Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
m1nniedriver · 07/09/2015 21:43

Any woman who threatens her Exh with the CSA every time he doesn't hand over money at will, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

RandomMess · 07/09/2015 21:51

Provided you continue contributing half to his trips, uniform etc, I would just pay the CSA rate because although you can afford more now as your younger DC get older and they all need uniform and trips too they really do get so much more expensive!!!

YonicScrewdriver · 07/09/2015 21:51

"Any woman who threatens her Exh with the CSA every time he doesn't hand over money at will, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying."

Once, in ten years, she went to the CSA.

AyeAmarok · 07/09/2015 22:03

I think you should pay her what the CSA says NOT taking into account your children with your DH. Not fair to reduce it for that reason.

But I'd save the difference for DS in an account.

m1nniedriver · 07/09/2015 22:05

The child only stays with her 1 more night than his dad's Hmm she wanted more because her mates get more. Nothing to do with what her son needs obviously.

SouthAmericanCuisine · 07/09/2015 22:05

There are ways of "going to the CSA" - screaming at your ex that all your friends are getting more money than you will garner less sympathy than many other methods.

But, as some posters seem to be willing to overlook abusive behaviour in women, I guess that's not an issue. I do wonder how the OP would have faired if she'd said it was her DP who did the yelling at his ex?

AndOnAndOn · 08/09/2015 11:08

I would like to echo VinoTime. Why on earth does any money need to change hands in an arrangement such as this, when the difference is one sleep potentially?
So Dad pays for costs at his house then contributes to costs at Mums house. Hardly fair on the face of it?

3CheekyLittleMonkeys · 08/09/2015 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Oswin · 08/09/2015 14:58

I think really what's crucial is the school weeks. Say a rp Monday night to Friday then there's potentially childcare, dinner money, travel, clubs. Where if a child is at the nrps Friday night till Monday morning they just wont incur the same costs.

I do think in situations where its more fairly laid out, so both parents have the weekdays and weekends, then maintenance shouldn't be paid. Unless of course the rp is buying clothes and shoes to take to the nrps.
Very difficult to just take it at face value.
My ex could decide he would quiet like 50/50 but he wouldn't buy clothes, so I would have to provide,nor school stuff so it would still all be left to me.

SouthAmericanCuisine · 08/09/2015 19:46

My ex could decide he would quiet like 50/50 but he wouldn't buy clothes, so I would have to provide,nor school stuff so it would still all be left to me.

I have this arrangement with DDs dad. She lives with each of us 50:50, but he pays CM to me (via salary deduction through the CSA) at the assessed rate.
We agreed that I'm responsible for buying everything DD needs - technology, clothes, shoes, school trips etc.

The reality is that DDs dad doesn't always approve of my choices, so has bought her a top of the range laptop, mobile etc. He also gives her pocket money on top of the money she gets from me.

His generosity has allowed me to continue to pay for vets/insurance Etc for her pets that live here - something that might of otherwise had to go when things got financially tight.

Under the new CMO assessment framework, I think if true 50:50 care can be proven, there is a zero assessment.

sonnyson12 · 08/09/2015 20:37

3Cheeky,

Maintenance is not required in 50/50 arrangements and there is no 'nrp' in that scenario or thankfully any scenario as the term is now obsolete.

Both parents have the responsibility to financially provide for their child/ren, and in the majority of cases the father has to do this without any child benefit/tax credits, which in my opinion ought to be shared accordingly.

amarmai · 09/09/2015 23:00

sac you have got it cushy- perhaps we can all learn from you? How do you do it?

SouthAmericanCuisine · 10/09/2015 07:11

sac you have got it cushy- perhaps we can all learn from you? How do you do it?

It comes at a price, amarmai, these things always do. Unfortunately, I think it's DDs stepmum who is being taken advantage of at my expense - I'm not sure what I can do about that, though.

amarmai · 10/09/2015 10:53

did you mean the sm is being taken advantage of for your benefit ,sac?

SouthAmericanCuisine · 10/09/2015 11:32

Yes, early morning brain fog, sorry.

peggyundercrackers · 10/09/2015 17:17

Sounds like the reason your ex went to the csa is because she thought other people got more than her - her thoughts of your dc didn't really come into her equation. If the OP had written a man came in screaming at them the answers to Op would be wildly different - you would be getting told to go NC or only allow supervised access because he obviously couldn't control his temper and yes he would be classed as abusive.

