What's your opinion on maintenance?

[Mamamc123]

Nothing wrong here and not asking for advice as such, just a difference in opinion during a discussion tonight and I wondered what everyone else's views are on how maintenance money is used and what it's expected to cover?
My friend and I are both mothers to our own bio kids and I am also SM to my DPs kids.
Friend was moaning how her ExH doesn't contribute enough financially to her daughter's expenses - he pays well above what the CSA calculator suggests and his daughter wants for nothing whilst she's with him.
She expects him on top of that to buy half of the children's clothes, school uniforms, shoes, activities/ clubs, extra childcare etc - which is exactly what my DP does for my DSDs.
However I think it's unreasonable to expect this much when a regular and fair amount of maintence is being paid and custody is split.
My ExH pays maintence for our children but in my opinion it is for all of those things and I don't expect him to "top-up" anywhere else. I don't think it's fair for a father to be paying for the mother to look after her own children when they are with her if that makes sense? I don't pay my ExH for the kids food etc when they are there.
If something like an expensive school trip or one off big expense then I think it's fair to go 50/50 on that, but in general if you're receiving 100s in maintence every month then you shouldn't always expect more.
Ps: I'm not talking about men who shirk their responsibilities or don't pay - I mean honest good dad's who pay their fair percentage of income and see their kids regularly.
What do you all think?

My dc are 15 and 13. Been separated from their dad for 5 years.....
He works, good career. I've not had a penny in all that time.

Dealing with CMS is like trying to run through treacle, they hit him with an attachment of earnings 6 months ago. I'm still waiting. Nothing in 5 years.

But at least I'll be able to say to my dc that I did everything and provided everything.
I barely see them some days because of the overtime I have to do to make ends meet and give them what they need

Mamamc123

I think you've got this all a little wrong, as others have tried to say, it's about what the person paying the maintenance earns. You might be happy now with your set up. What ur ex is paying you. But answer this. If next week he got a massive pay rise, would you still be happy with what your getting. Say he's in flash cars, massive house. Luxury holidays, and u can't afford piano lessons for dc??

He should be providing as close to 50% /50% as poss imo

Well that's fine as long as CTC and cb are also shared.

Piglet, why ?? The NRP is likely to be forking out the majority of the costs. It used to be family credit, which was also to help mothers to stay at home to look after the children, rather than be forced out to work. So therefore being for mother and child.

I think seeing the child/ren, or having the option to does make a difference, as does having input to what activities etc they do. In those circumstances where parental choices are made together, it's much more fair to expect the NRP to pay extra towards them if possible. If the RP is making it difficult for the NRP to access the children, or not engaging them in parenting decisions like school trips or expensive activities then it's easier to understand why they might not want to contribute extra on top of maintenance. Equally if the NRP isn't engaging in this through choice then the RPs payments should probably be

higher to reflect that the NRP isn't parenting.

This is my perspective as a SM and I know others will feel differently. As well as paying maintenance because DSD spends more time at her Mums to give her a more consistent school week (we used to do 50/50, now it's more like 35/65) but is working better for DSD. We also pay for school fees, uniform and clubs because DP earns more than DSDs Mum. But they sit down as a three and talk about what she wants to do etc, both go to parents evenings so he can engage in it - for example if she wants to do something expensive with lots of kit now she's older agreement is she has to stick with it for a year, not change every six weeks..:

If the RP is making it difficult for the NRP to access the children, or not engaging them in parenting decisions like school trips or expensive activities then it's easier to understand why they might not want to contribute extra on top of maintenance

I agree that ideally extra costs like sports or club activities or school trips should be agreed by both parents before they are committed to them and ideally access should be done appropriately according to what's best for the child(ren) with neither parent making it difficult for the other but quite often reality isn't ideal.

There's no point in me trying to agree any extra cost things like DD's dad because he will just say no because he's an utter cunt (and I mean that seriously, he also says no to any medical treatment for DD and says no to renewing her passport) and he currently has no access because he's not capable of looking after her (not just my opinion but also the opinion of DD's social workers) so now he thinks because he doesn't get to see her (he could if he'd turn up to supervised visits but those aren't "good enough" for him) he shouldn't have to pay anything for her, not even a contribution towards necessary medical costs.

