Who is right, ex or new partner?

[Sheets Tabuer]

Driver101 said:

Will the new partner insist that all things like clothes and additional living expenses come from the CSA equivalent budget?

My ex was like that, if my daughter needed shoes she'd go mental if I bought them saying that what you give her money for!

[Driver101]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Driver101 said:

Will the new partner insist that all things like clothes and additional living expenses come from the CSA equivalent budget?

My ex was like that, if my daughter needed shoes she'd go mental if I bought them saying that what you give her money for!

I've had it in the past too with an ex. It almost seemed personal when I gave additional money above what maintenance I paid.

Strangely she also worked with double standards. She had a child with her ex husband and had a good maintenance package. He was always generous to his daughter and more than paid his share. It was all the designer gear, latest Apple products and fancy holidays.

She knew she couldn't afford the things he was paying for and didn't have any issues when he did. She often asked for assistance for bigger things, but had issues when the same happened on my side. I was never able to win that argument.

[CubanPete]

ellroy said:

As a divorced chap who paid, in my opinion more than my fair share of maintenance, i think you need to contextualise the cost vs benefit of a good longer term relationship with your daughter. Her Mum may, or may not, be the one who can make or break that. What price would you put on that future relationship?

My son was worth every penny.

Wise wise words. The ex sounds like she has her head screwed on and is worth keeping on side.

[Julian Thompson]

If you imagine a scenario where the mother has the child 4 days and the father has the child 3 days then the living expenses are already split in that ratio, leaving the father to pay his maintenance so that the mother can go and buy shoes, clothes and book school trips, lunches, treats and holidays.

If father went out and bought shoes how would mother react to a request for some contribution? Would she say “oh anything for the kids yes of course” - no - she would tell father where to get off.

That’s where many are, in my opinion, getting it wrong. I pay slightly more than the CSA level and I’m a relatively high earner and so my ex wife gets hundreds of pounds a month to fund our son beyond the 3 days a week I have him and therefore cover his costs anyway. I’m not interested in paying any further money so either she can upgrade from her Rolex to a Patek or so that my nine year old can be further spoiled and only want branded trainers which he hasn’t earned yet and doesn’t understand the value of.

As far as my ex wife is concerned I am a terrible man, terrible father and a skin flint who doesn’t pay enough.

I have a friend who earns similar but has three kids. He pays the CSA money which amounts to a simply colossal sum because there are 3 of them and then he tops up further with mobile phones, school clothes, school trips, gym memberships and other expenses. He did recently turn down the opportunity to pay for his ex wife and new partner’s car insurance but other than that he’s on the end of a text pretty much EVERY day and is a veritable cash cow.

As far as his ex wife is concerned he is a terrible man, a terrible father and a skin flint who doesn’t pay enough.

.....hmmm

[theboss]

Julian Thompson said:

If you imagine a scenario where the mother has the child 4 days and the father has the child 3 days then the living expenses are already split in that ratio, leaving the father to pay his maintenance so that the mother can go and buy shoes, clothes and book school trips, lunches, treats and holidays.

If father went out and bought shoes how would mother react to a request for some contribution? Would she say “oh anything for the kids yes of course” - no - she would tell father where to get off.

That’s where many are, in my opinion, getting it wrong. I pay slightly more than the CSA level and I’m a relatively high earner and so my ex wife gets hundreds of pounds a month to fund our son beyond the 3 days a week I have him and therefore cover his costs anyway. I’m not interested in paying any further money so either she can upgrade from her Rolex to a Patek or so that my nine year old can be further spoiled and only want branded trainers which he hasn’t earned yet and doesn’t understand the value of.

As far as my ex wife is concerned I am a terrible man, terrible father and a skin flint who doesn’t pay enough.

I have a friend who earns similar but has three kids. He pays the CSA money which amounts to a simply colossal sum because there are 3 of them and then he tops up further with mobile phones, school clothes, school trips, gym memberships and other expenses. He did recently turn down the opportunity to pay for his ex wife and new partner’s car insurance but other than that he’s on the end of a text pretty much EVERY day and is a veritable cash cow.

As far as his ex wife is concerned he is a terrible man, a terrible father and a skin flint who doesn’t pay enough.

.....hmmm

Exactly the same situation I alluded to above.

What makes it even more galling in my case is the sheer hypocrisy in that her beloved partner, the same guy she broke the family to jump with after a long term affair, doesn't pay a penny for his kids. I know this because his ex sends me photos of the CMS correspondence citing his nil income. I suspect he runs his business income through limited cos in other names. He drives around in a new leased Discovery, takes my ex on holiday umpteen times a year and can pay her legal fees when she feels like squeezing me for more.

The latest is an attempt on their part to curtail my contact in order to push the CMS calculation even further in their favour.

[Julian Thompson]

I bet his ex thinks he's a terrible man, a terrible father and a skin flint that doesn't pay enough?

I'm really not concerned by any of it. When my son is a man, he'll be able to understand that feeding greed wouldn't have benefited him as a kid. On the other hand, I will be able to afford to help him buy his first house. Which is, to me, more important than pandering to a bitter individual or trying unsuccessfully to be "popular" for paying "overs".

