Maintenance

[Bomblbee]

Am I missing the point with maintenance.

Before I get flamed I know this is DH business and should be paying what it costs to provide for his children as agreed by him and DM.

My DH shares care of my SC with their DM, not far off 50/50 and pays some maintenance (above what the calculator suggests), I realise this isn’t enough to solely pay for any child but is it meant to?

DH pays for the SC whilst they’re in our home, pays maintenance for them to DM, as far as DM is concerned this maintenance should be enough to cover the SC the entire time they’re at her home and she shouldn’t have to put anything more into the pot towards their daily living costs or unexpected costs like trips or replacement items.

Perhaps I’m being unreasonable but I was under the impression that the maintenance is to bridge the gap of extra time, not solely pay for the cost of having children incurred by the main carer?

@RedWingBoots good to know thanks

@Getyourarseofffthequattro his ex only has it good until their children leave secondary education.

After that she is on her own so she better be working towards that.

@MooSakah if her boyfriend is loaded and she doesn't work then he probably has enough sense not to marry her.

[quote MooSakah]@Dollyparton3 can they actually do that? I'm a bit worried as DSC's mum is often saying I should be covering various things and DH's response is always absolutely not.[/quote]
Well, they can ask but there's no reason whatsoever why that would be a sensible request. But that's our ex all over.

Now we get a lot of "get Dad and Dolly to pay for that, they've clearly got the money" what she is too stupid to realise is that with DH's mortgage that he needed to keep a bedroom free for each of her kids + the upkeep of the car that did all the pick up and drop offs and the very generous maintenance he was paying left him cleaned out EVERY month. Anything extra was being paid for by me thanks to my very well paid full time career.

But it's the way that she seemed she was entitled a share of my paycheque that made me see her in a totally different light. She honestly seemed to think that I was obliged to chip in just because I was with a man who had kids and she told them that. The fact that she worked 2 days a week was immaterial to her.

When we said no at one point she told the kids that they'd have to sell their home because "Daddy doesn't give me enough money for you to stay here". Evil witch.

[quote RedWingBoots]@Getyourarseofffthequattro his ex only has it good until their children leave secondary education.

After that she is on her own so she better be working towards that.[/quote]
Well indeed, she's not as far as I know (from what she tells MIL) but that's on her as far as I am concerned.

I think it's because there's a base level of thought blended families are so hideous for the SC and DMs, that there's a expected you have to make up to the first family for the secondary families existence.

And if the secondary family is better off financially than the first it compounds this "social need to apologise" and this is placed at DH door but also sometimes placed on SMs door too.

I have no problem with my DH need to make things up (if he feels the need) but I absolutely resent the expectations that I have to apologise financially or morally for existing. Especially since these expectations ramped up as soon as I literally came into view.

@Sowhatifiam

My DH is almost fully financing his children but seemingly their DM is able to drop this responsibility as and when she pleases

I’ve supported my children 100% for the last 12 years. My ex - who is a very high earner with no mortgage or rent to pay - has used his self employment and the various women he’s lived with to get out of paying for his children for the whole of that time. Society still thinks I’m a money-grabbing bitch who deserves everything she gets. Never have I been able to drop responsibility. At least a man who supports his children with the CMS calculation is regarded as decent.

If your DHs ex is already struggling as primary carer for your SD even with DHs financial support, is this actually the best living situation for your SD? Even if he has custody of the child/children this doesn’t mean they don’t see their mother

You really think that children should live with the higher earner? That’s an awful lot of children who would be in permanent childcare and never see their mother again. What about babies? One of my children wasn’t born when he walked out. He did everything he could to remove that baby from me at birth - thankfully the courts saw right through him. But the idea that the higher earner would have had the right to a tiny baby because of money alone is a worrying one.

Your ex is as wrong as the mother in this case then surely? Both are completely in the wrong not to contribute.

Also I don't think anyone would say that children should automatically go to the high earner. But if one parent purposely refuses to work at all or contribute anything financially to the children in any way and it all comes down to the other parent to constantly step in and pay for everything, then I honestly don't think it's right for the children to live with them. Imagine in your case if the children lived with your ex but you had to bank roll everything because he still refused to work/pay?? It's not possible for most people. At least if they lived with you the money you earn is covering both yourself and them; if they lived with him you've got to cover yourself and the children separately.

@candlelightsatdawn

I think it's because there's a base level of thought blended families are so hideous for the SC and DMs, that there's a expected you have to make up to the first family for the secondary families existence.

And if the secondary family is better off financially than the first it compounds this "social need to apologise" and this is placed at DH door but also sometimes placed on SMs door too.

