

To think I shouldn't be paying maintenance as well as DH?

(469 Posts)
Mumoftwo88 Fri 26-Apr-13 21:31:22

My DH has a daughter with his exW aged 8 and we have two children together aged 2 and 4. His exW claims maintenance from him and he pays it every month without fail at £250.00. She has recently just become unemployed and whilst I sympathise with her I cannot understand why she is now claiming that he should be paying more and if needs be it should be paid through my earnings. (Her words)

She seems to think that because our household has two incomes coming in then we are wadded. We're not. From my earnings I have the mortgage to pay, bills to pay for this household, a food shop to pay for, a car to run, and 3 children to provide for, including DSD when she stays here.

And I have a family holiday to pay for. I'd like to think we can have some luxuries without some woman trying to screw money out of me just because I happen to be the partner of her exH.

Now don't get me wrong I know it is important that DSD is provided for, but that is where my DH's maintenance payments come in and I make sure she is ok when she is here. At the end of the day I'm not some meal ticket to this woman.


Loulybelle Sun 28-Apr-13 00:57:13

My BIL has to make up the shortfall for his stepson because his stupid feckless dad only has to pay £5 a week, my BIL would never begrudge doing so because his stepson is apart of his beloved wife.

Xenia Sun 28-Apr-13 09:05:39

What comes out of the thread is so many women earn virtually nothing and expect men to pay, either the father or the new man. If women picked high paid careers and never gave up work they would not have these issues (in fact I think my money from the divorce has paid another man's child's school fees or so I heard). We need to get the message out to teenage girls- pick high paid careers, never give up full time work, out earn men.

fedupofnamechanging Sun 28-Apr-13 09:24:38

Xenia it is right that women should be able to support themselves, but it shouldn't be because men can't be relied upon to be responsible for their own children. The problem with our society is that men are allowed to leave families, have more kids with other women and not support either family properly.

allnewtaketwo Sun 28-Apr-13 09:50:33

Yet that has nothing to do with this this thread, whereby the father is supporting the children hmm and the ex did have a job but has lost it

morethanpotatoprints Sun 28-Apr-13 16:32:54


I'm teaching my dd to make sure what she does in life makes her happy. You are a long time working and no job/career you hate is worth any amout of money you may earn.

I agree that women should be able to support their families or at least have the opportunity to do so if they wish. This however, doesn't help this situation as the mother has lost her job.

LadyBeagleEyes Sun 28-Apr-13 16:36:04

Oh change the record Xenia.
You're totally missin the whole gist of the thread as usual, to repeat the same old, same old.

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 16:46:00

Not entirely relevant to the topic but in a way I agree with Xenia, I think it's incredibly important for RPs to, as far as is humanly possible, not rely on maintenance to cover normal household expenses. There's just too much that could go wrong.

crashdoll Sun 28-Apr-13 16:53:35


Why not? The NRP should be paying for half his children's household expenses. If there are 2 children, the RP's property will be not only for RP's needs but for the children's needs too. Not everyone can afford this!

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 17:46:33

Because, the sad fact is, that some NRPs eventually begin to resent paying maintenance and look for ways to get out of it. The systems in place to ensure NRPs pay the appropriate maintenance are notoriously open to fraud/refusal to pay and if this occurs and the RP is relying on maintenance to pay normal household bills they can find themselves in a very tenuous position. It's not the way it should be but it is a distinct possibility given the procedures in place at the minute.

jacks365 Sun 28-Apr-13 19:05:19

The op has never said the amount paid was the amount that would be assessed by the csa. It may well be that if they dealt with it he'd have to pay £500 we don't know. We don't know how the conversation went for all we know the exw agreed a lower amount because she didn't need it but now does and would like what she's entitled to for all we know dad said sorry too many commitments and exw said well your new wife can pick up the slack.

I'm not saying this happened just that we don't know and far too many assumptions have been made without fact.

No op you should not have to pay but if your dh isn't paying what he should then you will have to reconsider your family budget

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 28-Apr-13 19:26:05


So why not target that system then rather than saying the rp should account for the other parent being a giant knobber.

