Advice needed - ex-husband being unreasonable about maintenance

ABC_123

DylanO wrote: »

If he has the children every weekday before and after school, then he can hardly be not involved in his children's lives.

Why is her career more important than his? The OP receives maintenance and generous benefits for her children, and has no childcare costs to the detriment of her ex-husband's career.

I did not say my career is more important, but he is working from home and it is not an option for me. I need to keep paying the mortgage and keep a roof over children's heads.

fannyanna

daska wrote: »

Maybe you're right and maintenance is exclusively to pay the PWC. God forbid a penny of it ever gets spent on the extra bedrooms, clothes, shoes, food, heating etc.

Just to caveat that what I say next is not in relation to OP's case. As I have already said this man is clearly taking the P. The comments now being made are about maintenance more generally so my comment is also about maintenance generally.

Of course that's what it is for. And it is therefore right that an NRP pays less maintenance where they also share some of the care. They too incur the costs outlined above. So I stand by my statement that you are in fact paying the other parent to care for the child(ren). Maybe it's just semantics.

fannyanna

ABC_123 wrote: »

I did not say my career is more important, but he is working from home and it is not an option for me. I need to keep paying the mortgage and keep a roof over children's heads.

OP - I don't really think that comment was aimed at you. I think the majority of people would agree that you're being reasonable.

I think comments are flying about aimed at other posters as with subjects such as this you normally get a division of the PWC camp and the NRP camp and then a few who see it from both points of view. No-one's right or wrong (well some people are lol) but it's a subject that most people have very strong opinions on.

Short response - don't take to heart comments that people post

Bluemeanie_2

daska wrote: »

Maybe you're right and maintenance is exclusively to pay the PWC. God forbid a penny of it ever gets spent on the extra bedrooms, clothes, shoes, food, heating etc.

Legally it's a rather grey area because maintenance is based on the absent parent's income rather than the child's needs so strictly it isn't maintenance but more a form of tax.

This is where particular individuals, depending on their circumstances can have unbalanced views I believe. Take my Husband's situation for example.

By virtue of having the children (1 boy, 1 girl) 2 nights a week, we also have to maintain and run a 3 bed house. We can't have a one bed flat with considerably less outgoings.
His ex also has a 3 bed house, but has gone on to have another 2 children and crams them in, so per head, technically her running costs are less than ours. Therefore in our case I do not think it is fair for any of the CM Hubby pays to contribute towards their house, they would have a 3 bed anyway, whether his kids lived there or not.
Then, we get credit from the CSA for having them 2 nights a week, and every single Sat they either go to her Mums, or Hubby's Mum. In fact Hubby's Mum has them from 10am Sat morning until 5pm on the Sunday when Hubby picks them up.
So for the 4 nights a week she actually has the kids she get FULL tax credits, ALL the CB and the CM. If you work it out per day it adds up to over £10 each day per child, that's without the fact that she should maybe pay something towards their food and clothes since they are her kids too.
The two days we have them we buy all their clothes, shoes, school uniform, toys etc. (I'm not saying we shouldn't by the way, merely pointing it out). But yet we do not receive any of the state help she gets.

But in her eyes, he is a waste of space who does not pay for his kids. She regularly sends abusive texts demanding more money and being spiteful. This was even before when he was overpaying CM by £60 a month until someone told him about the CSA online calculator so he put the figures in and reduced it accordingly.
Then she went to the CSA as she was even more unhappy and he was underpaying by 43p a week (not deliberately the online calculator was not exact).
We decided he was going to get the abuse no matter how much he paid, so he may as well pay the minimum and then we can decide what to spend the money on. We regularly take them on days out, holidays etc.

I think the only reason she does not use contact as a weapon is now she has another 3 year old and a newborn, 3 mornings a week, without another 2 children to look after/get ready must be quite nice.

Every situation will be complicated and not straight forward, and everyone will have their own opinion and take on a situation.

That's why I say in the OP's case, fix regular contact and maintenance accordingly. Entangling complicated situations with childcare etc are only going to make it worse. I say keep it simple?

daska

rrf494g wrote: »

what is best for the children you had together ?

I'm sure it's easy and tempting to dwell on the questions of what is right and fair for you, or your ex - but - it's now really a question of what is best for the children.

My advice would be to try to get the discussion onto a mutual agreement that that is the first question. Then you might be able to arrive at what you both see as best for your children. You both have had your try at what what was best for you two and, sadly, it hasn't worked out well. Your children have not caused the situation.