The NRP is likely to be forking out the majority of the costs

why is the NRP forking out the majority of costs.

Studyinhell - if my ex got a sudden pay rise through his hard work since we split I would not feel entitled to suddenly take a percentage of that... I also base our CM payments off his basic pay as in my opinion if he does overtime then that's his money, why the heck should he have to hand over a percentage of it to me? The money he pays me covers all the essentials and I'm not greedy.
If there was an activity the kids wanted to be involved in that I wasn't able to cover financially then they would probably ask him themselves - but I wouldn't, nor would it be expected for him to pay it if he didn't want to. Just because a parent earns money doesn't mean they have to agree to give the children whatever they demand.
Also him having a big house or luxury holidays would be none of my business - in the same respect that if I suddenly came into a lot of money, would it reduce his financial responsibility to his kids? No.
I think we work things out very fairly between ourselves.

If my ex got a pay rise then actually yes, any little extra coming my way would help. I work reduced hours, and cannot work extra hours because of dd, and am not able to earn what I did before having dd because of decisions we made jointly. If at the time I had been in possession of full facts I would have made significantly different decisions.

I am on my own - family a distance away, no new partner. Noone to help with pickups, dropoffs, days off sick etc etc. I don't expect sympathy but financial assistance is welcome. I worry about long term security - what will happen to us if I get sick, pension, etc and its all on me. Everyone here is talking about the day to day costs but there are wider financial implications that I need to build up a pot for too.

Disney dad meanwhile cannot do 50/50 due to work commitments - ie his ability to earn the absolute maximum that he can.

Why is it that women standing up for themselves and their children are branded money grabbing greedy bitches? You weren't party to the agreements that they had and the compromises they made. Sure there is an impact on you now but you knew he had children and therefore financial obligations when you got together.

Well that's fine as long as CTC and cb are also shared

If the RP is claiming then that is usually because they are on a low income if working or no income at all. The general reason for this is their job has to fit around the children because they are with them the majority of the time (so part time work or large chunk goes on childcare) or because the children are not school age so they are a sahp.
NRP are rarely restricted with their employement so they have the oppurtunity to earn more. So why should those benefits be shared with the NRP?

The thing is though that if you break it down to per day then it isn't much at all . I get £220 a month for 2 children. If you took dd's 'half' and look at it per day it just coversheet dinner money. So yeah I think it is entirely reasonable to ask my ex to come tribute towards other things at times. £350 a month still only works out at about £11 a day so not beyond the grasp of possibility that once you factor in things like clothes, food, clubs etc that over the year it does cost double that to support a child.
And for those who say I'd have to pay to live somewhere even without children. Well yes I would. Dh and I could live happily in a 1 bedroom flat somewhere but as it is we live somewhere somewhat larger to accommodate my children. They also use a lot of electricity and gas and my food bill is considerably greater than it would be if there was 2 of us out the house all day than it is with children living here and people at home much more. It's actually quite sad that so many women on here see maintenance as a favour rather than a requirement.

It's actually quite sad that so many women on here see maintenance as a favour rather than a requirement.

It does explain why so many men get away with paying nothing or next to nothing.

I'm with you Racoon and LooksBetter

I get angry at the "money for the ex wife" "we're skint because DP pays too much to XW" comments as well as a lack of acknowledgement that to maintain a home for children costs more than it would for the parent on their own. Maintenance is for the children. (And the only people I know who receive spousal maintenance - very few - were actually very well off to start with and oddly enough, mostly lawyers!)

Mama - I really don't understand your point of view. It's not you benefiting from your XH payrise, surely it's for the children?

DH changed jobs when he and his ex split due to him working shifts and would have had limited time with DC so he went for a 9-5. He ended up earning more so automatically increased his CM payments. He didnt think twice because had he still lived with his DC they would have benefited from his higher earnings.

