BM expectations?

[Songbird232018]

So BM or some she knows has been on MN as in a text row yesterday she called my partner a useless Disney dad... I got really defensive as in my eyes he's the furthest from it and I'm not blind to his faults by any means!

So decent dad points if you will

• pays CSA every month religiously for 2 kids granted he was paying more and its took a drop this year because he's had less work. Gone from 360 to around 300 last month
• has 3 kids (2 bio one step) EOW, twice for tea, half holidays if not more and more random nights when possible ie Inset days
• pays 1 child's phone bill mum does the other
• all 3 kids get £15 pocket money a month
• when we can we treat the kids to new trainers/Coats etc and we always get the expensive Christmas / bday gift such as PlayStation, laptop, phone etc as they are always told to ask dad and we like treating them.
• always attends parents evening/ sports days/ open days etc
• pulls the kids up on bad behaviour and has no issues being hard when needed (rare!)

• Family life here is harmonious with my and our bio son 3
• we allow sleepovers and parties as we have a bigger house and space for them

Points where I can see issues maybe

• he doesn't really get involved in or enforce homework when they are with us which I've pulled him up on

• he does refuse to half school trips now as we paid for one at £120 only to find out the child didn't go and we didn't get that money back so he has refused to out towards any others ( we always give spending money) the kids would never miss out if they really wanted to go somewhere to be honest As we would sort it if we could.

• similar issue with uniforms he was buying shoes / bags etc but nothing was ever right and she wanted cash rather than him buy the items ( she took everything back ) so he stopped this and only only pays CSA to cover uniforms this is a area he won't budge on at all now and I do agree she gets enough to cover this for 2 children.

I guess I just want others opinions as a lot of my friends have Exs who do nothing and pay nothing yet we always get the worst words from from BMs mouth!

BM is married again with 3 other children with new husband just for info

@Enoughnowstop

Why does my ex partner deserve 800 and another 400?

CMS is for your children, not your ex. Your child deserves your full support. Or are you suggesting children shouldn’t benefit from the relative wealth of their parents?

In this instance mum barely works so should we not be complaining about then or?

It's the double standards that I don't like.

@Enoughnowstop

If you realise that CMS is for the child why write ‘why does my ex partner deserve 800?

As someone who has been told by the CMS that my ex - who lives in a 4 bed detached with very expensive cars on the driveway and has a business turn over £millions if his accounts at Companies House are anything to go by, owes precisely £0 in maintenance, do you really expect me to accept that £0 is a median point of child maintenance to expect?

I don't think anyone is saying that's ok but that's the fault of your ex, not the CMS.

@Songbird232018, you mentioned in a previous post that the eldest's father was paying maintenance but minimum.

Personally, I think that if you treat a child as yours, you don't pick and choose when they are and when they are not, which is what your OH is doing.

What really comes down is the sane old story. Your OH sees him as his child, treats his kids very generously, he just resent giving money to their mother.

The same old 'it's money that goes to the mum and not the kids'.

[quote dontdisturbmenow]@Songbird232018, you mentioned in a previous post that the eldest's father was paying maintenance but minimum.

Personally, I think that if you treat a child as yours, you don't pick and choose when they are and when they are not, which is what your OH is doing.

What really comes down is the sane old story. Your OH sees him as his child, treats his kids very generously, he just resent giving money to their mother.

The same old 'it's money that goes to the mum and not the kids'.[/quote]
You've just made all that up though haven't you?

In this instance mum barely works so should we not be complaining about then or? It's the double standards that I don't like

She has 5 children and a working partner who, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume, is making a considerable financial contribution to bringing up the OP’s partner’s children. She is doing way more work than the OP’s partner with their joint children yet your expectation is she contributes exactly the same financially? Surely that is a double-standard? Indeed, it has been explicitly stated he can’t see the children more because of his work commitments.