Good Luck.

Ooo that's a tough one that people often get bogged down by...

Simple answer is that what is best for the children is their parents being happy and unstressed.

Problem is that all too often the parents aren't able to find that happy point due to one parent to taking the P out of the other and the other parent biting back.

Bluemeanie_2

daska wrote: »

Ooo that's a tough one that people often get bogged down by...

Simple answer is that what is best for the children is their parents being happy and unstressed.

Problem is that all too often the parents aren't able to find that happy point due to one parent to taking the P out of the other and the other parent biting back.

Very true!

daska

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Every situation will be complicated and not straight forward, and everyone will have their own opinion and take on a situation.

That's why I say in the OP's case, fix regular contact and maintenance accordingly. Entangling complicated situations with childcare etc are only going to make it worse. I say keep it simple?

Agree 100%. The abuse I got when DS1's dad discovered that I didn't spend every single penny of the maintenance he paid on private school fees was unbelievable. He really, seriously, wanted to only pay the school fees for the school he wanted DS1 to go to, didn't want to contribute an extra penny, not even for the uniform let alone food or shoes or a roof over his head.

Simplicity is the way to go.

fannyanna

daska wrote: »

Agree 100%. The abuse I got when DS1's dad discovered that I didn't spend every single penny of the maintenance he paid on private school fees was unbelievable. He really, seriously, wanted to only pay the school fees for the school he wanted DS1 to go to, didn't want to contribute an extra penny, not even for the uniform let alone food or shoes or a roof over his head.

Simplicity is the way to go.

I think the trouble of child maintenance stems from ignorance on the part of the NRP (and I'm normally camp NRP).

In the majority of cases the NRP is the Father. I think in a lot of cases they are ignorant to the costs involved in raising a child. In your typical relationship it is the Mother who does the majority of childcare and looks after the childs wellbeing. The Mother knows how much things cost but I would question whether the Father has this same information.

You then get to the point where the relationship has broken down. The Father doesn't have that much of an idea about the costs associated with raising a child and simply believes that the money is funding the Mothers lifestyle (as it is a top up to the generous benefits she must be on now that she is a lone parent).

As a childless NRPP I used to think "blimey PWC's have got it easy with all this money that they get from us" but having read many posts on this website about maintenance I now appreciate that simply isn't the case.

Now of course there are PWC's who have it easy, there are NRP's that aren't clueless and completely get it but I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of NRP's that fall into the above generalisation. Add some bitter feelings between the PWC and NRP and you have chaos.

duchy

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

In this case -had I been using this particular childminder and discovered they were conducting an affair with the married parent of one of their charges whilst supposed to be looking kids (theirs or mine)-which is fair to assume this is how she met the OPs ex especially as he works from home) I'd consider her completely unsuitable as a childminder never mind a human being and would have sacked her on the spot. I don't want my kids to be around people like that and I certainly wouldn't pay for them to be.

And yes I do regard someone who behaves like that as a slapper-Yes it takes two to tango but it takes only one to say no. That's without any mention of professional standards expected by anyone working in any business-You don't sleep with the customers -especially the married ones -as when their spouses find out you lose the business !!

Bluemeanie_2

fannyanna wrote: »

I think the trouble of child maintenance stems from ignorance on the part of the NRP (and I'm normally camp NRP).

In the majority of cases the NRP is the Father. I think in a lot of cases they are ignorant to the costs involved in raising a child. In your typical relationship it is the Mother who does the majority of childcare and looks after the childs wellbeing. The Mother knows how much things cost but I would question whether the Father has this same information.

You then get to the point where the relationship has broken down. The Father doesn't have that much of an idea about the costs associated with raising a child and simply believes that the money is funding the Mothers lifestyle (as it is a top up to the generous benefits she must be on now that she is a lone parent).

As a childless NRPP I used to think "blimey PWC's have got it easy with all this money that they get from us" but having read many posts on this website about maintenance I now appreciate that simply isn't the case.

Now of course there are PWC's who have it easy, there are NRP's that aren't clueless and completely get it but I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of NRP's that fall into the above generalisation. Add some bitter feelings between the PWC and NRP and you have chaos.

Very well worded. That's why again I say keep it simple. He pays the set % from his take home pay and has fixed days/nights what have to see his kids. No complicated arrangements and seeing it as "childcare" etc.

Then the PWC can keep their nose out of his business, and the NRP can keep his nose out of her business.