When we had DC he could have reduced the payments but we agreed that DSC should not lose out because we chose to have more DC. He never saw it as paying for the ex. He saw it as paying for his children. He appreciated the sacrifices his ex made being the rp.
He was never bitter about how much he paid and in turn neither was the ex as he had always paid as much as he could.

He was made redundant at one point and the ex refused to take CM from him because she reasonably understood he didnt have the money. It was only for 3 months but her kindness reduced our financial stress greatly. He paid her arreras once he had a job but she also refused that and instead put it in the boys savings accounts.

Both of my DSC parents took financial responsibility for their children and appreciated how much or how little they could afford.

Racoon You mean you didn't pay his maintenance for him when he was out of work????

"I don't personally feel maintenance is for general bills - rent, electric etc. Those things have to be paid for regardless of the existence of tiny people in the house. I feel it should be for expenses incurred solely by virtue of having a kid; clothing, clubs, trips, childcare if applicable. However I realise not everyone is in a financially secure position and the money may need to be used flexibly for some households. "

Hmm well to house the children there has to be room for them, and they use electricity too, and so I disagree with this. A one bed flat/house with a single person out at work all day is a lot cheaper to run than a 2 bed with the washing machine going all the time, and heating on because I'm at home a lot more with the baby, for example. There are extra housing costs, increased bills that come with having children. Maintenance contributes to this.

As much as i wanted to i was on mat leave with 2 week old DTs when it happened. DH got a temp shop in the local deli to earn enough to pay for DSs as my mat pay only just covered our basic living costs.

His ex even took a days holiday to help me with a hospital appointment which was on the same day as DHs interview for the job he has now.
She is such so damn reasonable the cow

That was nice of her to help with the hospital appointment.
I'm glad she didn't kick up a fuss when he was made unemployed. Redundancy happens, and if maintainence stops because of that it doesn't make the nrp a shit parent.

It really was. We didnt ask her she offered as DH had mentioned the job interview to her and was stressing a bit as he wanted to help me at the hospital.
It was a bit strange when the nurse asked if she was my sister and we replied that she is my husbands ex wife. We could have just said friend but it was more fun to see the bemused look on the nurses face

It's complex and completely depends on the individual circumstances. You really can't generalise.

regardless of how much is earned by the ExH I think £350 a month is a generous amount

Totally disagree with this. Somebody who earns £200k ought to be utterly ashamed of contributing such a measly amount to the resident household. For somebody on minimum wage, yes it is generous. Would you be happy for your exH to be living the high life in a gold plated mansion whilst you looked after his child for 80% of the time in a one bed flat and were expected to be grateful for him slinging you £350? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.

it's not up to her ExH to support her lifestyle

Again, don't think it's that simple. It doesn't seem right for example that a married couple's income could be very high, thanks to the husband for working outside the home, which he was only able to do because his wife sidelined her career to take care of their children (I.e. both parties are responsible for the husbands high earning power). But when they split, hubby can just bugger off into the sunset because why should exW benefit at all from the spoils of a career that she helped to create? Obviously the division of assets would cover this (hopefully) but I'm just challenging the thinking behind the statement.

As Aye said earlier, there is also the moral obligation that a parent has to uphold a certain standard of living for their children if they are able. It's very unfair for a child to go from a very comfortable standard of living 100% of the time, to suddenly only having that lifestyle at dad's house every other weekend. A good dad would not let his DC suffer a massive drop in standard of living as well as the upset of a divorce when it was in his power to prevent it.

Mamamc123

It's not about being greedy, it's about what's fair for the children. You say u wouldn't care about houses, holidays and stuff. But what then if ur ex had more children. The new kids had private school, private health and all manner of expensive/luxury things, u seriously saying you'd still be happy with £250 a mth then?

The new kids had private school, private health and all manner of expensive/luxury things, u seriously saying you'd still be happy with £250 a mth then?

Not as simple as that though is it? The new partner could be the one with the money.

On that logic would you also take SC out of private school if it couldn't be afforded for new children? My DSD goes private paid for entirely by DH, our LO will not go to private school as he earns less now than he did when she was younger and we can't afford it. C'est la vie.