Please help - Now her 'incapactity benefits' have stopped she wants me to pay!

kelloggs36

I heard it every day, the same excuses for not paying - it was almost as if they had all joined a club and came up with a motto - I will not pay because: she spends it all on herself, so child gets none of said money (child clearly is starving and in rags, sleeping rough etc); has a new partner so why should I pay, when he can do it instead? Why should she have a better lifestyle than me?; I can't control where the money goes and so I won't pay. Same old, same old.

clearingout

I can almost cope with that - the idea that the PWC has a decent enough lifestyle and I don't so why should I pay? It must be very frustrating to be struggling and see your ex in a new car and a big house and then have to pay money to them. It must feel like you're subsidising them so I have some (not much!) empathy with this.

What I personally struggle with is the opposite scenario - I was left with three young children and had been a stay at home mum or part-time since my first child was born. My ex expected, on my one day a week salary at that time, that I took on all marital debt ('cos it was in my name - won't be making that mistake again!), a £1k a month mortgage, childcare costs from when I worked, all insurances related to both our properties (one of which he was living in), and all the usual household bills. Oh, and as I was pregnant, I was also supposed to do all that whilst I was also on maternity leave! He and his girlfriend, in their first 12 months together, took 3 foreign holidays, several weekends away abroad, had theatre breaks in London, went to a music festival, attended live music events, installed a hot tub in their back garden (or mine, depending on how you look at it!!!), had spa days etc. etc. etc. And that's what I know about - I dread to think what else there was. Oh, and she had a lovely full-time salary from our business and a company car to boot, as well as earning full-time in her 'proper' job. My ex had to be forced into paying the mortgage on both our properties via court order, and even then he didn't do it half the time (at the point it was sold, 19 months after separation, it was 9 months in arrears) and he made only one maintenance payment during that time (no irony it was immediately before we were due in court for a maintenance pending suit hearing, his argument for not giving me maintenance being that he had started paying maintenance and that should enough for me).

What, for him, is so difficult about supporting his children?

Oooooooohhhhh, sometimes feels good to have a rant!

Soubrette

clearingout wrote: »

I can almost cope with that - the idea that the PWC has a decent enough lifestyle and I don't so why should I pay? It must be very frustrating to be struggling and see your ex in a new car and a big house and then have to pay money to them. It must feel like you're subsidising them so I have some (not much!) empathy with this.

What I personally struggle with is the opposite scenario - I was left with three young children and had been a stay at home mum or part-time since my first child was born. My ex expected, on my one day a week salary at that time, that I took on all marital debt ('cos it was in my name - won't be making that mistake again!), a £1k a month mortgage, childcare costs from when I worked, all insurances related to both our properties (one of which he was living in), and all the usual household bills. Oh, and as I was pregnant, I was also supposed to do all that whilst I was also on maternity leave! He and his girlfriend, in their first 12 months together, took 3 foreign holidays, several weekends away abroad, had theatre breaks in London, went to a music festival, attended live music events, installed a hot tub in their back garden (or mine, depending on how you look at it!!!), had spa days etc. etc. etc. And that's what I know about - I dread to think what else there was. Oh, and she had a lovely full-time salary from our business and a company car to boot, as well as earning full-time in her 'proper' job. My ex had to be forced into paying the mortgage on both our properties via court order, and even then he didn't do it half the time (at the point it was sold, 19 months after separation, it was 9 months in arrears) and he made only one maintenance payment during that time (no irony it was immediately before we were due in court for a maintenance pending suit hearing, his argument for not giving me maintenance being that he had started paying maintenance and that should enough for me).

What, for him, is so difficult about supporting his children?

Oooooooohhhhh, sometimes feels good to have a rant!

I think both parents should support their children, often a PWC will have money because there is a partner involved who either goes to work or provides free child care - how can it ever be right that the PWCP is expected to provide so much more than the NRP?

That said, if the NRP loses their job then I wouldn't expect a massive contribution financially - same as if the two parents were still together, but they could try and offer more of their time.

On a more personal note - I hope everything works out for you, it sounds tough at the moment.

ohdamnit

I think both parents should support their children, often a PWC will have money because there is a partner involved who either goes to work or provides free child care - how can it ever be right that the PWCP is expected to provide so much more than the NRP?

Not sure I understand this point at all Soubrette?

The NRP will provide based on a % of their income, or by an agreement? If the NWCP is on significantly more money than the NRP, they of course have more available income than the NRP?