@Enoughnowstop

In this instance mum barely works so should we not be complaining about then or? It's the double standards that I don't like

She has 5 children and a working partner who, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume, is making a considerable financial contribution to bringing up the OP’s partner’s children. She is doing way more work than the OP’s partner with their joint children yet your expectation is she contributes exactly the same financially? Surely that is a double-standard? Indeed, it has been explicitly stated he can’t see the children more because of his work commitments.

Well no cos dad's time doesn't matter apparently only his cash. Why is it ok that she lets her husband and ex husband contribute but doesn't contribute financially herself?

What I'm saying is all that matters is dad's money mum can do what she likes and it's fine.

When dad's have more kids they get told they shouldn't have if they dont financially contribute to other kids. She's doing just that and yet her 3 extra children have had no effect on the existing children?

Why is it ok that she lets her husband and ex husband contribute but doesn't contribute financially herself?

Presumably the ex and her husband discussed how they would financially manage three extra children and planned accordingly? She hasn’t asked her ex to increase maintenance because she has 3 other children with another man.

And she is contributing financially because, as you said yourself, she is working.

When dad's have more kids they get told they shouldn't have if they dont financially contribute to other kids

No. Dad’s are told they shouldn’t have more kids if they are struggling to pay maintenance and essential bills before adding more kids into the mix. The OP’s ex having more children hasn’t had a corresponding financial impact on another household, nor do we have any evidence the children are worse off as a result.

So you think she spends just as much on her two children as she did before she had 3 more? Ok.

So you think she spends just as much on her two children as she did before she had 3 more? Ok

We can’t possibly know. Nor can the OP. Much depends on her financial situation when single, the salary of her partner and his generosity. Key is the fact she hasn’t demanded any extra to manage any shortfall.

@Enoughnowstop

So you think she spends just as much on her two children as she did before she had 3 more? Ok

We can’t possibly know. Nor can the OP. Much depends on her financial situation when single, the salary of her partner and his generosity. Key is the fact she hasn’t demanded any extra to manage any shortfall.

That's irrelevant. She has likely reduced spending on her first children because she's had three more. Like when maintenance goes down when nrps have further children. It's the same. But it's fine when a mother does it apparently. Weird.

She has likely reduced spending on her first children because she's had three more

I guess your own comment very much apply to your statements!
You've just made all that up though haven't you?

@dontdisturbmenow

She has likely reduced spending on her first children because she's had three more

I guess your own comment very much apply to your statements!
You've just made all that up though haven't you?

So you really honestly truly believe she hasn't?

I mean practically everyone I have ever met has done just that because that's what happens when you have more than one child.

@Enoughnowstop

If you realise that CMS is for the child why write ‘why does my ex partner deserve 800?

As someone who has been told by the CMS that my ex - who lives in a 4 bed detached with very expensive cars on the driveway and has a business turn over £millions if his accounts at Companies House are anything to go by, owes precisely £0 in maintenance, do you really expect me to accept that £0 is a median point of child maintenance to expect?

Of course not. As I said in my post fiddling is wrong. My objection is being told paying the amount CMS has asked for is some form of token gesture.

Not your fight nor your business, keep your nose out, seriously new partners think they know it all.🙄

@Youseethethingis

My point is that the CM is not some form of minimum contribution as is being suggested on this thread. If its what is calculated by the government then repeating myself it's surely the appropriate amount. The 'medium' amount not the maximum or minimum amount. It’s literally the minimum that can be legally enforced, taking into account income, contact levels, other children and the fact the at dad is expected to provide appropriate accommodation etc for the children too. It doesn’t take very long glancing through old threads here to see that in many cases, the amount payable is a bit of a farce and an insult and in no way relates to the cost of providing the very basics a child needs, never mind any attempts to provide some enjoyment and quality of life above that.

*second wife here, husband pays more than the minimum because he can afford it and wants to provide as best he can for his child

Well I respectfully disagree. I realise a lot of this argument is driven by which side of the fence you sit on but the CMS amount paid has to be viewed with the other factors in the particular case. Going back to one of my previous points as its all income driven CM may be more than enough in one case and not enough in another (yet both nrps are paying the amount asked by the CMS based on their earnings).

