Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

Maintenance? DH is in the right, I think?

219 replies

Whereyourtreasureis · 05/09/2015 21:27

My DH has always paid a consistent and good sum for his DS, my DSS, since they broke up, 10yrs ago. This has always been done on a Voluntary Basis. They agreed a lot of years ago, rather than getting the CSA involved, he has always paid a decent and regular amount for DsS, plus going halves on his school uniforms, trips and new clothes when needed.
DSS is with us overnight 3 times a week, and his younger brother and sisters (my DCs with DH) love their brother being here.
What has happened is, DSS's mother exploded this Summer, saying she doesn't think it's enough. She said screamed that other mothers she knows have far more than she does, and she is going to have it done through the CSA.
Well the CSA looked at the situation, and it turns out that DH has to pay quite a lot less than he was.
Now his XP has started messaging, saying she was wrong to involve other people, she's sorry, can we forget it- and just get back to the more beneficial for her previous plan they had in place.
He's said No, and took her at her word that they will use Child Support now, as that's what she wanted.
Are we wrong? She tried to get more and realised she was entitled to less. And now we're meant to say "it doesn't matter".
Are we wrong for taking her at her word, and saying This is what you wanted?

OP posts:
AndNowItsSeven · 06/09/2015 00:32

Maintenance is for a child's childhood not their adulthood. Your dh should pay more. Resident parents don't only spend 15% of their income on their dc.

Celerysoup3 · 06/09/2015 00:32

I would honour the original agreement. Essentially because I'd want the wife not to be short as the knock on effect could be having heating on less/poorer food/avoiding buying essentials like shoes

hattyhatter · 06/09/2015 00:34

Their assessment came out that we should be paying less than we are.

No that's not what I means.

CSA rates are the rock bottom legally permissible amount.

SouthAmericanCuisine · 06/09/2015 00:42

If your DSS is with you almost half the time, it's quite possible to increase/maintain his standard of living without giving his mum the money to do so on your DPs behalf.

Pay the amount assessed in the CMO and ensure your DSS benefits in other ways, so that he doesn't miss out.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 06/09/2015 00:47

CSA amounts are the bare minimum - most decent fathers will pay more than that.

I can see how it's tempting to take her at her word, but you know it's not really the right thing to do.

m1nniedriver · 06/09/2015 00:55

if the child is with the OP 3 days a week the OPs DP isn't just spending 15% of his income on him? He is giving the mother 15% of his income, I oresdume the rest is being spent on heating, food, shoes etc. is it okay for his child to be cold, hungry and shoeless at the NRP house as long as they have all these things at the RP house? Think about it!

Lurkedforever1 · 06/09/2015 00:56

I agree with flank. And that's coming from someone who doesn't get any maintenance and thinks csa levels should be higher and enforced with violence more stringently.
I would put it in a separate account to the usual savings, so if he needs anything in the near future the money is there. Or if you actually think his standard of living will drop, use the extra to buy it yourselves instead of handing it over for his mum to buy for him.

AndNowItsSeven · 06/09/2015 01:04

Driver the heating would be on regardless for the younger dc. As for shoes , I imagine they are paid for by the rp. Food is only a small cost comparatively.

m1nniedriver · 06/09/2015 01:10

Wow! So the heating only warms the other DC, you have decided that the RP buys the child's shoes and clothes? All the DP has to pay for is food? Even though the child is there 3 days a week? Okay Hmm

definiteissues · 06/09/2015 01:12

If you actually bother to read what the OP has written, it states that costs like uniform, clothes and school trips. Pretty sure shoes would be included in that.
The child is with OP near enough half the time anyway so it isn't like he is missing out.
The RP didn't realise how good she had it, made a scene and it didn't work out.
Extra children in the household don't actually make much difference to calculations either

definiteissues · 06/09/2015 01:12

*are split in half

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 06/09/2015 01:14

Doesn't the CSA take into account the nights spent at NRP's? My friend reached a settlement through solicitors, and he is granted 1/7 discount for every night per week spent at his house.

m1nniedriver · 06/09/2015 01:17

Guess the mother is saving money On her heating which she obviously diesnt need on when the child is at his fathers Hmm

TRexingInAsda · 06/09/2015 01:23

I suppose it comes down to do you want to pay the minimum legally permissible amount?

Why was he paying that higher amount before, because that's what he thought ds needed/was a fair amount, or was it because he didn't realise he could get away with paying less?

AndNowItsSeven · 06/09/2015 01:27

I read the op.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 06/09/2015 01:27

OP can you confirm that the CSA doesn't take into account the nights spent with his father? Because a court order arranged via solicitors does - there is a discount for the nights spent at the NRP.

AndNowItsSeven · 06/09/2015 01:28

I meant the heating will cost the same whether his ds is there or not. It is not an extra cost.

TheExMotherInLaw · 06/09/2015 01:39

I think OP said that the mother has a higher income than they do. I'd go for keeping to what CSA say, and investing the rest for him.

slithytove · 06/09/2015 01:56

Follow her wishes. Pay the new amount.

Make sure he doesn't go without, which it sounds like you don't, but that doesn't need to go through his mothers purse first.

And anything left from original cm, save for him.

I don't see that anyone loses out except perhaps his mum, and that is her own fault.

And I'm sure it's not relevant, but we don't spend 15% of income on each child each month. That seems like a lot.

Vernonon · 06/09/2015 02:38

I would put the difference in the savings account of all the children, not just the dss

iamanintrovert · 06/09/2015 04:31

I'd say that you're probably paying half of DSS' s costs even without the maintenence, so the lower amount is fair

Chasingsquirrels · 06/09/2015 07:43

While in many cases "the real loser will be the child", this isn't true for all situations and doesn't sound like it would be true for the OP's dss.

If my ex reduced maint my children's lifestyle would remain pretty much unchanged, but my savings and therefore long term security would be affected.
That doesn't mean ex is paying for my savings, he is paying part of the cost of raising his children as am I.

hattyhatter · 06/09/2015 07:46

We need an 'I am completely reasonable and here's why' board.

IACRAHW, if you will.

TravellingToad · 06/09/2015 07:47

I'd agree with you but the extra that you're not paying anymore put it in a savings account for DSS

Scoobydoo8 · 06/09/2015 07:52

Why are 'they', the ex's family, better off than you?
Does she have a well paid partner?

I would prob just pay the old amount, unless she is earning squillions and actually doesn't need any more. The cost of a 10 year old is not much compared to the cost of a 15 year old. I would pay the old amount very grudgingly and make it clear that that's all she/they are getting, her costs will go up as he grows, regardless of what you do.