I have no problem with my DH need to make things up (if he feels the need) but I absolutely resent the expectations that I have to apologise financially or morally for existing. Especially since these expectations ramped up as soon as I literally came into view.

I think a lot of it is also based around some exes not wanting to give up the status quo they had during the marriage - ie themselves not working/only working part-time while other parent brings in the money. They think they are entitled to continue with that, but obviously it's impossible for most people to support 2 households on one wage.

Your ex is as wrong as the mother in this case then surely? Both are completely in the wrong not to contribute

My point there was to counteract the 'poor NRPs have it hard'. So do PWC.

if one parent purposely refuses to work at all or contribute anything financially to the children in any way

Define 'purposely refuses to work'. It's very easy to say 'get a job' when it's not you that has to do that. There are so many things that can impact on a person securing the right employment that fits around children and childcare. It is particularly important to realise that when you're dealing with someone who is parenting alone.

Presumably the mother is claiming benefits. As such, she is doing whatever she can to support her children - it might be via proxy but that might be the best she is able to do right now. You don't know. You're not walking in her shoes. And if she's claiming Universal Credit, she will be under increasing pressure to accept any job that comes along.

@Sowhatifiam

Your ex is as wrong as the mother in this case then surely? Both are completely in the wrong not to contribute

My point there was to counteract the 'poor NRPs have it hard'. So do PWC.

if one parent purposely refuses to work at all or contribute anything financially to the children in any way

Define 'purposely refuses to work'. It's very easy to say 'get a job' when it's not you that has to do that. There are so many things that can impact on a person securing the right employment that fits around children and childcare. It is particularly important to realise that when you're dealing with someone who is parenting alone.

Presumably the mother is claiming benefits. As such, she is doing whatever she can to support her children - it might be via proxy but that might be the best she is able to do right now. You don't know. You're not walking in her shoes. And if she's claiming Universal Credit, she will be under increasing pressure to accept any job that comes along.

It might not be the best she can do though?

You're not walking in the NRPs shoes so by your logic you should entirely forgive your ex because he could be doing his very best.

It's one rule for one.....

@candlelightsatdawn I think it's because there's a base level of thought blended families are so hideous for the SC and DMs, that there's a expected you have to make up to the first family for the secondary families existence. you nailed it with this I think. Often also forgetting that when the 1st family were united the parents were in the earlier stages of their careers so of course the kids didn't have as much when they were little as the kids of the 2nd fact can have

I think it's because there's a base level of thought blended families are so hideous for the SC and DMs, that there's a expected you have to make up to the first family for the secondary families existence.

God yes. Its all down to guilt. Unnecessary guilt.

And if the secondary family is better off financially than the first it compounds this "social need to apologise" and this is placed at DH door but also sometimes placed on SMs door too.

Also very true. There seems to be an expectation that the DH creates financial parity across the two households, which is ridiculous. The ex didn't want to work, but I have a career, so immediately our household was better off. And I felt no shame about that.

There are so many things that can impact on a person securing the right employment that fits around children and childcare. It is particularly important to realise that when you're dealing with someone who is parenting alone.

That’s all well and good… except that the audience for this ‘poor RPs can’t he expected to take any financial responsibility’ argument is composed largely of:

• mothers who manage to work full time, juggle childcare arrangements, and all that stuff
• women who are or have years of experience of doing that as lone, resident parents (even with very young children).

Tbh, I look at women like my SC’s mother and I have no sympathy for her. She doesn’t want to work and she’s gone out of her way to avoid taking any financial responsibility for herself or her children. She jumped at the chance to give up work and intended never to do so again. The SC’s father couldn’t make her work (even if he thought she should) and she refused all offers of support with getting qualifications etc. Even after she knew she was getting divorced and would need to pay for her life.

It’s particularly hard to feel sorry for her in what I’m sure will be a struggle to find work she’s willing to do (as a woman who hasn’t worked for 9 years and has no qualifications beyond GCSEs) because I’m aware she could have made a million better choices in her life. I know this because I struggled through all sorts of things to get qualifications and build a career, as a young single mother with a small child. I moved far from any family support - and then moved again and again. I juggled babies and childcare and commutes.

I find myself a single parent to a baby again. Living somewhere with no family support within 3 hours. Having managed to change careers during maternity leave, in a pandemic. I get no benefits or support beyond child benefit and I manage to (have to!) work FT in a demanding role, pay for nursery for an infant, do all the family life tasks, and so on. I organised all of this on my own - despite the difficulties caused by a STBEH who wanted to make my children and I homeless (so he didn’t have the inconvenience of finding somewhere else to live) and other such things.

