

@A reasonable solution would be for both parties not to have a child until they both know with as much certainty they are each capable of providing full support for that child should the situation warrant it. Given the very high divorce rates , it makes sense not to have a child if the only way that you can adequately support the child is through reliance on the other partner.

We can shout that he or she should contribute to the support of their child, but the sad reality is that too many do not act responsibly. It is ironic that you cannot purchase a car without proving that you have the capacity to pay for it, but anybody with functioning parts can reproduce.

OhamIreally · 06/05/2023 09:42

I don't think you're wrong to be annoyed OP and ignore taxpayer1 he loves to come on threads and berate and belittle single mothers. Got a chip on his shoulder.

There are several threads discussing the inadequacies of the CMS your example and that of men moving in with unrelated children reducing payments are often raised.

My own personal bugbear is my ex moved 400 miles away then sought (and won) a variation to child maintenance to offset his travel expenses to see DD. Which effectively means he has moved to a much cheaper area, has done no meaningful childcare for years, and I have to subsidise his travel when he does see her.

Makes me furious but I have to set it aside for the sake of my own well being.

Namechange828492 · 06/05/2023 09:48

I agree that you shouldn't have more DC unless you can afford it but the thing is you can't really control someone being feckless and now the baby is here so it's a no win situation for either child.

I sympathise about the cheating twat OP x

taxpayer1 · 06/05/2023 20:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ErinAoife · 06/05/2023 20:27

I agree with you, it is very unfair that he paid less for your child because he is having another one. Does he think your child suddenly cost less.Make me think of my ex husband who said he can't contribute any more to the college fund of the kids, he bloody never contribute to it in the first place, it is all the child benefit that I saved into it.Manage your bloody budget, stop buying the last gadget, going abroad with your girlfriend on weekend at least 3 times a year, buying a £ 40,000 car, I earn way less than him and manage to put some money aside but for doing so, I made sacrifice. I feel for you, I am glad that your partner is supporting you, it makes all the difference to have a supporting partner

SpongeBobJudgeyPants · 06/05/2023 21:42

Wow @taxpayer1 Just wow.

Talkwhilstyouwalk · 06/05/2023 22:25

He might feel pleased about not having to pay as much maintenance but I would try not to fixate on that. It is what it is. Focus on you and your family's happiness. No point dwelling on things that you cannot change or control, however unfair they may seem. Don't waste your energy.

BetterFuture1985 · 06/05/2023 23:39

TeaKitten · 05/05/2023 18:26

Normally it’s best to be able to afford more children before having them, without financially disadvantaging the older ones. Being separated from the mum shouldn’t change this.

Show quote history

But he can afford two children. It's the OP who can't seem to afford one that is the problem.

BetterFuture1985 · 06/05/2023 23:44

Pallisers · 06/05/2023 00:19

But is it logical?

Non resident parent has a child and the maintenance due to his first child reduces - presumably resident parent makes up any shortfall.

Resident parent has a child and ... does the maintenance due from the NRP go up? Because resident parent now has to spend money on new baby so has less money for first child?

So it only seems to work one way if you have another baby. if you are the non resident parent you get a reduction. If you are the resident parent nothing changes even though your financial situation has also changed.

Anyway, OP. nothing you can do about it. Rant for a while. And then realise you are doing your absolute best for your child. You are married to a great guy now. The spoiling etc. - that isn't being a good parent. Try to let it go.

Your logic is all skewed. Of course you wouldn't pay more to a resident parent if they had another baby, because presumably there would be a new partner contributing.

Logically, when you separate, each parent becomes separately responsible for their children including financially. So if you become a parent to another child, you would do exactly the same as if you were all still under the same roof. You'd spend less on child 1 because you also now need to spend money on child 2.

Incidentally, it's not uncommon where the resident parent has a second child with - let's say - a partner who is bit of a loser who doesn't earn much and for the money paid by the NRP for their child to be spend on both the RP's children. So it does work both ways.

oneleggedspider · 07/05/2023 00:19

You say your ex 'spoils her rotten' on the weekends he has her? So he hasn't totally walked out of her life? He still has regular contact and pays for her and treats her to things? Or have I misunderstood?

In this case I'd imagine you're upset that he's using his money for frivolous things like meals out with her, rather than paying towards your general living costs. Which I can appreciate. But I can also understand why an absent parent might want to ensure that their money is going directly to their child and not into a pot to be used on whatever.

Are there particular expenses you're struggling with that you can ask him to contribute to? Uniform/ school trips etc?

