Thinking of Abandoning your Wife and Child? Here’s what you need to know.

[Adviceshop]

1 – will I have to pay maintenance to my ex?
A: Yes – you will have to pay 16% of your gross salary (after pension deductions)
2 – So if I increase my pension contributions my maintenance will go down?
A: Yes.

1. My child is in nursery as we both work – will I have to pay half towards childcare?

A: No, not at all. If your ex wishes to continue working she will have to pay it all.

1. But won’t I have to have the child half the time and pay for my half when I have them?

A: Not if you don’t want to, no. You can just see the child at weekends and explain you can’t have them in the week because you work.

1. Is there a minimum amount of time I will need to see my child?

A: Again, no, you can see your child as little as you wish.

1. What if my ex won’t let me see my child?

A: You can take her to court to force her to allow you to see the child

1. Can my ex take me to court to force me to see the child more regularly?

A: Not at all, no, this is not available as an option.

1. Can I move away from my ex and child?

A: Certainly. In fact, if you move a long distance away you can apply for a “variation” to your child maintenance so that you pay less. You can say this is because you are incurring costs in visiting your child.

1. So I would have to prove that I was incurring these costs to get the variation?

A: Not really no. Keep the receipts from one trip and say that you’re making that same trip every month, even if you’re not. 10. Can my ex move away with my child? A: Yes, but you can apply for a court order to stop her. 11. Can she apply for a court order to stop me moving away? A: No, of course not. 12. Won’t my leaving have an adverse effect on my child? A: Probably, but your ex will probably do everything in her power to minimise the ill effects. 13. How can I be sure my child will be looked after? A: If your ex neglects your child she will be punished by the state. If it gets really bad your child will be taken into care and looked after by the state. 14. Can the state make me take my child back? A: No, not at all. 15. Won’t society think badly of me for doing this? A: Possibly at first. Explain how unhappy you were. If you see your child a few times a year and pay the minimum maintenance then eventually you will be called “A Good Dad”.

Society needs to SHAME fathers into equal parenting, instead the sad and pathetic default is NAMALT as we see on every single thread started by a single mum ever.

90%.

Facts don't lie but a hell of a lot of society does. Lies, excuses, minimises, ignores. Everyday sexism at work.

How about they have to pay the percentage of their wage they would put towards the children if they were still with the Mum (some recognition of reasonable extra rental costs of course)? That's not done at present. The shortfall is invariably covered by Mum - even to the extent of using up her savings and/or going into debt.

Also, they shouldn't get to reduce maintenance for having subsequent families.

If I can't afford to have more kids, why does he get a discount for continuing to replicate himself?

Hmmm?

How about they have to pay the percentage of their wage they would put towards the children if they were still with the Mum (some recognition of reasonable extra rental costs of course)

How does that work? In the case I spoke of (mum and children in family home, dad told to rent 1 room in HMO) the mother doesn't work so in their case 100% of dads wages is currently supporting the family. She expects him to pay the mortgage for the next 14 years.

So he should give 100% of his wages to them for the next 14 years then? And live where?

Chuckle yes, what's with the 3rd class mini break the leftover kids get? X was picking ds2 up from my parents to take him on a 2 day trip in his brand new caravan. He took the time to show my M&D round it and then show them all the gadgets in his car. Then mentioned gf and he would be having a longer holiday round Europe.

My parents couldn't believe their eyes or ears. This is the man who bought his son a Spider-Man dustbin for Christmas.

Then he was furious when my very blunt child said - why would i want a dustbin? Only a dustbin.

So he refused to give him the dustbin or get him anything else. So weird.

Also, they shouldn't get to reduce maintenance for having subsequent families.

And if it was the woman who instigated the divorce (not in DV cases or unreasonable behaviour) then her ex husband is never allowed to re marry and have another family but eg the woman re married and can have more children. How can that be reasonable?

Your suggestions are assuming that every divorce happens because of the man's fault - that obviously isn't true.

Find some stupid new GF who thinks you're a 'great dad' because you pay the minimum maintenance, have more kids with her, rinse and repeat.

I view cm as a bonus, a contribution towards the cost of actual child related expenses.

I expect to fund my own household. So i want half his food, clothes, activities, extra tuition, braces.

@DecomposingComposers

I don’t think your maths are correct. As she is not working then 100% of the money supporting them is his wages (or maybe it isn’t as she may get benefits). But that is not 100% of his wages, is it? He presumably pays rent and has other living costs so he has remaining wages.

That whole situation sounds far from ideal. But you are falling into the trap of assuming the all dads are the “breadwinner” and all mums stay at home - which is often not the case these days. Many mums also work.

The point is if you have children you should pay for them - and not £5 a week or whatever. It should be enough for them to continue to live their existing life, with 50% also paid by mum. Men shouldn’t be able to just waltz off and pretend their kids don’t exist. Regardless of the financial damage, it’s the emotional damage that is worse.