Make it harder to piss arse about with funding your children make it socially unacceptable put the blame on the nrp's who do it.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:38:32

Agree with Sock - it should be not only socially unacceptable but should be a crime to not support your child CSA should be given some bloody funding and teeth . Then support payments should be counted against tax credits and underwritten by the gov if the nrp fails to pay. So f the NRP doesn't pay it should become a debt against the state like tax. Its neglect pure and simple and should be recognised as such. It the RP left the child nacked and not fed on door step of a random tax payer they would be charged with neglect, so why not feckless parents who do the same in a monetary way.
Xenia idea is great if there were all these high paying, recession proof jobs around for women - or should only ultra brightish if blinkered entrepreneurs be allowed to procreate?

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 19:43:33

I complete agree I think the system should be overhauled but I also think that until it is RPs should be wary of relying on regular maintenance when determining their household budgets.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:47:51

So Brutha - no one should ever become a sahm/f?

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 19:48:47

<<< now twitching to name change but can never think of anything DW but funny>>

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 19:52:52

Huh? I think depending on your partner to pay the bills while you are in a loving commited relationship so that you can be a SAHP is different from depending on a potentially feckless NRP to maintain his or her responsibilities to the children. But to be honest I think it would be foolish for one parent in a rocky relationship, particularly one in which they're unmarried, to give up their career to become a SAHP.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 28-Apr-13 19:57:19

Great post olgaga.

raspberryroop Sun 28-Apr-13 20:00:45

Personally think its best not to have children if you are in a rocky or with a potentially feckless partner but having read so many threads on relationships I think while its sometimes obvious your with a looser. it can really come out of the blue.

BruthasTortoise Sun 28-Apr-13 20:09:58

I agree raspberry and to be my honest I'm only really speaking from personal experience. My DH receives about £150 per month maintenance through the CSA for his DSs, it took years for any payments to start, every trick in the book was played, quitting jobs, moving house, making a single payment then stopping. The payments have now been stable for the past 18 months as DoE was attached and the money is folded into the household spending. However we don't include this money in any long term budget considerations because it could stop at any minute. I also know that although the money is used at present, we could manage without it if we had to.

skippedtheripeoldmango Mon 29-Apr-13 10:40:55

Olgaga...I could kiss you right now!!! Fantastic post.

niceguy2 Mon 29-Apr-13 12:10:53

Why not?

For two reasons:

1) You are relying on your ex to pony up cash regularly and if he doesn't for whatever reason you are fucked. That could be cos he's a tossbag but also cos he may lose his job or something.
2) You give your ex a huge lever to control you. Don't do what he likes? He'll delay his maintenance, reduce it or not pay it.

Is it right? Of course not. But the thing I learned over the years as a single parent is that you don't have the luxury of doing what is right. You have to do what you can.

It's all well & good saying that "Oh the NRP should do this...or that...". It's the principle of the matter...except principles don't feed your kids.

olgaga Mon 29-Apr-13 15:18:57

Ooh thanks skipped, makes a nice change - feel free! grin

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 29-Apr-13 15:55:19


I agree with you that that it how it is, but its not right and it never should be.

KellyElly Mon 29-Apr-13 16:13:57

At the end of the day it's about ensuring that a child doesn't go without. Any CSA calculations, shit with ex-partners etc are irrelevant really. If this child is going to not have the basics covered because of her mother's circumstances, then it's up to you and your DH as a family to ensure this doesn't happen. She is part of your family. You are her step mother. You wouldn't want your own children in this situation. She's done nothing to cause it.

anklebitersmum Mon 29-Apr-13 16:38:10

At what point does the RP losing her job become the NRP's issue? hmm

If the RP was making cash hand over fist should she be expected to say "Hey NRPex, I know you're struggling at the moment and I don't actually need the support right now so have a break until you're financially more able"? Should she hell I hear you scream-so why should visa versa apply?

If she can't cope right now then the right thing to do is allow NRP to be RP until she's financially able to cope again. <apply body armour..>

Join the discussion

Join the discussion


Register now