Maintenance Question

[DeLadyDeGaga]

My son's 10. His dad left when he was 4. My ex still pays exactly the amount of maintenance (standard, recommended 15%) that was paid in 2005.

I have asked him for an increase. He has no other children and now lives with a lady who also has no children. I have remarried.

He tells me he has not had a raise in salary since 2005. My DH paid maintenance at a higher rate (he chose to) but now only pays for one as the others are left home and at Uni.

Aside from the fact that I find it difficult to believe my ex has not had a raise in 6 years, I feel that he should WANT to support his son more. Ex and his partner have a good lifestyle (which I don't begrudge them) and two incomes and I don't see that he should pay pay £250 for our son, still, all these years later.

Can anyone comment? AIBU?

You also ask how much it costs to raise a child, and can it be calculated in cash, you say you don't think so. But the financial outlay can of course be calculated in cash, as that's how its paid.

I should also add that I think its very sad that your husband was seeing another woman while you were at home looking after your disabled child. That is appalling behaviour on his part - for which you have my total sympathy - but this doesn't have any bearing on your maintenance claim.

My XH pays £300 per month maintainence by choice - CSA calclautor suggests £220. I think on his salary, your XH should be paying at least £100 MORE a month than he currently is. My XH (quite rightly) thinks DD should have the lifestly we wanted her to have prior to our split. If I have to work full time to support myself (pay all the bills, etc) DD will spend most days at nursery which neither of us ever wanted/want for her. It is not supporting me - I am not out living the high life - I am caring for and entertaining our child!

absolutely, BringontheGoat.

dh pays more than he should (as well as spousal maintenance, plus a share of his annual bonus) because this way, it is closer to the lifestyle his children would have had if he had stayed wth their mother.

yes, it grates paying over the odds ot his ex, especially when she hasn't always used it (in our opinion) in their best interests. and when she has blatantly tried ot get dh to pay more, because she thinks he hasn't paid enough (and has brought the children up thinkig they are hard odne by, etc)

but that doesn't mean he shouldn't pay it. he is very relieved now that he can just pay it direct ot the children (ex hatched a scheme where she said she would "help" children with uni costs - which of course would be the maintenance money she recieved, not anything form her own pocket - and then she suggested that dh might like to match what she paid... err, no. so dh pays it direct now, and she pays nothing, as far as we know. that is for her ot decide.)

I don't like the argument of "NRP shouldn't pay to line the pockets of RP". maintenance, and indeed having a child is about more than paying the bills. it is about bringing a child up. and taking care of all aspects of life, not penny pinching anf mking sure that the ex doesn't get a single penny.

That's fine in theory - but when you have a situation where the ex is buying pedigree dogs, but failing to buy her son school shirts - you can see that my husband's maintenance payments aren't getting spent on his son. Which is why we'll happily fund him through uni, but if the money went to the ex, it would most likely benefit the Kennel Club, and not the child it was intended for.

I think it is rather sad that the opinion here is that CSA calculations are OK as long as they arent applied to high earners, in which case a whole new set of rules are required to reduce child support.

Petal, why should taking your own children on holiday be regarded as an extra?? They are his kids

It was just an example of how husband tries to do nice stuff for his son, over and above what his pays in maintenance.

We have no problem with paying for extras for SS, but the ex doesn't even provide the basics for him - so were prefer direct expenditure on SS.

Thats lovely, but surely he wants to take his own children on holiday??

Now If his mum doesnt provide the basics then I can see it is a problem, but a lot of these disputes are about control, where the NRP is trying to use money to control the RP, to do exactly what they want.

In my opinion it is the duty of my childrens father to provide child support for his children. It is my duty to ensure they are well looked after. And they are.

My ex complains about child support as I also now have a high earning job and he thinks I dont need his money to support our children. BUT the way i see it, it is none of his business how I run my household

Maybe I didn't phrase that very well - but we try and ensure we take SS abroad once a year. Because that's something we can do for him, without involving the ex in the finances.