Pallisers · 07/05/2023 02:48

Your logic is all skewed. Of course you wouldn't pay more to a resident parent if they had another baby, because presumably there would be a new partner contributing.

Did the OP's ex have the baby by himself? Surely there is a new partner contributing to his new baby too. So why does he need to reduce his payments. There is a new partner contributing. Same logic.

blisstwins · 07/05/2023 02:59

it is rotten. I am with OP. Too many walk away from the first. Having children with another should not happen if it requires lowering contribution to the first.

CJsGoldfish · 07/05/2023 03:39

I believe that men should be able to move on and have more children if they choose to. I also believe that it should NOT be at the detriment of the first child/ren. They need to work that out but, of course, they don't.
Second wife/partner doesn't see why SHE should miss out so doesn't care about the detrimental affect on the first child/children. I don't think anyone ever fully 'wins' but the father seems to always be the one with the less stress. Funny that.
I also believe that both parents should support any children in separated families but no one ever seems to acknowledge that the Govt calculated amount rarely covers half the cost of the child/ren. So much resentment over an amount that is hardly ever enough.

MelchiorsMistress · 07/05/2023 04:31

I agree with you, it is morally wrong that non resident parents can pay less for their first children if they decide to have more.

The fact that his money has to be shared between more children misses the point that his first child doesn’t need any less than she did before. Having children across two homes is significantly more expensive than bringing a second or third child into a home where the first child already lives, so it’s a decision that shouldn’t be taken as lightly as it seems to be by so many.

It’s shit that so many supposedly responsible adults think they should just be able to do what they want and move on from whatever they want despite the detriment to children they have already chosen to have. Z

Ponderingwindow · 07/05/2023 04:42

The law is flawed. Child maintenance is the most important bill in a parent’s budget. It shouldn’t be reduced except in extraordinary circumstances.

even if the law allows a parent to reduce maintenance because they have another child, actually reducing the payment isn’t required. The morally correct decision is to keep financially supporting you child.

having additional children is optional, paying for your existing children is not.

BetterFuture1985 · 07/05/2023 09:18

Pallisers · 07/05/2023 02:48

Your logic is all skewed. Of course you wouldn't pay more to a resident parent if they had another baby, because presumably there would be a new partner contributing.

Did the OP's ex have the baby by himself? Surely there is a new partner contributing to his new baby too. So why does he need to reduce his payments. There is a new partner contributing. Same logic.

It's not the same logic because no one is making the OP contribute to her ex's new family. Unfortunately some men sleep around.... a lot. And the law is designed to protect all of their children, not just the first born.

Of course you could argue that he should pay child maintenance at full rates for every family but whilst it sounds morally right, legally it would be very foolish because it would quickly make the incentive to work evaporate or the incentive to avoid payment escalate and all of these children would get little or nothing.

Also, I don't think you should ignore the reality that often just after someone has a baby, they're not going to immediately go back to work. So the OP's ex is probably not going to have a new partner contributing to the same extent as a resident parent would if they were the one having another child.

taxpayer1 · 07/05/2023 09:32

Ponderingwindow · 07/05/2023 04:42

The law is flawed. Child maintenance is the most important bill in a parent’s budget. It shouldn’t be reduced except in extraordinary circumstances.

even if the law allows a parent to reduce maintenance because they have another child, actually reducing the payment isn’t required. The morally correct decision is to keep financially supporting you child.

having additional children is optional, paying for your existing children is not.

The morally correct decision according to you. So you are the moral judge. Ludicrous comment. Who are you to be the moral judge?

millymollymoomoo · 07/05/2023 09:58

If op had another child there would be also be less money for the first born

Fizzadora · 07/05/2023 10:00

taxpayer1 · 05/05/2023 19:11

How that would work? Does he need to reach a certain salary to be allowed to have more children? If that were the case, all couples that receive benefits should not be allowed to have more children as they are not able to afford the ones they already have without government help. Nonsense.

Show quote history

That sounds really sensible to me.

taxpayer1 · 07/05/2023 10:37

Fizzadora · 07/05/2023 10:00

That sounds really sensible to me.

Show quote history

In that case, couples should also need to reach a certain salary to be allowed to have more children. If that is your idea, I would wholeheartedly agree. Separated men/women and couples should have to reach a certain salary to be allowed to have more children. Perfect. It would save the country billions in housing benefits and universal credit and maybe reduce my massive tax bill.

Mumuser124 · 07/05/2023 12:23

How often does he have your daughter?