We pay £250 more a month in CSA payments than we have to

[MrSnow]

Long story short, I had a son after an extremely short relationship 16 years ago. I had an average paid job but under the old rules of the CSA I paid 40% of my wages, around £400 quid a month. 12.5 Years later I get married to a woman I love and we have an amazing little boy. We also brought a house together. I didn't tell the CSA any of this and carried on paying the £400.00 for around 2 years. The CSA then contacted me and asked for a full review of my circumstances, as a result they are now only taking £150.00 a month. I contacted my son's mother and we agreed to keep paying her what we were paying her as it was only fair on my son. However, a year down the line we could really do with extra cash. AIBU to ask the mother of my son to take a deduction of £150pm so we'd only be paying her £250.00pm a month? My son is 16 next month and applying for colleges. I don't have any contact other than the occasional phone, text, Christmas and birthday presents. Not that it really matters but she owns a house that she rents out, rents a house herself and has a decent convertible car. My Son has everything, and more, that he could wish for in terms of material goods. What I'm afraid of is if she kicks off?? I don't want to cause any stress or concern for my boy.

His liability through the CMS would be significantly higher than £150 if he was on £60k. A quick check suggests £116 a week.

A liability of £150 a month suggests the OP earns £16-17k.

If you can't afford it and your paying over the legal minimum then inform her you are reducing it but it will remain over the minimum and then reduce it. Can't see the issue myself.

I agree. But he said £60k earlier in the thread. Unless I read it wrong always possible

I didn't see that.

well maybe OP should have thought about his financial situation before having DS2? OP should get a better job/work longer hours and stop trying to cut his DS1 support

Pointless thing to say. DS2 is there. OP can't ignore that.

I could cry for your ds. Other than money, where's the effort?

He hasn't made a full effort to reach his child

Neither of the people posting these comments have any idea of the background or what efforts OP did or did not make. This thread is a pretty appalling example of posters on MN being desperate to be judgmental without any evidence on which to base their judgments.

Augusta I've read through the thread and it seems to me that OP has basically admitted he hasn't made any effort with his son.

Fuck me this thread is batshit.

Fuck me this thread is batshit.

Yup

Why were you paying child maintenance under the pre-1997 system when your son wasn't born until the year 2000?

Out of interest how much do you think is the right amount to pay for a child? This is everyone not just op...

Poor guy.

OP don't bother, hide the thread. There are some completely hysterical people on here at the moment.

I'll probably be flamed for this, but I do think there are some situations in which a father doesn't need to have contact with children at least until they are 16 and can choose for themselves the amount of contact. For example, I believe strongly that the choice to have an abortion or not lies with the mother. If she chooses not to have an abortion despite that being the father's clear wish, the father is undoubtedly responsible for child maintenance at a reasonable level until that child turns 18 (or until the end of education). However, I don't think that in that situation, where the relationship with the mother ends, he should automatically be expected to have contact with the child. I think most men would - and that is the right thing to do - but I can also understand a young man wanting to move on with his life and with his relationships given that the child has been brought into the world essentially against his wishes.

Of course we don't know what the OP's situation actually is, but there is a lot of judgment going on that isn't necessarily relevant to the issue of what a reasonable level of financial support is.

I don't see where he's getting vitriol.

A few posts ago, he had had regular contact with his child up until last year.

Now, he's waiting until his son is 16 so he won't shocked by "surprise, it's your dad."

I don't really see how it would be a huge surprise if he was in contact until last year (and we're only just into May now...)

He's not aye

The scheme was introduced under the old old rules in 93 the first big rule change didn't happen until March 2003.

His child was either born in 1999 or 2000.

Given that he has used the date 97 and he's stated he's paying 40% possibly his case was opened in 97 or payment commenced in 97 and a portion of what he paid was covering arrears (given that they can only take more than 30% I'd arrears exist)

Aye good spot. Also 40% is only taken if you are substantially in arrears as others have pointed out.

This thread is less batshit and more of the bull variety...

God why on earth did I not notice a child born in 99/2000 was not alive in 97 I need a lay down.

Obviously he's just mistaken about 97

andintothefire I don't necessarily disagree with you there actually. But in those circumstances I do believe the father should be honest about the fact that he doesn't see his child because he didn't want that child. I do actually think this is the case more than people would like to admit. But it's more socially acceptable for a man to claim the child's mother is obstructive.

TheUnsullied - yep, totally agree. It is about taking responsibility for your choices and actions.

Especially given that I have one born in 99 looking right at me!

Honestly is it anyone's business why he doesn't see his son. Why do some of you think she weren't obstructive. Maybe she hated the fact that he had moved on is that a possibility or don't women do that. All he needs to do is pay for his needs not fuel for her car or mobile phones that's ridiculous there luxuries.

Bumblebee - whether she's obstructive or not is barely relevant. Do you have children? Can you imagine not seeing them until they were 16 years old? Missing out on all of their childhood? Them missing out on having you as a parent?

When you post a thread on a public forum about your affairs and invite comment, yes, it becomes our business if we want to respond.