DH always pays his maintenance, but SS's clothes are often embarrassing - trousers too short, shabby shoes - and yet his mother recently purchased two pedigree king charles spaniels.

I'm sure the majority of separated mums are decent women who want the best for their kids, but there is a proporition of them who don't spend the maintenance payments on the children they are meant for.

I'm sure if my husband paid £1000 per month, SS's clothes wouldn't improve, he'd still be short of school skirts, but I'm sure the ex would increase her collect of expensive pets.

Typing error - I meant school shirts, not school skirts !!!

Petal, we have had very similar situations.

there have been numerous times where the children were not in proper childcare, when younger, as ex said she couldn't afford it. where they have not had clothes or shoes (my stepson was told he coudln't have another pair of shoes, as she had just bought him some 3 weeks beforehand - this was teenage growth spurt stuff, he couldn't even get his feet in his shoes!). honestly the list just oges on and on.

but that doesn't mean that dh shoudl not pay a fair share of his earnings towards their upkeep and lifestyle. what she chooses ot do with the money is for ehr to reconcile, both with herself and with them when they eventually realise it was not dh keeping them in crappy worn out shoes all those years...

not paying what you would have ordinarily paid if you were still living with the children is as bad to me, and to dh, as not maintaining contact and an interest in their lives.

if what the children amount ot is a series of bills, and a calculation of exactly how much you can get away with paying/not paying, well, I don't htink that is a healthy way to look at things, tbh.

the shit dh's ex has heaped up is her shit, not ours. and it is for herself to live with, not us.

How can you work out how much it costs to raise a child? It varies, surely? It's not a flat fee per child, it depends on where you live, what sorts of activities they do, where you buy their clothes and food, all sorts of things.

Maintenance should definitely be linked to how much the NRP earns, and increase/decrease accordingly.

We'd both like SS to benefit from the fact that we both earn decent salaries - but the ex is a huge obstacle to this. She left DH for another man, and had two babies a few year ago, and now has two teenagers (from DH) and two under-fives (with new partner). We know money is short in her household, however the two babies she had post-DH are NOT DH's concern. The maintenance we pay for SS just goes straight into the pot, and clearly doesn't get spent on SS. So DH is NOT going to increase his maintenace payments, however we spend generous amounts on buying stuff for SS where we can, I don't know what else we can do.

DH is very happy to provide for his son, and I completely support that - but if we do it via maintenance, it doesn't get to SS.

On the 'what should maintenance cover' thread, you'll hear from ladies whose partners pay so much to their 'first familes' that the 'second families' can barely survive. We're not in that position, but I think it's a very tricky area.

MJ - you clearly have more integrity than my husbands'ex !!!

to be honest i think its kinda unfair to expect the nrp to support and maintain the child's lifestyle based on promises made during the RP and NRP time together. eg if they decided that the child would go to private school and the family split, circumstances changed, would it be honestly fair for the NRP to put said child through private school at the expense of basics (eg eating) in the 2nd family... i think this is an extreme example but surely things changes when people split and its a whole set of new rules...

even when couples stay together sometimes what was decided when the children was younger about lifetyle and standard of living changes if the parents circumstances change. why isnt this any different?

Lateatwork - I agree completely. Circumstances change, and finances change accordingly. It would be grossly unfair if a man paid for his 'first family children' to go to private school, at the expense of his 'second family children.' But similar situations seem to exist quite a lot, not necessarily over private school, but where Family Two is left almost skint, so that Family One can be kept in the style they were accustomed to.

I think there are so many different scenarios that it's very difficult to have a one size fits all rule. There are always going to be xps who will want to shaft the NRP, there are always NRPs who will not want to support their children as they should either by avoiding paying at all or underhand tactics to keep their payments low.

And I think that when blended families come together it can get very complicated. And yes, everything changes when families split and not just financially.

But in general, if an NRP's income increases (or decreases) then the amount of financial support given to the child should follow that.

You cut your coat according to your cloth, and I don't think it's right that an NRP can improve his income/lifestyle, while their child's doesn't. It wouldn't happen if the family were together, I don't feel it's right for it not to happen as they aren't.

