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?

There was an interestng point put forward last week (I forget who posted it) - basically in a 'together' family, each time a new baby comes along, the amount of money spent on the children gets diluted, ie if you've got 5 kids as opposed to 2, the 'spend per head' will be less. Yet with separated families, there is sometimes the expectation that the money spent on Family One will remain the same, even though Family Two is growing.

You could argue til the cows come home, over whether this is fair or not - and I can see both perspectives - but I really can't think of a method of calculating payments that keeps all parties happy. Its just impossibe.

Yes MJ, that's the post I was referring to. (was it your post?) It's a very clever point of view - and really made me think.

I don't think it's impossible to work out something that everyone's happy with. I think that depends on how sensible and reasonable both parties are. I do think though that when people are angry, money is something they focus on, I guess because it's something tangible they can argue about.

I definitely agree about people being able to move on, and the pot of money being diluted, but equally I do think the affordability of the current children/lifestyle does have to be a factor or at least borne in mind. I, for example, have only had one child because we couldn't have afforded a second as we had dsd to provide for. But equally dsd's mum's payments reduced because we did have dd.

It's a minefield, and I guess we all just need to count our blessings rather than hold onto resentments, which can be easier said than done.

I agree MJ. A Dad's input can be measured in so many more ways than how big his wallet is and how much of that he shares.

You're a very smart lady, MJ!

Although I could see lots of First Wives being very aggrieved with your suggestion, even though its very realistic.

I totally see your point - why should funding for the First Family Children be 'ring fenced' and protected against any future changes in circumstances, to the detriment of Second Family Children?

But whatever you do, there's always going to be someone who feels they've been hard done by.

I'm not, nor have ever asked my exh to "maintain" me, though, had I needed it, my solicitor tied it into the divorce settlement. There were times I needed it, but I didn't ask. We were divorced and it never occurred to me that he should "keep" me. However, as I see it, my son (had we stayed together) would have been a recipient of any higher earnings. My son did not ask for our marriage to end. He did not ask to have the pain and upheaval of that.

Actually, he doesn't go short of anything he needs. But my exh won't even hear of taking him for a haircut without it coming off the amount of maintenance he pays me so, yes it does strike me as unreasonable that, despite the annual review agreement, I have to take his word that he has not had a rise in almost 7 years and therefore feels no need to increase maintenance.....by whatever small amount that might be in accordance with the CSA guidelines of 15%. I do not lead the highlife.....I have a car which I paid for (fully) by myself. I need and want nothing FOR MYSELF from my exh.

Its very unfair to deduct the cost of a haircut from maintenance payments. Anything we spend on SS while he's with us, is simply absorbed into our usual household budget. We wouldn't dream of deducting it from the maintenance payments.

The only time this has happened, is when the ex sent SS to us for the weekend, one January, without his winter coat. She refused to let DH go back and collect it, so he bought another one, and made a deduction the following month.

I must remember not to take postings personally!!

I just assume you're replying to me.

Thanks

Can I ask a genuine question, as it's one that occurs to me frequently..

Situation where an NRP has relatively high earnings compared to ex's household. Therefore PWC income lowish, but NRP maintenance payments high (say £500, I'm making it up). The pwc has 2 other children in new relationship. Does the pwc really use the £500 to uplift the nrp's child to his relative contribution (i.e. to benefit directly from his higher income), and have the other 2 children (the new partner's) at a lower lifestyle level?

My gut instinct tells me that the pwc will treat the children equally. So the ex's child won't necessarily benefit from the ex's additional contribution in the form of new clothes, but in reality it will be shared across the household to life the general lifestyle level? Surely? And in this case, is it not fair to say that the ex's higher income is benefitting children to which he has no obligation?

mj it sounds like you really do think about things fairly and make sure the distribution fairly reflects what DS gets as a contribution from his dad

I may be terribly cynical but I really don't imagine that the majority do things so fairly. I guess that is what causes a lot of resentment in practice, because whether the pwc's would like to admit it or not, the nrp can really often be subsidising the pwc's family in general, rather than maintaining their own child

Yes he is definitely very lucky that you are very reasonable about stuff. It sounds so obvious, that parents should be reasonable and put the childrens' needs first, but having experienced real life and read hundres of threads on here, it just seems that reason usually goes out of the window upon divorce. Suddenly parents seem to hate each other and it all comes down to spite and retaliation

I agree with most of what you have said mj but I do have to wonder at the inequality of what ds1 gets in relation to the other children and I don't think it is necessarily teaching him about fairness and sharing. I think that the money your ex pays is not solely for ds1 - it is also to be used in maintaining a home etc that he can live in as well as the other children! I do think you should be applauded for your attitude and it's such a tricky one to get right, I just think you may be taking the point of being fair to your ex a little far!

Let me make one point here, if your current dh were to win a huge sum of money on the lottery, on a ticket that he bought out of his own money, would you honestly feel that ds1 should not benefit in any way from that money because he is nothing to do with your dh?

I'm speaking as someone who has had no maintenance for dd for almost 2 years (he can't afford it despite earning £45k, company car, almost no mortgage etc) but I really can't be bothered to push the issue as I would rather things be harmonious with no acrimony. He gets to act like disney dad in terms of buying her presents but has no responsibility other than that. My dh supports us all, inc my dd. Should it be then that at whatever time my xp decides he can afford to reinstate maintenance that I should use that £200 a month solely for my daughter, even if that causes vast inequality between her and the other children? He currently owes £4,800 for the payments he has missed. While it is true to say that I don't necessarily need the money because dh's salary (luckily) is adequate to ensure that none of us go without, is that money dd's or is it my current dh's to compensate for the amount he has spent on her keeping her clothed, fed, housed, holidays etc? My instinct would be that if I ever got the backdated payment (unlikely) that I would use it for all of us (inc dh's sons) to have a family holiday!!!

Allnew is right in her comment that reason often goes out the window when divorce proceedings get underway. There's so much bitterness, that money is just another stick to beat someone with.

I don't know know how you define what is reasonable in these situations. I know very few people who are happy with what they pay/receive.