If this is all about what's fair then what would these women say if the CSA all of a sudden put the amount up to 60% of your income? Would they say "Don't pay me that - its too much and our son doesn't cost that much. You won't be able to afford to live yourself." - I think not...

[theboss]

Yes his ex does think that, but rightly. The man pays absolutely nothing whilst earning £100k or more and completely gaming the system. I'm a Limited Co contractor too but all my income is declared on SA and the CMS are rightly taking dividends into account.

Personally I think there should be a statutory maximum.

If you're paying 20% of net and facing one of the ~65% marginal tax bands then there is literally no point in getting a rise or taking on extra work.

Get clever, bung a load in your pension instead and the ex can simply apply for a variation citing diversion of income.

I'm facing a situation now where I may fail in my ambition to privately educate my youngest in several years time. Her mother doesn't care - there's no way she will sacrifice any of the money I provide to contribute towards school fees and I simply can't pay both. If I increase my income I'm in tax hell. I'm also paying the costs associated with running the former family home because I desperately want to still be able to have the children and provide a home environment for them.

All I can really do is maintain my relationship with the children and try for 50/50 in the future, which if achieved might restore the balance.

[TooMany2cvs]

80sMatchbox said:

Sa Calobra said:

OP won't reply. He's got his answer and has left the topic

He knew all along, just wanted confirmation on here.

He left himself logged in to PH, and she found the thread... He's not been seen since, but it's a very nice new patio she had installed on Friday.

[Driver101]

Julian Thompson said:

I bet his ex thinks he's a terrible man, a terrible father and a skin flint that doesn't pay enough?

I'm really not concerned by any of it. When my son is a man, he'll be able to understand that feeding greed wouldn't have benefited him as a kid. On the other hand, I will be able to afford to help him buy his first house. Which is, to me, more important than pandering to a bitter individual or trying unsuccessfully to be "popular" for paying "overs".

If this is all about what's fair then what would these women say if the CSA all of a sudden put the amount up to 60% of your income? Would they say "Don't pay me that - its too much and our son doesn't cost that much. You won't be able to afford to live yourself." - I think not...

I think we're swinging way past what other people have said. It's not a case of people boasting they are paying £££ extra every month to show off. Just like many will see your help saving for his house a boast. It's something that most parents have to do these days.

The fact is 15% of an average wage wouldn't pay half the costs involved in bringing up a child.

I see both of you appear to have Ill feeling towards your ex partners. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same boat and don't assume all women are money grabbers like it reads. The both of you make it sound as if the money is for the benefit of your ex and not your child.

A lot of guys get obsessed how they think their ex is spending "their" money. They don't seem to grasp that a couple of hundred quid a month doesn't go far at all. It certainly doesn't pay for a lavish lifestyle.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 21st July 17:23

[theboss]

Driver101 said:

I see both of you appear to have I'll feeling towards your ex partners. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same boat and don't assume all women are money grabbers like it reads. The both of you make it sound as if the money is for the benefit of your ex and not the child.

A lot of guys get obsessed how they think their ex is spending "their" money. They don't seem to grasp that a couple of hundred quid a month doesn't go far at all. It certainly doesn't pay for a lavish lifestyle.

I'd be perfectly happy if only my ex were to treat me as an equal party in the platonic co-parenting arrangement which commenced the day she so blithely ended our marriage and family unit - instead of as a cash machine and a babysitter.

She systematically undermines and erodes my relationship with the children whilst attempting to unilaterally determine the extent of my contact with them in order to maximise her financial 'entitlement'. She deems our autistic child 'severely disabled' in order to garner sympathy and of course secure additional income.

She doesn't personally bear any cost of raising the children and is indifferent to the notion of earned income - her whole existence is funded by myself and the taxpayer.

It may not be particularly lavish but if she worked she'd have to earn about £70k individually to increase her net income.

I completely understand that not all women are like this and have first hand observations of many other friends and acquaintances who have split up in an amicable and reasonable manner even when infidelity has been a major factor. I'm just a bit bitter that I made the fatal mistake of reproducing with, and investing myself heavily in one of the evil ones. More to the point, I'm trying to highlight how some of us are paying the 'bare minimum' in very difficult situations despite playing a major - even equal - role in the children's day-to-day lives.

Edited by theboss on Saturday 21st July 17:31

[Driver101]

theboss said:

Driver101 said:

I see both of you appear to have I'll feeling towards your ex partners. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same boat and don't assume all women are money grabbers like it reads. The both of you make it sound as if the money is for the benefit of your ex and not the child.

A lot of guys get obsessed how they think their ex is spending "their" money. They don't seem to grasp that a couple of hundred quid a month doesn't go far at all. It certainly doesn't pay for a lavish lifestyle.

I'd be perfectly happy if only my ex were to treat me as an equal party in the platonic co-parenting arrangement which commenced the day she so blithely ended our marriage and family unit - instead of as a cash machine and a babysitter.

She systematically undermines and erodes my relationship with the children whilst attempting to unilaterally determine the extent of my contact with them in order to maximise her financial 'entitlement'. She deems our autistic child 'severely disabled' in order to garner sympathy and of course secure additional income.