So I don’t feel bad for a woman with two school age children who gets £730 CM month, got over £100k in her divorce settlement, lives with her partner (who was the OM - since that’s the sort of thing all SMs get asked) who must be paying everything that CM and CB don’t cover, and claims it’s just too hard for her to work. Tells her children she’s far too busy to get a job.

I don’t think anyone should be generous with her. Frankly. I think it’s ridiculous that it’s not only socially acceptable for women like her to avoid taking financial responsibility for themselves or their children but people will actually defend them.

If fathers are to be judged by how much they provide financially, mothers should be too. Especially when nonresident fathers are treated as if they’re awful for only having EOW contact because they’re busy working all week to pay to support a woman who is choosing to take no financial responsibility for herself. And who would work to prevent him from doing 50% if the childcare stuff because then she’d get no maintenance.

None of this serves anyone well.

Also very true. There seems to be an expectation that the DH creates financial parity across the two households, which is ridiculous. The ex didn't want to work, but I have a career, so immediately our household was better off. And I felt no shame about that.

This happened here too.

Why should more money have been diverted from this household to the SC’s mother’s because of a disparity in quality of living arising purely because I had (have) a good job and assets?

Arguably, the SC were really lucky that they could have their own bedrooms here and holidays and all the things that can be described as ‘disparity in quality of living’. Neither of their parents was able to provide that (on their own anyway).

I suppose I don’t get this attitude of, the NRP should pay for the children and then as a result anyone the NRP chooses to enter into a relationship with, should then bear the cost of the NRP as they should be funding another household. It’s batshit.
All the “standard of living” rubbish drives me insane. My DH was permanently in debt as a result of DM spending what they didn’t have on credit cards etc and expecting him to pay it off, you had a dreadful standard of living, what you’re asking for is that you want a standard of living equal to the one DH had currently because he’s now living in a household where both occupants work full time.

@Sowhatifiam you’ve also assumed I meant the “struggling a primary cater” is purely as a result of financial issues. I don’t mean that at all.

@Sowhatifiam

Your ex is as wrong as the mother in this case then surely? Both are completely in the wrong not to contribute

My point there was to counteract the 'poor NRPs have it hard'. So do PWC.

if one parent purposely refuses to work at all or contribute anything financially to the children in any way

Define 'purposely refuses to work'. It's very easy to say 'get a job' when it's not you that has to do that. There are so many things that can impact on a person securing the right employment that fits around children and childcare. It is particularly important to realise that when you're dealing with someone who is parenting alone.

Presumably the mother is claiming benefits. As such, she is doing whatever she can to support her children - it might be via proxy but that might be the best she is able to do right now. You don't know. You're not walking in her shoes. And if she's claiming Universal Credit, she will be under increasing pressure to accept any job that comes along.

This isn't the case here though is it. OP has said it's close to 50/50 in terms of shared care so the mum has as much time as the dad to hold down a job. Would you be sympathetic if this dad was saying he couldn't work due to the 50/50?? I doubt it!

I just can't get my head around how anyone can defend a mum who refuses to work and pay towards her children even when she is not the primary carer. She does not have the children significantly more than their dad at all. But yet a man doing the same would be quite rightly called a deadbeat dad and a chancer.

The double standard purely due to sex is mad.

You're not walking in the NRPs shoes so by your logic you should entirely forgive your ex because he could be doing his very best

My ex earns a small fortune, his buisness accounts are very, very healthy (no major changes in revenue since we were together). He doesn’t have to worry about working and the demands of 3 children. He can go anywhere and do anything, safe in the knowledge that if he doesn’t do the school run when he says he will, they’ll phone me and I will have no choice but to deal with it. He is not doing his best by his children.

A PWC trying to find work after being out of work for some time, with considerations such as public transport travel times, childcare opening hours, meeting the requirements universal credit etc. is a very different kettle of fish. You can’t work shifts when there’s no overnight childcare, for example. Or weekends if there’s no childcare. You can’t get to an office by 9am if your children’s school is 40 minutes away by public transport, doesn’t open till 8:55, is a 10 minute walk from the bus stop and there are no spaces in breakfast club.

@Sowhatifiam But again, this isn't the case in OP's situation? Mum has the kids marginally more than dad here. Her hands are no more tied than his.

@Sowhatifiam
I see that you’re trying to make the point that the NRP shirks their responsibility and in your own case as the RP you are clearly left with the financial responsibility of sole provider as well as the physical responsibility. So yes, your ex quite clearly should be halving these responsibilities with you, or at least funding the children for the time you have them over your own half. I don’t think anyone is remotely disputing that your situation is unfair and I’m well aware that this happens in a large number of separated families.