Decom most RPs are spending 100% of their income on running the household the child lives in and benefits from. What financial contribution to you think an NRP should make.

I don’t think your maths are correct. As she is not working then 100% of the money supporting them is his wages (or maybe it isn’t as she may get benefits). But that is not 100% of his wages, is it? He presumably pays rent and has other living costs so he has remaining wages.

They are still living in the family home ATM. He can't afford to move out anywhere because he has to pay the mortgage so cannot afford to pay the mortgage, support the children, pay all of the household bills, the family car and then rent on somewhere for him to live too. As I said the mil solution was for him to get a room in an HMO but then he cannot have the children over night and he won't have a car. The divorce is at her instigation. No fault.

There are going to be many other families in the same situation - a single wage is never going to be able to support 2 houses in the way it supported 1.

I have no idea what the answer should be. Both parties need to be housed, all bills need to be paid. Insisting that the same % of wages needs to be given after divorce as before is just not practical is it?

@DecomposingComposers so many of your assumptions are wrong. Most women either work or want to work. If the latter, they are tied to underpaid jobs, way below what they are skilled to do, or what they want to do. Mostly because they have all of the childcare responsbilities for the children. If they can find a job, they have to pay for childcare- often £1000 a month for nursery for a pre-school child. Free or subsidised nursery places are scarce. And in any case they have to be flexible, to care for sick children, or for school holidays (when there is even less childcare available).

Very few single mums have the luxury of not working. They don't get benefits if they don't work.

I do work and a higher proportion of my salary goes on supporting my children than my exes. Yet he moans because he has to support his own children. how is that right? And then, like others on the thread, he's threatened stopping work at all. In the end he just decided to stop his high paid job, to set up a company and set himself up with a salary. So he doesn't disclose or pay himself anything. In the meantime, I don't have the luxury of doing that, because I have a mortgage to pay, and I have children to feed, and I need to buy them new trainers and pay for school trips and all that stuff.

I think the mums having a life of luxury on the maintenance their H pays TO SUPPORT HIS OWN CHILDREN are extremely rare. Sadly, the NRPs doing the things listed in the OP aren't rare.

The point is if you have children you should pay for them - and not £5 a week or whatever. It should be enough for them to continue to live their existing life, with 50% also paid by mum.

I agree that £5 a week is ridiculous but what happens if that is all that's left after paying housing costs?

And yes mum should pay 50% of the children's costs but who pays for the housing costs? And does mum pay her own housing costs?

Decom most RPs are spending 100% of their income on running the household the child lives in and benefits from. What financial contribution to you think an NRP should make.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement - there are so many variables.

Who instigated the divorce?
Reasons why?
Equity in house?

Being the nrp doesn't mean you either wanted nor caused the divorce. So no, I don't think the nrp should contribute 100% regardless.

If the nrp is not at fault should they be left homeless and unable to have their children overnight because of a decision taken by their ex spouse?

Well yes, I’m an RP and pay 100% of my wages to support the children. Occasionally I can afford new clothes for myself.

I also had to pay 55% of joint assets to my ex who does not see his kids and can buy himself a new home mortgage-free. He pays 5% of take home pay for childcare.

Still think all mums are scrounging or living it up at “poor” dad’s expense?

Sure, some women suck (SWALT) so we just won't bother fixing the maintenance system to make it fairer on the, too often, women left in the financial lurch to care for children alone.

Makes sense.

AnnaNimmity

I don't know how common these scenarios are. I know what is happening in this case.

He wants the house sold and 2 smaller properties sold. She doesn't and wants him to pay the mortgage on the large family home for 14 years plus maintenance plus a family car, so basically what he paid whilst they were married. He will probably do it too because he loves his children but it will mean that he can only see them for 1 day at a time because he will have nowhere for them to stay overnight.

This wasn't his choice nor his doing so yes, men who choose to leave the marriage or cause the divorce because of their behaviour should have to pay out much more of their income than they currently do but I don't see why men whose wives choose to leave because of affairs or they simply don't want to be married anymore should be ruined financially and loose a relationship with their children.

Q. What do I do if I overspend one month and can’t stretch to child maintenance?

A. Don’t worry, when your crazy bitch ex asks why it hasn’t arrived you can tell the uppity cow that she’s lucky you pay anything at all. None of your mates do and anyway, she’ll have contingency for this kind of thing. She’ll just have to go without her gel nails this month!

Still think all mums are scrounging or living it up at “poor” dad’s expense?

No, I don't think all mums at all.

But neither do I think that all dads are dead beats who don't want to pay for their kids which is why I don't agree that 100% of their wages should go to pay for the children simply because they are the nrp, which is what has been suggested.

@DecomposingComposers has he gone to court? he should get the judge to assess the situation.