My child maintenance is a quarter of my net pay. I have a loan specifically taken out on the house ex lives in with Mr Cocklodger for the sake of
the kids tying up the capital which would allow me to move on and buy my own house. The loan thankfully completes next year. But i have an issue buying a new home as Im effectively a gaurantor /party to mortgage on the old home.

In different circumstances I would be contributing more as I'd contribute to specific costs provided I had some form of proof monies were being spent correctly.

I'm interested in how much would be considered appropriate.

Going back to my original point it clearly is a medium amount if you are salaried and pay the amount CMS ask. Some pay more as they dont think its sufficient in their case and some pay very little by fiddling the system.

I read BM

And I always think “Bowel Movement”

Op
On previous threads on this issue

You say £20 a month pocket money
And £278 a month CM

My objection is being told paying the amount CMS has asked for is some form of token gesture.

Exactly. My DH pays just under £1k pcm because he has a good salary and left the modest, marital house mortgage free after a marriage that lasted less than 2 years. Ten years on BM/DM/ExW still insists it’s not enough. DH does not hand over more cash, he pays enough to run the household nevermind support SS. It’s all circumstantial. If CMS is low, in the absence of book fiddling or fraudulent activity (which I do NOT condone) it’s because NRP income is low, which means NRP likely has less disposable income.

@WithoutATtrace

Not your fight nor your business, keep your nose out, seriously new partners think they know it all.🙄

Of course it’s her business - it directly affects her household income and therefore her standard of living and budget for her own household.

@LyingDogsLie1

My objection is being told paying the amount CMS has asked for is some form of token gesture.

Exactly. My DH pays just under £1k pcm because he has a good salary and left the modest, marital house mortgage free after a marriage that lasted less than 2 years. Ten years on BM/DM/ExW still insists it’s not enough. DH does not hand over more cash, he pays enough to run the household nevermind support SS. It’s all circumstantial. If CMS is low, in the absence of book fiddling or fraudulent activity (which I do NOT condone) it’s because NRP income is low, which means NRP likely has less disposable income.

And how long together before marriage?

Op, whether your partner is a good dad or not has nothing to do with buying driving lessons or coats or how much he seems them. He's not in competition with the children's mum or any other dad's.

What matters is, are the children happy and well cares for. Are they well adjusted. Do they like spending time with their dad and respect him and his home.

Thats all that matters. Stop feeling like he needs to live up to some sort of expectation and score points. If the kids are happy then keep doing what you're doing.

The only dad points he can earn is having happy, supported kids.

Now list what the mum does and pays for. I think you'll find he's not the super dad you're making him out to be, hes doing the bare minimum.

Well I respectfully disagree. I realise a lot of this argument is driven by which side of the fence you sit on but the CMS amount paid has to be viewed with the other factors in the particular case. Going back to one of my previous points as its all income driven CM may be more than enough in one case and not enough in another (yet both nrps are paying the amount asked by the CMS based on their earnings)
I’m not a single mother but I don’t think that’s necessary to be able to realise that if an NRP is paying £20 per week per child, that’s barely covering school lunches and bus tickets. It the minimum that could be legally taken from the NRP based on, as you say, income and circumstances.

The “appropriate” maintenance level does not correspond with what children need (not fancy clothes/holidays/a million different clubs - talking actual basic needs) or there would be a basic universal amount that everyone had to pay regardless. That would also go for NRPs paying £500 per week. No child needs that amount of money spending on them, they don’t cost more because you earn more, it’s just nice for a child to share in the relative affluence of their parents and the lifestyle that can provide. They don’t need it though.
Anyway, way off the track here, and i do think OPs DH contributes fairly to his children as it happens so 🤷‍♀️

@Jroseforever less than a year. It was a shotgun wedding. Not that that’s relevant. Both early 20’s.