So pissed off...

[Letitgoletitgo]

What exactly is the point of having a court finance order on divorce, when it is only legal for a year and my ex changes it at every second?!

My exh walked out on me and 2 DCs 3 years ago. He continued to pay the mortgage plus maintenance for another 18months. We then sold the house and I moved to rent with new DP. We agreed outside of CSA, as dh was a high earner, he would pay me £1500pm and then drop to £1000pm once both DCs were at school.
A year ago exh lost his job. He got another, but lower paid, so payments dropped to £1000pm.
My DP pays half of all house bills, but other than that our finances are separate. He has recently taken out a loan to get himself a (rather flashy) new car. Nothing to do with me.
Exh has hit the roof and says we obviously have "too much money" and he will reduce payments, as of next week, to £750pm. I think he is honestly going to continue doing this until he is paying only CSA rates! I don't understand why he can't see that mine and DP keep our money seperate. Perhaps I should be insisting on a cut of whatever he spent on his whores engagement ring, or the cost of their wedding?! He says he is going to spend the extra money on a holiday with DCs which has "never been able to afford" - despite the multiple trips abroad he and his DP have been on over the past few years. My DP and I have never been away together, we save for one week in a caravan every year with the DCs :0(

(I appreciate that it sounds like I get a lot of money, so sorry for sounding greedy to those of you who get a lot less, but we live in an area where that won't even cover my half of the rent but I am not entitled to any other benefits. It is also the principle that we can make a long term financial agreement, have it legalised by the court, only for him to keep changing it and me to have to continually adapt)

Do I actually have a leg to stand on if I took this argument further, or will I just be told to cut back and suck it up?

Surly cue... OP doesn't, but she points out maintenance is high because she gave up her career...which is why I asked about spousal maintenance x

Yes but she says he is paying just over the CSA minimum so obviously he isnt paying spousal maintenance.

You said he was paying it and pretty much implied she should be grateful "He's not got an legal responsibility to pay spousal maintenance by the sound of it, so the fact he is doing so above and beyond what he has to pay for child maintenance, is just an added bonus"

I didn't mean to imply she should be grateful...more that sometimes you have to pick your battles...and weigh up if it's really worth pursuing if she doesn't stand to be able to claim anymore anyway. That's what I assumed from OP's original question in her post about does she have a leg to stand on x

None of the maintenance is classed as spousal. As I said, the amount is large, but over half goes straight back on child care to allow me to work. I pay for my children as well as doing all the running around after them, negotiating who will look after them when I have to work late, etc etc. I do not feel that my exh pays for me - what is left after the childcare contributes to the house hold bills as well as children's clothes, clubs, etc. It certainly does not pay them outright.

Personally i think if spousal maintenance is what was agreed originally then it's not a bonus that he actually pays it. Bonus would be agreeing child maintenance and then him paying more than agreed. Paying what you signed up for is just that- sticking to the agreement. Unfortunately for OP it looks like there is a standard expiry date on these court orders so he can now dick about when he gets a pang of jealousy. He is a high earner and will have a savvy accountant so going through CSA will bring her no joy beyond what she is already getting. Speak to your solicitor OP, there may be something in the documentation that you/we are not aware of that means he has to honour the agreement. Maybe not but it's worth a shot.

Thanks Fiddler and Surley. I think you're kind of both saying the same thing. It just makes me so angry. In the next breath he's asking whether the dcs have passports because he wants to book a holiday (clearly not because I can't afford to take them abroad - week in a caravan is it!)

I just don't understand the point of all the stressful financial negotiations of divorce which became redundant after a year?!

Why are you relying on his money? yes - he should be paying maintenance for the kids etc but surely you have a career you can go back to now the children are older and you're living with a partner??Never rely on money that's coming in on the basis of how the other parent feels!

Crushed - my youngest is 3. I am working pt, but after paying childcare for dd and then for Ds who is 5 before and after school, there isn't much! So it may be wrong but yes I do rely on that money to pay rent and bills etc.

Anyway - Just came to update as I'm fuming.... Ex is off on holiday next week, abroad with his DP. His weekend to have kids, so they will be with me instead. Why he could not arrange for a different weekend I don't know. He wouldn't tell me where they're going (helpful if there's any emergencies?!) so presumably somewhere expensive. Just said he'll "only be able to call to speak to the kids once." He usually calls every night.

He has also booked foreign holiday for 3 weeks time for him, DP and kids. And yet he has the cheek to tell me he has "never been able to afford to take DCs away before" due to maintenance he pays me. But he's managed a hol abroad every year with his DP..... My DP and I have one hol, in the uk, with all the DCs - that is all we can afford and taking DCs away is more important than a couples hol. Obviously not to my ex, and I'm so angry that he would say he has never been able to afford to take them away when he and his DP go away every year?! Sometimes more than once for long weekends!! No way his DP pays for them as he earns about 4x what she does. And to make that argument anyway is the same as him reducing my maintenance because my dp bought himself a new car...... Drives me mad.