OR conversely if the NRP is on 75k a year and the PWC is on £12k per year, should the NRP only contribute the equivalent of what the PWC is contributing financially?

Maybe I have misunderstood the point you were making, as usually you make some good points? Or maybe you are suggesting that because PWCP pays for house and bills they are making more of a contribution to your child than NRP does?


I am unemployed and my ex expects me to keep up pre-employment pay, taking it out of NRPPs savings, started getting narked when I have refused, and talked about reducing access.

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

I can almost cope with that - the idea that the PWC has a decent enough lifestyle and I don't so why should I pay? It must be very frustrating to be struggling and see your ex in a new car and a big house and then have to pay money to them. It must feel like you're subsidising them so I have some (not much!) empathy with this.

Before my children were born, I worked full-time, after they were born, I continued to do so. My ex worked full-time too miles away, so the childcare before and after work was all down to me. During that time, he used to go out after work in the evenings and not come back until 11pm often. Before we met, he had some debts, but unfortunately, it only got worse afterwards. I tried everything to reduce it (we used to pay 50/50 on all bills), but for one card I cut, he took another loan. When we separated, I had no choice but to continue to work full-time to pay the mortgage. He only had the kids for a couple of hours on saturday, he didn't want them overnight. I had no life, worked like a mad person, looked after the kids making sure I stood to my principles and discipline and only lived for the moment I could go to sleep. My ex was made redundant, but still he continued to spend, going out, having fun with his new girlfriend. He went from one job to another, refuse to face reality in regards to his mounting debts.

Life does pay off at some point and my salary has gone nicely up over the last 10 years. He, on the other hand is struggling to get a decent job again. He has started working again, but not bringing in as much as he used to. His girfriend has never worked more than 15 hours and claimed IS all the time she was a single mum. They then decided to have another child.

I think I deserve to enjoy some of my money for myself rather than spending it all on my children because their dad is contributing nothing and his money is spent instead on children who are not his. It doesn't matter than my lifestyle is better than his, he still has kids to contribute towards and if he messed up his life with debts and is now envious of my life, it is irrelevant. Having a comfortable lifestyle doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about your bank balance, make choices to avoid overspending and make sacrifices.

Soubrette

ohdamnit wrote: »

Not sure I understand this point at all Soubrette?

The NRP will provide based on a % of their income, or by an agreement? If the NWCP is on significantly more money than the NRP, they of course have more available income than the NRP?

OR conversely if the NRP is on 75k a year and the PWC is on £12k per year, should the NRP only contribute the equivalent of what the PWC is contributing financially?

Maybe I have misunderstood the point you were making, as usually you make some good points? Or maybe you are suggesting that because PWCP pays for house and bills they are making more of a contribution to your child than NRP does?


I am unemployed and my ex expects me to keep up pre-employment pay, taking it out of NRPPs savings, started getting narked when I have refused, and talked about reducing access.

Thanks for the compliment

What I mean is that both parents should pay into the pot of supporting their children, a percentage for the NRP isn't ideal but is probably the best of a bad job.

In your example, even if you were still with the other parent, then your financial contribution to the household would reduce so even when separate, not as much (and in some situation perhaps even nothing) should be expected by the PWC imo.

However if an NRP or PWC is lucky enough to have a relationship with a wealthy person, that doesn't absolve the other parent from paying their share. It should not be the responsibility of a partner to pay for someone else's children although I appreciate and applaud those that do pay and of course it is harder for a PWCP to not pay if their income is larger than the PWC - household income likely being larger.

In fact imo nothing should absolve the parent from paying the share they would have done if they were together, this at times may be very little or quite a lot. It would be nice if access could also be more flexible - at times of unemployment some NRPs might want to use that time to see more of their children whereas once employed they might not able to - unfortunately the child maintenance issues make this impractical

ohdamnit

Ok think I understand now, i agree that the nrp should pay the amount they would have paid towards children they would have while together. I am not sure the percentage figure is right but I can see it easiest to manage. I think I have been fairly vociferous onhear with any nrp looking to not pay for some reason.

Also think there are some poor parts to the calculation, ie making it a positive thing for the PWC to deny access by "rewarding" them more money through csa for not giving an nrp fair access. Also the access issues should be dealt with by the CSa IMO, instead of forcing nrp to fight through long protracted court procedures.