Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

emsywoo123

Thirtysix wrote: »

We met and it was a "I can't afford to contribute any more" from him."She will have to move schools and I am sure there are some that are OK around here,she will be fine and get over it".....

When I asked how much HE could contribute,the answer was "nothing due to work (or lack of) and I would rather spend what I do have taking her away twice a year"..............

Well he sounds wonderful :eek:

zcrat41

What a lovely chap!
Surely he has to contribute to the basics?

good luck keeping your daughter in private education - personally I'd move heaven and earth to maintain that status quo. I think the Jesuit saying "give me the child until he is 7 and I'll show you the man" is often quite apt.

Carl31

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Well he sounds wonderful :eek:

2 sides to every story

OP, would you be as angry if he had married someone that was poor and he wasn't able to contribute to your daughters schooling? To be honest, if the answer is 'no', you might need to ask yourself a few questions

Person_one

Princess_kate wrote: »

Would you really want another woman paying for your child tho? Its not his money its her's, which she, i presume, has earned due to her own hard wok, why would she be expected to pay for you child & why would you want her to?

I can see why the OP is upset.

I'm a firm believer that if you marry someone who already has children you have to accept those children becoming a part of your family with all that entails. There's no way I could live with myself if I was earning 100K plus, jetting off on multiple holidays while my husband's child wasn't receiving a penny.

If they're married, they're a unit, a family, and even though the child is only biologically related to the husband she is now an extension of their unit and they have a responsibility to care for her.

If the child lived with them would it be ok for the wife (her stepmum) to refuse to spend any of her earnings on her care? Even if the husband earned nothing?

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

I can see why the OP is upset.

I'm a firm believer that if you marry someone who already has children you have to accept those children becoming a part of your family with all that entails. There's no way I could live with myself if I was earning 100K plus, jetting off on multiple holidays while my husband's child wasn't receiving a penny.

If they're married, they're a unit, a family, and even though the child is only biologically related to the husband she is now an extension of their unit and they have a responsibility to care for her.

If the child lived with them would it be ok for the wife (her stepmum) to refuse to spend any of her earnings on her care? Even if the husband earned nothing?

Ok, it's easy to sit outside and say that, thing is , you are not earning £100K and you are not in the situation of the OP's ex's new partner. As Carl rightly pointed out, if the tables were turned many (including you) would be barking differently, are you going to work hard and pick up everybody else's tabs? No! and so why should anybody else? Children are important yes, but life does not have to totally stop.

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

Ok, it's easy to sit outside and say that, thing is , you are not earning £100K and you are not in the situation of the OP's ex's new partner. As Carl rightly pointed out, if the tables were turned many (including you) would be barking differently, are you going to work hard and pick up everybody else's tabs? No! and so why should anybody else? Children are important yes, but life does not have to totally stop.

Its even easier to dismiss somebody's opinion because they aren't in the exact same position. Funnily enough, some of us know ourselves well, not everybody is selfish and disregards their principles as soon as they have to put them into practice.

Its simple really, if you marry a man with children you have to accept the whole package and accept that you now have some level of responsibility for those children, whether they live with you or not.

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

Its even easier to dismiss somebody's opinion because they aren't in the exact same position. Funnily enough, some of us know ourselves well, not everybody is selfish and disregards their principles as soon as they have to put them into practice.

Its simple really, if you marry a man with children you have to accept the whole package and accept that you now have some level of responsibility for those children, whether they live with you or not.

I have not dismissed your opinion, it is just that you know it is not correct, depends on what you call a principle?
If you are so worried about children, then perhaps you would like to re-imburse my monthly child support contributions? I know you will decline as that is putting you in a similar position to that what you expect of the OP's ex's partner (other than without the realtionship) . The package above is that he is no longer with the child's Mum and hence is limited with what 'baggage' he brings into a new relationship.
Your theory on if you marry a man blah blah...
is no different to saying to some school children " you cannot participate in school club/events because your Mum and Dad don't live together"
Not a great example but you get the idea, I hear you idea but it obviously has many great flaws, adults don't just have a relationship for family sake, or for sex both are just part of the 'deal'.

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

I have not dismissed your opinion, it is just that you know it is not correct, depends on what you call a principle?
If you are so worried about children, then perhaps you would like to re-imburse my monthly child support contributions? I know you will decline as that is putting you in a similar position to that what you expect of the OP's ex's partner (other than without the realtionship) . The package above is that he is no longer with the child's Mum and hence is limited with what 'baggage' he brings into a new relationship.
Your theory on if you marry a man blah blah...
is no different to saying to some school children " you cannot participate in school club/events because your Mum and Dad don't live together"
Not a great example but you get the idea, I hear you idea but it obviously has many great flaws, adults don't just have a relationship for family sake, or for sex both are just part of the 'deal'.

Oh dear, go back to bed and have a couple of hours more sleep.

princessdreamer

I've found a trend in avoiding CSA by men who leave there family to move in with another woman who has children, the man then sits at home watching her children while the woman works and the first family gets nothing. Nice way to cheat the system.

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

Oh dear, go back to bed and have a couple of hours more sleep.

Yes you do that
Telling an OP what they want to hear rather than what is realistic and practical is not being helpful really is it, obviously the status quo is that the ex and her partner do not agree with your concept and already demonstrate that, whatever you post on this thread is not going to change that is it?
His new wife earns £100k for herself and whatever she wishes to choose, and they may not include looking after her partners children.