And no, I don't believe who was the instigator of the divorce should be a factor at all in deciding. Anyone is free to walk away from a marriage for no reason - if they've just fallen out of love. No one should be punished for that. And in any case - I instigated my divorce, but citing unreasonable behaviour of my spouse. Am I to be penalised in that? Even in adultery, you never know the background. You never know where coercive control has been an issue either.

I think child support should only be ordered if one of the parents don't want to pay any childcare costs. It should be the last option. Is it true that men lose custody of their children even when they're primary caregivers? Is it that bad in the UK?

No one actually suggested 100%. They said that they should pay a greater percentage and be left with a moderate income. My ex husband pays about 8% of his earnings to the kids (self employed and can play with his figures). If he lived with his children he'd be paying much more than 8% now wouldn't he? Like I do. I could even handle the low payments if he was involved but he's spent 5hrs with his daughter in three and a half months. This is really what this thread is about and what it comes back to again and again. But yet if I save and take them on holiday he berates me for spending the maintenance living it up. I do have a decent career and work full time. And yet I'm not allowed to have a life if he's contributing because I must be using the kids money. It's absurd. I ended the marriage after years of emotional abuse and neglect. I couldn't listen to him accuse me of all sorts anymore rather than take responsibility for his contribution to the demise of his marriage. So that's given him permission to not come to a rugby match, a parents' night, an award ceremony, a doctors appointment or a school show? These things are my job because 'I threw him out- I wanted the kids, now I have to suck it up' as he told my 15 year old. And it's ok for him never to organise childcare, have them over night, take them on holiday anymore or call or text them unless it's the night before he wants to see them? Or pay for uniform or clothes or lunches. But all his pals think he's the one who's wronged because I threw him out!!! And they're all delighted for him and his new wife who lives abroad and he flys to see every other weekend. Maybe they wouldn't be so happy for him if they knew that he was funding these trips with the money he used to pay in additional maintenance.

He hasn't been to court yet - the costs of it all (obviously having to be met by him) are too much at the moment.

And I specifically said that in the case of unreasonable behaviour different rules should apply.

I agree that anyone can leave a marriage for whatever reason but if you choose to do that (and I mean freely choose to, no DV, no coercive control etc etc) or you have an affair then I don't think it's ok to expect to be housed and to have all bills paid for you as well as having all of the children's costs met too, especially when that deprives the children from having a relationship with their dad.

Do you think that's fair? What is a fair settlement do you think?

My ex supports his three children well financially, so we are lucky in that respect.

What I cannot comprehend is how he can be satisfied spending so little time with them! I had to talk him up from one weekend a month to two and I facilitate that by being extremely flexible about dates. School holidays are a struggle to get him to commit to having them at all and again will usually involve me, and his parents, handling most of the logistics.

He always did work long hours/ away from home during the week/ travel extensively for work but prior to split spent 50% of his time at the family home despite this.... now he has kids approx 10% of the year.... but manages frequent luxury trips away with his new wife.....

I have recently taken the decision to let this go as arguing got me nowhere and by and large it's less hassle for kids and I when they stay at home with me.... they no longer question when they'll see him and in the long term he will have a poorer relationship with them, I'm sure....

I think he feels that the financial support is the end of his responsibility so he can do as he sees fit... and if he decides he can't stick to an arrangement for contact I just have to change my plans and deal with it, whereas I cannot do the same... in fact if I do have something I want to do on one of his contact weekends, I always have a backup plan in case as I've had to cancel/ amend plans at the last minute so often! Thankfully I have great support from my family( despite living a couple of hours away) and his family are also supportive.

I don't know what he earns @DecomposingComposers but my friend who was in the same situation (and who doesn't work) agreed with her H that she got the marital home (which she sold) and they both got one of the other properties. He sold his one to buy a flat for himself. She has kept one as she doesn't have a pension otherwise (she's not worked throughout the marriage).

He pays her a fair amount of maintenance (both spousal and child) until the youngest child is 18. Then she has to work.

No one actually suggested 100%. They said that they should pay a greater percentage and be left with a moderate income.

This is what was said

How about they have to pay the percentage of their wage they would put towards the children if they were still with the Mum (some recognition of reasonable extra rental costs of course)

The % of their wage they would have paid if still with mum. So for many people that would be 100%, particularly if they are a single income family.

Plus what do you consider a moderate income? Rent here for a single room in a shared house is upwards of £500/month, a flat which you would need to have the children overnight is £800 - £1000. So how do you split the income?

You put the children first decomposing - or the judge would. Their needs are paramount and their needs to be housed, near their school and support networks, come before the father's need. But a judge through the divorce process looks at everyone's expenses, and everyone's income and then allocates property and maintenance. It sounds like your friend needs to find some money to get to court.

@AgeingDurannie my ex like yours- he usually pays up, but has no interest at all in seeing his kids. He has said more than once that paying for them negates any need to look after them or be with them. It's like he feels he's absolved his responsibilities towards them. I feel very sad for them.