She doesn't personally bear any cost of raising the children and is indifferent to the notion of earned income - her whole existence is funded by myself and the taxpayer.

It may not be particularly lavish but if she worked she'd have to earn about £70k individually to increase her net income.

I've little understanding of the benefits system, but the equivalent of a £70k job to remain on the same terms?

Are you factoring in a divorce settlement on top of child support payments?

[theboss]

Driver101 said:

I've little understanding of the benefits system, but the equivalent of a £70k job to remain on the same terms?

Are you factoring in a divorce settlement on top of child support payments?

No I'm not.

She isn't getting the cash equivalent of £70k in benefits alone - but with my 'CMS minimum' combined.

However the added 'bonus' of a disabled child means the £24k-or-whatever-it-is benefits cap isn't applicable.

[Julian Thompson]

Driver101 said:

I think we're swinging way past what other people have said. It's not a case of people boasting they are paying £££ extra every month to show off. Just like many will see your help saving for his house a boast. It's something that most parents have to do these days.

The fact is 15% of an average wage wouldn't pay half the costs involved in bringing up a child.

I see both of you appear to have Ill feeling towards your ex partners. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same boat and don't assume all women are money grabbers like it reads. The both of you make it sound as if the money is for the benefit of your ex and not your child.

A lot of guys get obsessed how they think their ex is spending "their" money. They don't seem to grasp that a couple of hundred quid a month doesn't go far at all. It certainly doesn't pay for a lavish lifestyle.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 21st July 17:23

Ah no - my vibe has come accross wrong. I have no ill feeling towards my ex at all. I just realise that paying more to her won’t result in anything positive for me or my son. She’ll still think it’s not enough and she will continue to care for him just as well as she normally does regardless of what I do.

In respect of the boast about the house - sometimes you have to talk about stuff you’re doing in order to actually make the post worthwhile. To be clear - I’m not boasting in the slightest. I’m simply saying that I would rather save just a few quid each month and because it’s many years away by that time I’ll have a little helping hand on tap to be able to make a small contribution. I’m really not sure I’m “boasting” much there but apologies if it sounded that way. That’s really not my style.

[Driver101]

theboss said:

Driver101 said:

I've little understanding of the benefits system, but the equivalent of a £70k job to remain on the same terms?

Are you factoring in a divorce settlement on top of child support payments?

No I'm not.

She isn't getting the cash equivalent of £70k in benefits alone - but with my 'CMS minimum' combined.

However the added 'bonus' of a disabled child means the £24k-or-whatever-it-is benefits cap isn't applicable.

She would still get the CSA/CMS payment if she worked.

Your payments must be huge.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

theboss said:

I'd be perfectly happy if only my ex were to treat me as an equal party in the platonic co-parenting arrangement which commenced the day she so blithely ended our marriage and family unit - instead of as a cash machine and a babysitter.

She systematically undermines and erodes my relationship with the children whilst attempting to unilaterally determine the extent of my contact with them in order to maximise her financial 'entitlement'. She deems our autistic child 'severely disabled' in order to garner sympathy and of course secure additional income.

She doesn't personally bear any cost of raising the children and is indifferent to the notion of earned income - her whole existence is funded by myself and the taxpayer.

You picked her!!!

[Julian Thompson]

PS - you’re a long way off with a couple of hundred quid a month. The guy I mentioned earlier is paying well over £1k plus then his topups.... plus he has all three kids 3 days a week.

[theboss]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You picked her!!!

Quite.

These traits aren't always obvious until the day it all goes to st. We had been together 14 years, I'd taken her son on as my own, etc.

You never really know the woman you're with until you divorce her or vice versa.

[theboss]

Driver101 said:

She would still get the CSA/CMS payment if she worked.

Your payments must be huge.

It all depends. If she worked too we'd probably have equal share of childcare. It's in her direct interests to claim predominance as a parent, benefit from the 'resident parent' status the CMS grants, collect all the benefits and maintenance and keep my working my arse off to bankroll two households. She wants to be a single parent getting all the money, rather than co-parents making an equal effort.

I read that in jurisdictions where 50:50 childcare is granted as default, the divorce rate (initiated by women) has drastically fallen, because they aren't getting to have their cake and eat it so much.

[Driver101]

Julian Thompson said:

PS - you’re a long way off with a couple of hundred quid a month. The guy I mentioned earlier is paying well over £1k plus then his topups.... plus he has all three kids 3 days a week.

The comment was based on 1 child and the average salary.

Of course if you've got 3 kids and earning £150,000+ per year even with 3 nights per week the maintenance payments are still going to be £1000 per month.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 21st July 18:21

[Julian Thompson]

Driver101 said:

The comment was based on 1 child and the average salary.

Of course if you've got 3 kids and earning £150,000+ per year even with 3 nights per week the maintenance payments are still going to be £1000 per month.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 21st July 18:21

I may be slightly out of touch - I’m fairly sure he doesn’t earn that much but I am sure he pays over a grand. Maybe he’s overpaying. Either way none of it is ever plain sailing is it!