# Talk

(19 Posts)
PeppersTheCat Wed 31-Jan-18 19:06:40

The rate is 17% of your income if you only support 1 child. However if you have an additional child to support, the CM for the original child decreases to 14%; two additional children and it decreases to 13%; three additional children and it decreases to 12%.

So, say a man has a child with his ex, then remarries and has three children with his new partner - How come the first additional child reduces original maintenance by just 3%? And even worse, the next additional children only reduce it by 1%. Surely each new child has a bigger impact than that??

Enidthecat Wed 31-Jan-18 19:10:29

You're going to get a roasting for this.

But, you're right. Each child does have a bigger impact realistically.

AJPTaylor Wed 31-Jan-18 19:19:12

Presumably the basic assumption is that the parent is aware of obligation to first child before choosing to have more.

Myddognearlyatethedeliveryman Wed 31-Jan-18 19:22:49

Maternity grants are available if you don't work or already have a dc under 16 - they obviously expect you to keep all baby equipment for up to 16 years - maybe cms expect you to keep stuff and pass it on to nw (new wife) to reduce the need for extra funds for subsequent dc's!!

PeppersTheCat Wed 31-Jan-18 19:23:33

So PFB is the most important child and any subsequent children are thought to be worth peanuts? I thought this system was supposed to be about the welfare of THE KIDS??

EllenJanethickerknickers Wed 31-Jan-18 19:26:49

There are economies of scale, though. For one child you need accommodation, to heat it, pay council tax etc. For second child that doesn't increase by much.

AJPTaylor Wed 31-Jan-18 19:33:06

But thats true if parents split for children of the first relationship surely? If first relationship has 2 children, they dont get 34 percent do they? What is it 20 percent for 2?

maybaby17 Wed 31-Jan-18 19:48:28

I'm no math genius but I'm not sure you calculations work out

Your gross income is reduced by 11% if you have one child in your current family. Then your reduced income is used for the 12% to go to the child who doesn't live with you.

Samesituation Wed 31-Jan-18 20:21:10

Your %'s aren't quite right there OP if paying for one child it's 12% of gross income.
If the paying parent has 3 children living with him im pretty certain it is gross income less 16% (children in house) x 12% for the child being supported.
You are right in that the more children in house living with paying parent the % reduction is less for each child. However it works exactly same way for the children being supported the % increase isn't as high.

Because a new baby magically means that the original child eats 18% less food, requires 18% less heat and hot water, wears 18% fewer clothes

SciFiG33k Wed 31-Jan-18 21:58:39

Because a new baby magically means that the original child eats 18% less food, requires 18% less heat and hot water, wears 18% fewer clothes

^this

I don't understand why new children in a different household should have any affect on maintenance.

I also don't understand why where im from when the resident parent decides to give up work to have more children therefore earning less the NPR pays more child support. (In my country it is based on both parents income)

corlan Wed 31-Jan-18 22:04:35

If you have a problem supporting one child financially then you don't go on and have more children. It makes great sense.

(Unless of course you're like my ex who does not support our DD financially and has gone on to have another 2 children that he doesn't support financially!)

SonicVersusGynaephobia Wed 31-Jan-18 22:05:27

Because a responsible parent will only have further children if it won't massively negatively impact their ability to care for and provide for the first?

IsItSummerYet2018 Fri 02-Feb-18 01:21:28

When our baby is born dps CM goes down by £1 something a week. He's not worried as we've chosen to have a child knowing he pays for his dc. The only reason we enquired as wasnt sure if we have to let them know or not that there is another dependent.. We do.

Im on the fence with it and can see where some people come from in general
Example
The father has a right to have another child. It's no different to having another child with the ex so has two kids to. Pay ex. For. . In which case would pay a higher percentage to the ex. (20% I think),
But the same percentage doesn't work out if the father has moved on and settled has a child with new DW

ohreallyohreallyoh Fri 02-Feb-18 05:47:58

But you and your children have access to your DPs wage after maintenance is paid? So he loses 20% for the children he has, for example, but 80% remains? You are not surely saying maintenance should be reduced further to somehow even up the score?

I am not sure any of us have a right to additional children. As with any family, a separated parent should consider the impact of another child on existing children. If you can afford it, all well and good. If you can’t, you shouldn’t be having more.

swingofthings Fri 02-Feb-18 08:50:10

When your second and third child is born, you find yourself having to stretch your budget to account for the new arrival and as such, you could say that the first child is getting less, although I think in most cases, it is done in such a way that the first child isn't aware of the consequences. That's when the family isn't entitled to tax credits, because otherwise, the family income increases anyway.

This however is different to when the first and subsequent children leave in different household because you can't giggle your budget so that you can make it work without the first child being unaffected or unaware. If you were to cut CM even more, then that's less money that the other household receives and therefore THEY would have to make changes to THEIR lifestyle so that the eldest child isn't affected, or aware that there is a change. This therefore mean that the resident parent, who gains nothing from the additional child is penalised and clearly, there has to be a limit on this.

In the end, the non-resident family has the choice as to whether their household income is impacted on or not, the resident parent isn't. I personally think that if the family is going to gain extra tax credits with the new child, it is perfectly acceptable that maintenance to the other children remain the same. If not, then it is perfectly reasonable for the adults to take the brunt of spreading the cost to their new child rather than penalise another child.

Oswin Fri 02-Feb-18 12:45:13

It's only a small percentage because its the new children have the bloody rest of the nrps wages.

negomi90 Thu 08-Feb-18 20:15:46

New children can cost less as theoretically they should have hand me downs in terms of clothes and equipment/furniture from the older one. Oldest gets more because the assumption is everything must be paid for and acquired.

lifeandtheuniverse Thu 08-Feb-18 23:12:43

To put it simply - if the DF ( but could be DM) has more children in their new relationship and cuts maintenance to the RP.

The RP has to no questions asked picked up the shortfall -ergo they are supporting the new family.

When looked at it like that - you can understand the resentment.

Mine has 2 DCS with me, he then claimed he now supported her 2 DCs ( for whim she got maintenance) and dropped his contribution and when they had a child together he dropped it again.

His original 2 DCs did not miraculously get cheaper, they still did their activities, still got fed, clothed etc and the £200pcm he paid less got picked up by me.

There is nothing more galling than paying for your EX and the OW to procreate, ignore 2 DCs in their new utopia and expect me to help fund their lifestyle.

Decent parents do not reduce the child maintenance they pay for their original DCS.

Join the discussion

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