Sorry, just needed a rant and am fuming.....

I think I'd warn him that you'll be asking the CSA to be looking into the bonuses/ commission that you believe he has been receiving (and backdated)…. There's a special form for all of this sort of thing.

He can't have it all ways - bringing down your maintenance because your other half has bought himself a car, but at the same time stashing bonuses for himself that would increase the maintenance he has to pay you.

What a vile OP. Get a job and stand in your own two feet. Maybe having something to do with your time will help you deal with your bitterness

Oh I see you have a part time job. Great news. I can't see what the problem is then.

Your partner living with you is meaning you can't claim benefits/ tax credits. HE is the problem. Not your ex. If he wants to live with you he needs to step up and stop expecting you to pay for half of everything, supported by your ex. The government isn't supporting you because it believes you and your partner can support yourselves.

The reason it's only for a year is to give you that long to sort yourself out.

You're really not his problem anymore. The kids are.... But he's supporting them with 1000 a month. Kids don't cost anywhere near that much! Even with child care costs.

Your ex is a grade A arsehole. Your DP's car, earnings whatever is completely irrelevant to his continuing responsible to provide for his DC in the same way as he would have done had he not sacked you all off to shack up with someone else. I am at some of these responses!

On what lamer does £750 or £1000 a month not provide for two children?

He can't provide in the way he used to because they used to share a home. They now have two homes.

It's the new partner who is the arsehole. Taking on a mother of two children who is unwilling/ unable to work more than part time, yet expect her to go cap in hand to her cheating ex in order to uphold half of the rent and bills.

Wow saves, that's a bit harsh?! If I was insisting on more payments because he had a high earning dp I would be told , quite rightly , that it is nothing to do with me. So how is my dp anything to do with his maintenance?

We don't get any other benefits because we are just over the income line , but as I said, live in an expensive area. I honestly believe benefits , tax credits , etc , should vary based on where you live. I can't move away because then I'd be moving the kids away from him. But obviously you are suggesting the answer is to kick my dp out and go ask for a council house and benefits?!

If I worked full time my childcare costs would be around £1000, so the maintenance does not go far in terms of supporting two children.

Is your response just because the amounts seem high? If I had said he'd dropped from £150 to £75 would it be different? We were together 12 years, since university, I contributed hugely to him getting to where he is and being such a high earner.

But you don't work full time.. if you had asked if your ex should contribute to childcare because you both work full time I would have said yes.

I'm not suggesting that you leave your dp and claim benefits. What i'm saying is that he can't sensibly expect to move in with a single mother of two who works part time, and expect her to cover half the rent. The money your ex gives you is to maintain the children, not pay your rent.

As I said, you are really not his problem any more. The children are of course, but he with that level of CM - he is supporting them. There's just not enough left over to support you in the way you'd like.

Saves, my dp didn't "move in with me" I was forced by ex to sell the marital home so dp and I decided to move in together at that time, 2 years ago, based on maintenence I was receiving .

Surely a contribution to rent to provide a home for his children is part of what cos maintenance covers?! If I didn't need to house them my costs would of course be less as I'd be in a 1 bed flat?! Therefore I don't consider this to be supporting me - I need a bigger house to house two children?

Why should maintenance only go towards childcare if I worked full time? I don't really understand your point. Most of the maintenance I get already goes back on childcare to work pt. The reason I don't work full time is because until dd is at school, I would be no better off after childcare costs than I am working pt. When my ex and I had children , it had always been the plan that I would be a sahm. His choices have forced me back to work - I probably would not have chosen to have children if I'd known this.

What I am angry about is that a maintenance agreement can be made and then my ex can go back on it anytime he gets annoyed about anything. Obviously I should have pushed more for better equity out of the house etc, but what was offered was a fair option. If it was the deal I am getting now on the table 2 years ago , I would have fought for better.

Bad choice of words with "move in with" I meant, move in together.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You want an agreement that was made in one set of circumstances to go on ad infinitum, despite circumstances changing dramatically. I was a bit more realistic after I separated with my dd's ex. And I wouldn't take a penny off him more than I needed which having raised my own kids and done the math 100 times, I believe to be around 150-200 per kid. Max.

The higher amount for the first year is to get you on your feet.

You wouldn't live in a one bedroom flat. You and your partner would want a decent home. And if the kids stay with their dad sometimes then he needs space for them too. So that argument doesn't stand up.

Anyway, he's within his rights to drop it to CSA level. Although I think a 50% contribution to childcare would be fair.