BM's request for more money make me see RED!

[zazas]

BM has asked for an increase in child support from DP - based on it is a New Year therefore it should go up! Our situation is this - DP and I live together with my two, DD 7 and DS 4 and we have DP's children DS 6 and DD 5 one night through the week and every 2nd weekend and 1/2 holidays plus some extra nights. He pays her the 20% per month (gave her the house/furniture/car when they separted). This is OK but now she has asked for more money and I disagree. So does DP but as he feels guilty about the separation (I wasn't involved) and not seing the kids every day he tends to waiver in his resolve (as seen in the past) to not giving her any more. My arguement is that she actually receives more than she is entittled to as he now supports my children and has his children more than 52 nights a year - so he could reduce it. We have not done this nor plan to but what bothers me is that she doesn't spend the money on the kids - e.g.she has not bought them any winter shoes! We have provided the winter coats and most of their clothes as well as ballet clothes and shoes for his DD as she just won't (her Mother pays for the ballet lessons). But she does have new clothes and shoes for herself! She works as an artist and now has over 30 hours free a week to work with both kids are in school. I just feel that she makes no effort to properly provide for her kids (loads of other examples!) and resent her asking for more money - as she know DP is a soft touch. By the way she had a new kitchen fitted this year and a two week holiday to France (without the kids) so she is not on the breadline! The thing is we can always find the money to pay the extra £50 a month she wants (we both work hard for our money though) but I feel she needs to take some financial responsibility. Am I being reasonable or just mad at her for her lack of responsibility she often displays towards her kids?

She sounds a loon Anniemac, she really does.

Agree with Aloha, it is plain wrong that children should suffer because their parents split up and one or both of those parents choose to enter new relationships with people who already have children.

Actually, it isn't a reduction of 5% for other children. The way the CSA work it out, they actually value the relevant other children (i.e. the children who live with the non-resident parent - whether his biological child/ren or not) higher than the resident parent's children. The non-resident parent's income is reduced by 15% for one other child, and 20% for 2 other children, i.e. the same amount applied to the children for whom maintenance is being claimed. However, 20% of the original income is more than 20% once that 20% has been deducted. For example, say the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £200 - deduct 20% (for 2 children) = £220-£40, giving a net income of £180. Then calculate 20% of that net income = £36. So the relevant other children - who may have no biological connection to the non-resident parent (but he is entitled to take them into account if either he or his new partner receive child benefit for them) are valued at £40 pw whereas the children of the original partnership are valued at £36.

Who on earth dreams up these rules???

None of this applies to DP and I but my view FWIW is that any children the non-resident parent has with his/her new DP should be taken into account but any that their new DP had before they met shouldn't be

I still think zazas and her DP do more than enough for these children

anniemac - surely it isn't up to you to meet the maintenance payments? By all means start a new thread and give more info if you'd like advice

I hate all this paying a percentage of salary business. If he was at home he would have to pay what the children needed. It seems to me if you stay together you pay for your own children but if the dh walks out then the children all of a sudden don't need him to support them as much. Not commenting on this paticular case but imo dads should pay for their kids and shut up moaning and if you take up with someone's ex then you have to understand that you live off what's left. Not a popular opinion no doubt.

daisy it isn't always husbands who walk out tho

to be honest I don't care you walks out but it is normally the mother who ends up looking after the kids and I think both parents are responsible for fully funding those kids. I don't hold with "I can only afford x%". Your kids, your responsibility.

That falls down when it's not your fault though Daisy.

Did anyone see that programme last night on BBC1 about stepfamilies? The woman had take up with her husband's friend, and thrown out her DH and moved friend into the house.

So technically, it wasn't the absent parent's fault that the marriage broke up, but there's no such thing as fault in break ups now is there? And of course, relationships and bringing up children aren't about justice and fairness, they're too complex for that.

fault doesn't come into it. It isn't the childrens fault and they still need supporting. Your past or present relationship has nothing to do with the kids needing funding.

I meant to watch it but I fell asleep

Agree with Daisy - the child should be paid for according to their needs. The absent parent and his or her new partner knows what the deal is when they move in together.

I agree the percentage argument can be crude. But if there is no rule, who determines what is fair? I agree with Daisy that the children should be properly supported and we pay 75 percent more than the CSA would make us for that very reason (made up partly out of my earnings). But in my experience ex partners can often have widely different perspectives on what the kids need - for example DH's ex believes that the kids should have a minimum of 3 foreign holidays a year and that we should fund it. DH and I see that as a luxury - and one that we can't afford after paying the extra maintenance and private school fees for the youngest.... let alone supporting them when they are with us.

I think the problem is that in family break-up, nothing is fair. The interests of the two families are irreconcilable, on the whole, and it's very difficult to get round that. I'm always amazed by those super-human families who manage it.

Too true. We've had some dreadful rows with BM over the last few years but recently things have calmed down and are more co-operative. Maybe I've looked at it the wrong way round - instead of focussing on the negative, I should be enjoying the positives whenever they happen! Lol - you've just cheered me up!

edam, even if that means that the 'absent parent' - who may well be an abandoned parent who would dearly love to be with their children - is then never able to marry again and have children?

I certainly don't pay maintenance - though I do happily buy shoes, coats, books etc etc. But then my dh's ex is married to a millionaire. If she was genuinely struggling it might be different.

If he wasn't earning at all...hmmm...dunno if I'd pay anything. But as I say, his ex is now married to an extraordinarily rich man and she dabbles in property development but claims to earn nothing in her stuff to the CSA. So actually, thinking about it, no I wouldn't. If she was struggling in any way it would be totally different.