I'm with JohnBovi on this.

we have been in exactly the situation Petal describes - with school fees mounting up, and more children (mine and dh's) - still only toddlers at that point, so not an issue right then, but one that was waiting to happen.

we couldn't afford dss' school fees, but dh's ex would not let dh not pay. we moved heaven and earth to work that one out, including massively downsizing our house, which meant that dh & I had an unfinished loft room (and by unfinished I really mean unfinished - no windows, no heating, not even painted when we moved in there. just a boarded out loft, really!) while the children had the proper bedrooms.

we would have done similar to keep the younger children at school (ie if it happened now), so why wouldn't we do it for dss? he is still part of the family.

dh's ex hasn't gone on to have more children, so we don;t have that scenario, but if she had, then dh's maintenance would not hav decreased, and would still have increased. and once the maintenance leaves his bank account, it is no longerhis. it is for his ex to spend as she sees fit. for the good of the family (and that owuld have included more children if that is the way it had worked out).

dh may not like the decisions she has made - and she has, in our opinion, made loads of crappy decisions. but that is for her to work through with the children, when they work out what went on.

just as people oftne advise single mums to keep out of the relationship with a feckless (but not dangerously so) father - a give him enoough rope and he'll hang himself type situation, wrt crppy timekeeping/not turning up for contact/forgetting birthdays etc. the advise is to let the relationship be what it will be. and it is the same for us.

dh has doen all he can. he has provided for the children as he always intended to - school fees, now uni fees, all extras (hobbies etc), maintenance at above the csa rate, as well as spousal maintenance. (his ex works, btw, in a good job, with a good wage, so has also contributed)

the money has not always been spent on the children, but that is not dh's fault. and that fact does not mean he should not have paid it.

we have gone without ourselves (when I had dd1, she had a cot, one toy and 2 packets of babygros. nappies and muslins. that was it. literally. and this while dss was at one of the most expensive schools in the country. but what else does a baby need? really?), and we have lived at a standard that my stepchildren have turned their noses up at.

but we have done what we would do for our children - any of them.

equally, we have uprooted ourselves and moved around for dd1's schooling (she is severely disabled). I have undertaken large parts of her therapy myself, becasue we couldn't afford to pay anyone, as we were paying school fees. so be it. my stepchildren didn't ask for dd1 to be disabled and cost more - why shoudl they pay the price by having t be taken out of school?

I agree that a NRP should not be impoverished, if there is any other way. but if you would have done something for the children if you had stayed in the marriage (eg downsizing to keep in school, or accepting a lower standard of living to make sure the children don't go without), then you should do it when separated. the children are still your children, and they didn't ask for any of it.

yes, in an ideal world, all ex's would be as reasonable as you, mj.

but dh's ex isn't.

and it said school fees in the order, so school fees it was. as well as maintenance. even when the change on dh's job meant earning a third of what he did previously, and no bonus for a couple of years (city worker, bonus makes up a large oart of our income). in fact, bonus is written into the order too, so a bonus was paid even when dh didn't get one (crappy wording)

dh did ask about that, if ex would defer until he got a bonus again (note defer, not miss out on) but she owuldn't have it. so it got paid, and dd1 missed out on another lot of therapy (well, i did it myself, while being chastised by dsd and dss for not working as their mum worked...)

and when you are dealing with someone so unreasonable, who is determined to make dh out ot be the bad guy, who doesn't pay enough, who has impoverished his children by breaking up the marriage etc etc, well, you can accept that, and the loss of relationshp with the children that is going ot come with it, or you can fight it - not by involving the children, and spelling it out, but by just doing the decent thign, and holding on to the moral high ground.

they still got brainwashed, but we know it is not true. and over time, enough things have becme apparent ot them, as they have started understanding the cost of things, to make it clear that their mum's version of things doesn't add up.

if everyone was reasonable, the owrld would be a much nicer place. but one party being unreasonable (to put it mildly!) does not mean the other party can shirk their responsibility, imo.