CMS payments and new baby(22 Posts)
I receive £503 a month maintenance from ex for our 3 dc, this is the calculation made by the cms. He has just had a new baby with his partner and has asked if we can come to an agreement to lower the payment, he wants to lower it by £150 so he can provide for his new child, we get on reasonably well so I think he thought I would agree to this, I haven't and it's not to be spiteful I understand his new child needs to be provided for but I can't afford to accept less, well he's turned nasty and when he dropped dcs off from the last contact he said if I didn't agree then his partner was going to put in a claim to the cms for their child and I will stand to lose about £150 anyway... Will I really lose that amount if they do that? Should I just agree to keep the peace if it's inevitable?
I "lost" £40 per month because ExH moved in with OW & she has a daughter. Crazy but true, my children lose out to a child who isn't his.
Based on % £150 seems like a lot, but plug the numbers into the calculator on the hard website to check.
I don't think his girlfriend can put in a claim if she lives with him but they can ask for a new cms assessment based on the new child. The cms will take account of the new child and will lower your payment but probably not by £150 per month.
It will reduce. Check with the cms calculator for a figure. But it won't be anywhere near £100 never mind £150 a month... Once you have checked it out, do t reveal this call his bluff and tell him fine. Tell her to make a claim, which she cannot because she lives with the dad. And of course you aren't liable either
Your ex now has four children to provide for. You can check on a CSM calculator and work out what the new amount should be and so can he. If he isn't living with the new partner and the baby then yes she can put a claim in through the CSM.
Your CSM is going to reduce but your tax credits may go up.
Child support isn't used as income for tax credits, so this wouldn't increase.
Giraffe27, I'm assuming your on the CMS system and not the older CSA.
The max percentage paid is 19% for 3 or more children. So if he is not living with this new baby he will continue to pay the £503 this will be divided between the four children £125.75 per child, you will get £377.25 for your three children and the other lady will get £125.75.
If he is living with new baby's mother then he will be able to deduct 12% of his income before he pays for your three so if 19% of his income is £503 100% is £2647.36 - 12% (£317.68) = £2329.68 19% of this would be £442.63.
Hope this helps.
Either way giraffe it sucks.
Not like your DCs got any cheaper - you just get to subsidise his new life!
It's not good at all, my ex now only pays £250 a month for 4 kids. Yet he says he spends £400 a month on food for himself!
It's not right but better than nothing.
I agree the new baby does need providing for and is the fathers responsibility.
In a together family everyone would cut their cloth and suck up the expense of all 4 children but in a split family, one parent gets to unilaterally reduce their payments to the other children and expects the other parent to suck it up and tighten their belt through no fault of their own.
On the new system - 19% of his income now goes 4 ways, not three ways - so his expenditure has not increased - just divided differently, the mothers expenditure has gone up - wrong.
Can I just correct something, even if he is living with new baby's mother then the money will go down but not as much, they will calculate his payment by first taking off 12% (the rate for one child) from his income then they will work out 19% of the rest that will go to you.
The new mother does not go to CMS but he informs them of the change and they re calculate the amounts.
Which is once again insulting to his other children.
The new child or even the new DPs child that are not his gets, 12% of his income allocated and 19%/3 - is 6.33% of his residual income, so even less is allocated to his other 3 DCS.
So wrong - my 3 lose out because his new DP has 3 kids and they live together. So the government feels he should contribute more to kids that are not his own that his own!
a fairer system would be one which did not allow for a reduction based on children living in the house that are not yours. Wouldn't help for those who exes went on to have more children themselves but would at least help those whose exes move in with a woman who has children and suddenly can get a reduction.
So what happens to the children of the partner who then have no income from tax credits because the NRPs income means they no longer qualify but also the NRP cannot support them because his CMS calculation does not allow for them?
They have a choice not to move in together if they can't afford it. The RP can't magic money out of thin air just because the ex has decided to move in with someone with children. It's really unfair that one parent can unilaterally make a decision that can leave their ex unable to pay the bills.
I can't see the government making decisions that would leave people living apart and claiming off the state rather moving in together.
I learnt the hard way not to rely on maintenance for paying bills.
I think it is quite difficult because people should be able to move on with their lives and have new relationships. The RP can move in with a new partner, have a new child and still receive the same amount of maintenance from her ex partner (as well as having her new partners contributions) and I think the NRP should equally be allowed to move on and have a new child if he and his new partner wish to do so. I do however think it is unfair that the 'older children' have to face a reduction in their maintenance if their NRP has a new child.
I'm not sure we can have a system which equally allows RPs and NRPs to move on, have new relationships and at the same time ensure that no child misses out financially.
I also think that a situation where the NRP is unable to financially support any new children (biological or step) will lead to more NRPs deliberately reducing their income so as to ensure that the household income in which they live is maintained and the RP will lose out.
Join the discussion
Please login first.