Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Child maintenance

(8 Posts)
DearestMommy Thu 04-Jun-15 16:25:11

I've had to pursue my ex through the CSM for maintenance. Nothing paid since mid March. Imagine my shock when I discover that despite his new partner getting for double what I earn in a month in my full time, low paid job, and despite her getting child maintenance for the two children she had with her previous partner, (approximately �2,000 per month as he's a high earner) my ex can now claim he is helping care for her two kids and consequently has the CM he pays for our daughter reduced by a pretty substantial amount. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about it apparently - it's the law. So instead of the �450 I did receive before he moved in with her, I am now to receive �350 per month. They have a joint income in the region of �6,000 per month against my �1,500! Is there any way to appeal against this? Has anyone else experienced this? I thought that the CSM was set up to ensure that those that needed it got it.

Athenaviolet Thu 04-Jun-15 16:27:17

They changed the rules a few years ago so new partners income is no longer included.

You're not the only one to be shafted by this policy!

lunar1 Thu 04-Jun-15 16:29:22

It's shit isn't it. I don't know if you can appeal it but it really does seem like madness that he can reduce payments based on someone else's children.

DearestMommy Thu 04-Jun-15 18:18:53

I am just so shocked. He's been guilt tripping me about not selling the house and giving his half and he is allowed to pull a stunt like that! All this moaning men do about getting shafted!! No wonder it get's nasty. It's just amazing how many can just turn their backs on their own kids to make a big fuss of someone else's. I understand why, it's the only way he can be sure she'll put up with him. Making him think he's god's gift to kids.

Makes me sick it really does.

prh47bridge Thu 04-Jun-15 18:53:03

I'm not sure I would class this as a stunt. The rules are that the NRP's income for child maintenance purposes are reduced if they have children living with them. The NRP does not have to claim that they are helping to look after these children. It is assumed that they need to contribute towards the care of the children living with them. The income of the NRP's partner is irrelevant for child maintenance purposes.

The only "stunt" he has pulled is choosing to live with another woman who has children. This means his payments to you are reduced automatically.

LotusLight Thu 04-Jun-15 19:57:43

It is the assumption then which is unfair as is the assumption that if you move a man in he is contributing - sometimes it's like moving in another child and huge economic drain. The whole system is riddled with unfairness including my position - paid massive amount to ex and he pays nothing and he chooses not even to have the children one night a year. At least we don't argue over money or children as he pays nothing and just about never sees them.

DearestMommy Fri 05-Jun-15 08:19:06

OK maybe not a stunt. But it is galling to see a couple that are living the high life from other's efforts. Him from not paying any money towards his former marital home and not paying any money towards his daughter's needs. The only reason we had a marital home is because I owned on my own when we met and he moved in then we purchased together using my property for deposit.

At least her partner had more sense and refused to ever let her name go on the deeds and mortgage because it was his before she met him. No doubt he could see the writing on the wall.

In the meantime she receives large amounts of CM from the father of her children because he happens to be a high earner.

My daughter's father spending every penny he earns on that family by way of expensive holidays, clothes and houses and such like, which he can't afford but seems to think he's got to do it to keep her. Meanwhile his daughter has nothing apart from the roof over her head, which is tenuous because he insists he wants that sold and have half of it to purchase a property with the new lady.

He sees her once a week for a couple of hours when he buys her a burger.

Why on earth does the system allow father's to abandon their kids in such a way. When they are hard up and struggling I can understand but this guy is living the high life as far as I can make out.

LotusLight Fri 05-Jun-15 09:57:25

There is no right to force a father to have the children even one night a year never mind 50% (I would be more than happy with him having them 50% but I don't get one night a year "off" even and I work full time). it's a defect in the system that he can have 8 week summer holiday from school. I have one week off only and take the children away and I have to arrange childcare for the other 7 weeks at my expense. Not such an issue now they are teenagers but it was.

What about this one too - he got massive settlement from me more than half about 60% to buy out his maintenance for life claims and then paid school fees for a girl friend's child out of that for a time whislt not paying a penny to his own children who I pay for?

What is surprising is these second wives actually want men like this. I have had dates with men who have gone on about how they have managed to hide money off shore from a wife and I sit there thinking do you seriously think that any woman would want a man who neglects his first family or does not see his children? Why do women want a man who chooses not to see his children and not to pay? Presumably because they get him all to themselves and get more money and the irony is that in our case he is asking for a prenup so the potential new wife doesn't take what was my money given to him in the divorce which is very amusing.

I think the reason men abandon children is various. Some are just so upset they cannot cope with seeing the first family at all. Others are just lazy. Others find they get more sex and free time if they don't bother with hours of childcare at weekends and evenings and through nights. Some of course are denied contact by the ex wife but nothing like as many as choose instead just not often to see the children. Ultimately it is their loss of course because money does not matter and love and relationships with children do but I suppose they transfer the love to the second family so perhaps they haven't lost out in love at all - in fact by neglecting their children they get more chance to find new love - 365 nights a year without children until they find the new partner and breed with her or take on her children.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now