Fwiw I would only give them the csa rate - even if she begged I wouldn't change it - she made her bed, she needs to lie in it - it would be a hard lesson for them to learn. This isn't about your dc suffering because you have said the ex is better off than you - this was about her greed wanting more because her friends get more...

Oboe1 · 12/09/2015 21:53

Why not put the difference between the old and new rate of support in a Junior ISA for the child's future needs and let them have it later for education, travel, etc?

INeedAChangeSoon · 12/09/2015 22:36

Dhs ex did similar a few years ago.

They had a private agreement, they both sat down and worked it out and agreed a figure, and it was always paid on time, whenever dh got bonuses or a higher wage he would always give her extra, and he paid for half of extras like holidays, school trips, hobbies etc. Arrangment was working well and everybody was friendly until I got a job, then she thought I should hand over some of my wages to her too, when I refused she went to the CSA. To be fair to her, she wasn't angry or nasty, she was doing what she thought was right I guess.
Csa figures were almost half of what he was paying, she'd wrongly thought my wages would be counted and also didn't realise the time sds spent with us would reduce it too. Anyways dh continued paying the initial agreed amount, with extra where he could afford it, he never entertained the idea of going with the lower figure, there's no way he could have paid less, knowing he'd been able to pay more for his child. She's a good mum, and I felt it would have been wrong to reduce her money to prove a point.
A few years later his ex suggested reducing it when we had our dd, and offered to contact csa herself but we didn't, I'd feel guilty that her household income dropping because of dh and I choices, if having a child together meant reducing money for DSS we wouldn't have had a child tbh.

fedupbutfine · 12/09/2015 23:10

This isn't about your dc suffering because you have said the ex is better off than you

really? you can prove that in all cases without question? or indeed, even in this case? Just because a household may have more money coming into it doesn't mean that a reduction (by whatever means) in income won't cause problems or even genuine hardship for the family concerned. Depends how finely balanced the budget it - and in this day and age, many household budgets are very finely balanced. In my experience, having more money doesn't necessarily mean you are better off.

Whyarealltheusernamestaken · 13/09/2015 02:13

This is a tricky one and people obviously have high feelings, but I've been in the situation where more money was demanded and contact threatened, in the end csa was calculated at less. We (DH) paid the csa amount but also have continued to provide any clothes, money for school trips, essentials, and a mobile phone contract, after a few years ex asked us to go to a private arrangement which we agreed, we arranged a figure in the middle of before and after, although continue to make sure school uniform and important stuff is paid. Regardless of our own opinions it would be dsd who would suffer if we didn't buy her the things she needs, plus an extra bit of money a week is worth the lack of arguements which dsd was informed of!

SouthAmericanCuisine · 13/09/2015 08:53

Just because a household may have more money coming into it doesn't mean that a reduction (by whatever means) in income won't cause problems or even genuine hardship for the family concerned.

fedup but that implies that the Resident household has an elevated Standard of living due to the financial contributions being made by the OPs household. If the ex's household income is higher then the OPs, then she's obviously not living in poverty, and Therefore, she has choices as to what her money is spent on. Financially committing to non-essentials at the expense of her ex is fine all the while her ex is able to pay - but CM is not guaranteed.

if the Ex has chosen to live beyond her own means and relies on the OPs lower-earning DP to cover the costs of the DCs to the extent that a reduction (not a complete loss) in CM causes the household financial hardship, then she is, again, demonstrating poor financial management skills and the NRP would be well advised to pay the minimum and take responsibility for meeting the DCs financial needs himself.

Alterego1965 · 19/09/2015 09:20

I've finally got round to reading the whole thread. I'd love to know what the outcome is OP.

I have had a private arrangement in place for 5 years. Never changed. I have no idea if xh has had wage increases. I'm too nervous about requesting a review as I don't want to upset the balance.

When does anyone with a private arrangement request a review without sounding 'grabby'? Confused

SouthAmericanCuisine · 19/09/2015 09:37

When does anyone with a private arrangement request a review without sounding 'grabby'?

Are your DCs happy and healthy? Are their, and your, basic needs being met?

Anything else is a bonus.

YonicScrewdriver · 19/09/2015 10:56

"Anything else is a bonus"

Well, not if the NRP owns a fleet if yachts!

Daringgreatly · 19/09/2015 18:07

I had a larger income than xh and financial hardship because of lack of maintenance. It wasn't down to poor financial management on my part, it was because he is an arse.