So your ex is providing a small amount of care and a small amount of finances, which is unreasonable. What I’m saying in my situation is my DH is providing 95% of the funding and 60% (if not more) of the responsibility but crammed into 40% of the time. As he’s expected to do jobs that should be spilt and actually DM should do more of as she has the children for longer.

If fathers are to be judged by how much they provide financially, mothers should be too. Especially when nonresident fathers are treated as if they’re awful for only having EOW contact because they’re busy working all week to pay to support a woman who is choosing to take no financial responsibility for herself. And who would work to prevent him from doing 50% if the childcare stuff because then she’d get no maintenance.

Excellent point @BurntToastAgain When my DH was married to his ex, he was classed as a good provider (and therefore a good father) because he worked hard and made good money. When they split up, the ex wanted every penny she could screw out of him, and insisted on the most ridiculous visiting schedule, completely at odds with someone working in his industry, which (had he complied totally) would have really dented his income, and therefore his ability to pay maintenance. She wanted as much money as possible and wanted to use the visiting schedule as a stick to beat him with. People can't have it both ways. But you never seem to hear of a mother being slated for her lack of financial contribution. Strange.

@Coffeepot72

If fathers are to be judged by how much they provide financially, mothers should be too. Especially when nonresident fathers are treated as if they’re awful for only having EOW contact because they’re busy working all week to pay to support a woman who is choosing to take no financial responsibility for herself. And who would work to prevent him from doing 50% if the childcare stuff because then she’d get no maintenance.

Excellent point @BurntToastAgain When my DH was married to his ex, he was classed as a good provider (and therefore a good father) because he worked hard and made good money. When they split up, the ex wanted every penny she could screw out of him, and insisted on the most ridiculous visiting schedule, completely at odds with someone working in his industry, which (had he complied totally) would have really dented his income, and therefore his ability to pay maintenance. She wanted as much money as possible and wanted to use the visiting schedule as a stick to beat him with. People can't have it both ways. But you never seem to hear of a mother being slated for her lack of financial contribution. Strange.

And we have another instance of this. Despite no wrongdoing or safety concerns on the part of DH, his ex put obstacles in at every possible opportunity to afford him anything other than EOW. This was in spite of maternal grandparents living close to the family home, offering additional childcare + overnights whilst DH resided with them to support 50:50.

I've read through the divorce files and can only conclude that contact was restricted in order to maximise maintenance.

When you factor in tax credits,maintenance payments, a part time pro rata salary and child benefit we understand that her total income was more than his after he was paid and then deducted his maintenance. She also kept the larger share of the house equity.

That meant that every month let's say his income was £2500 and he paid £500 to her, then additional costs for mobile phones, allowance, school trips, uniform etc (all on him, not her) he was without question left with less money than her every month.

However she worked 2 days a week, refused to let him have anything other than 3 hours a week and two overnight stays a fortnight and continuously played the martyr and told the kids he was a bad man and "chose" not to pay them any more money. That's not something you can correct two pre teens on, you just have to change the subject.

In addition to this her lack of co-parenting has led to multiple point scoring and competitive issues which have left a knife firmly in his back for years.

That is why I unapologetically question some women's abuse of the maintenance system and whether maintenance covers everything that the children need. Her earning potential and the right setup with contact could have without question corrected a lot of the problems we've had

@Sowhatifiam

You're not walking in the NRPs shoes so by your logic you should entirely forgive your ex because he could be doing his very best

My ex earns a small fortune, his buisness accounts are very, very healthy (no major changes in revenue since we were together). He doesn’t have to worry about working and the demands of 3 children. He can go anywhere and do anything, safe in the knowledge that if he doesn’t do the school run when he says he will, they’ll phone me and I will have no choice but to deal with it. He is not doing his best by his children.

A PWC trying to find work after being out of work for some time, with considerations such as public transport travel times, childcare opening hours, meeting the requirements universal credit etc. is a very different kettle of fish. You can’t work shifts when there’s no overnight childcare, for example. Or weekends if there’s no childcare. You can’t get to an office by 9am if your children’s school is 40 minutes away by public transport, doesn’t open till 8:55, is a 10 minute walk from the bus stop and there are no spaces in breakfast club.

Yeah, both parents in this situation would have that issue. It's funny how one manages to work and the other doesn't.

Can you not accept that some women simply do not want to work?

As someone who has spent her adult life juggling childcare and public transport and all sorts so that I can support myself and my children (with a disability too), I just don’t understand why I should feel sympathetic towards people who genuinely just don’t want to work and will make any excuse not to.

People who are trying but struggling … absolutely. But people who are determined to use any excuse? Why are they more special than all the people around them who just find a way because they have to?