Advice needed - ex-husband being unreasonable about maintenance

Strapped

Seanymph wrote: »

But she's made clear he doesn't. So no one is the PWC.

They are two parents who BOTH have responsibility for THEIR children.

Only he gets to pick and choose, and she gets any time he doesn't want them.

If no-one is the PWC, why is the title of this thread "ex-husband being unreasonable about maintenance"?

As he's doing the school run every day at the moment, perhaps he should just get a bigger flat and be the primary carer, and the OP can pay him maintenance.

Seanymph

I guess that would be an option for them if they wanted it. But it sounds like he's happily moving on, moving away from his involvement in the day to day life of his children, trying to minimise his maintenance and playing happy families with the moralless !!!!! he had the affair with.

Now, where did I hear that before?

I know, just about every day when when women post on here because Dad's walk out on their families and chunter off into the sunset to set up a new one and neglect the one they've already got - oh, and my ex of course (not the affair, but the rest of it fits).

Which is why my advice, repeated by many women who I don't doubt share my experience was - reduce your reliance upon him, and get your children's maintenance set officially by the CSA.

duchy

Whoever is claiming the CB is the PWC -as the OP has stated she is happy to allow him the children over-night stays whenever he asks -by implication she is the PWC in the absence of any other evidence.

The OP and her husband split six months ago -so presumably he got a one bedroom flat because he felt it met his needs and had no interest in residency.

Not sure why strapped thinks anything has changed -except of course now he wants to pay LESS money to support his children. Good thing doing the school run doesn't confer PWC status though -when my son was small I'd have ended up with four kids instead of one !!!!

(Why do people respond to threads without actually READING them first ???????)

daska

Strapped wrote: »

If no-one is the PWC, why is the title of this thread "ex-husband being unreasonable about maintenance"?

As he's doing the school run every day at the moment, perhaps he should just get a bigger flat and be the primary carer, and the OP can pay him maintenance.

Presumably he doesn't want that? Just a guess but I'd have imagined that he'd have opted for a bigger flat and be dragging it through the Courts if he'd wanted residency and the OP hadn't agreed.

Sounds to me as if he just wants to have his cake and eat it - and not pay for it neither.

Bluemeanie_2

I say agree regular contact, whether that be alternate weekends, two weeknights, whatever you two can feel comfortable with.
Do not use him for childcare, he will never stop laying this on and will have a hold over you.
So I say agree proper, fair contact, arrange your own childcare (you may get tax credits to help you?) and then just use the SA calculator for the amount he should pay.
Be civil to his new bird and take the moral highground.

Good luck and all the best.

zzzLazyDaisy

Strapped wrote: »

If he pays maintenance through the CSA then the OP is the PWC (parent with care) so actually, it is her responsibility. I'm sure I'll get shot down in flames for saying that, as it's very unpalatable.

I agree with CH27.

OP has stated that he does not pay maintenance through CSA, and is in fact now threatening to stop all maintenance payments in return for him continuing to help her with child-care arrangements so that she can continue to work and support his children - effectively charging her for looking after his own children.

In any case, if OP is receiving the child benefits and child tax credits, she is the PWC, regardless of whether he is paying maintenance.

As the NRP he has legal (and moral) obligations towards his children, which includes providing financial support for them. His actions in seeking to stop all maintenance payments and effectively charging the mother of his children for dropping them off at school and picking them up, are frankly despicable (in my view). I'd cut him out of the child-care equation and tell him he must make alternative arrangements to see his children which don't involve him seeking to make a profit from them!

Strapped

Seanymph wrote: »

I guess that would be an option for them if they wanted it. But it sounds like he's happily moving on, moving away from his involvement in the day to day life of his children, trying to minimise his maintenance and playing happy families with the moralless !!!!! he had the affair with.

Now, where did I hear that before?

I know, just about every day when when women post on here because Dad's walk out on their families and chunter off into the sunset to set up a new one and neglect the one they've already got - oh, and my ex of course (not the affair, but the rest of it fits).

Which is why my advice, repeated by many women who I don't doubt share my experience was - reduce your reliance upon him, and get your children's maintenance set officially by the CSA.

Really? There are lots of bitter ex-wives on this board?

fluffnutter

duchy wrote: »

Really ? If I discovered my childminder was a slapper who chased after other women's husbands my opinion of them and their suitability to be around my kids would definitely change !

Whoa! Let's not go down that path! We don't know she's a 'slapper'. It takes two to have an affair and, let's face it, they happen all the time. Branding women as slappers who are unfit to look after children merely because they've had an affair is totally unmerited IMO.

By that token the ex-husband's 'suitability' to be around the kids is in question too isn't it? He had the affair as well.

Bluemeanie_2

Strapped wrote: »

Really? There are lots of bitter ex-wives on this board?

I have picked up on that, especially being the Wife of a NRP and a Stepmother. Doubled with the fact that I have chosen not to have children of my own (possibly yet), I am considered a second class citizen in some situations.

However I was not picking that vibe up from the OP. The Ex in this case sounds like he is using the fact he provides some childcare as a reason to evade his responsibilities.
That's why I say do everything "properly". Agree fixed contact days/overnights and maintenance. Then everyone knows where they stand.
The same way a "bitter ex-wife" should not use contact to cause hurt, a NRP should not be using childcare or money to cause hurt.

zzzLazyDaisy

Strapped wrote: »

Ha ha, you do know that the CSA calculation (on CSA1) includes an amount for the PWC equivalent to Carers Allowance, right?

This comment is totally irrelevant to this thread given that

1 OP is not receiving any payments through the CSA, and what she is receiving from her ex is less than the CSA calculation; and

2 If she does apply for CSA any award will be under CSA2 which is a straight forward % of the NRP's income and does not include any uplift in the form of 'carer's allowance'

OP does not come across to me as bitter.... but you do!