Re child maintenance payments

[Blankscreen]

DSS is 13. Dh and I have been together for 10 years and during that time dss mother has been very difficult over access and just being generally obstructive. Never allowing more than 2 nights a weeks due to maintenance payments decreasing. We currently pay £700 a month for DSS and have him 2 nights a week.

Anyway long story short DSS has said that he wants to live with us. She's refused and it has gone to court and has been granted.

DSS mother now needs to pay us maintenance. Here's the thing she has asked if we can let her off as she can't afford it.

Dh was willing to agree to a family arrangement.
Aibu to say no way and pursue her through CMS.

It works out about £300 a month she needs to pay.

Dh has always paid maintenance never once missed it, ever.

Wtf.

How the mother feels about the child's living arrangements is COMPLETELY irrelevant in respect of paying maintenance.

I would say the same either way because this is not post split. The child has decided to live with the father after living with the mother a substantial time, during which the mother has made housing, and other financial decisions for her and the child. This now has changed.

I completely and utterly agree the nrp (be it mum or dad) should pay the child support. All I am merely trying to say is that it is thrust upon her, after many years of the child living with her, and now her financial circumstances have drastically changed. Who is to say that her mortgage is now no longer affordable? Some finances are not a quick and easy fix.

Having been in that situation very recently I understand the financial struggle it may cause. Especially at that financial level.

I would like to reiterate that I pay child support for both of my children, and did do from the moment they chose to stay with their Dad. All I am trying to point out is that although the absent parent does have a legal and moral obligation to pay it is not always immediately viable.

Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, after having recently gone through it, yes I would give the same answer for both sexes because I was RP for 16 years without financial support for a lot of that time.

So excuse me for having a differing opinion but frankly there is black, white and I think this situation is a bit grey.

Saving some money for child would have been decent. But who gives a toss about that eh when she could just spend it?

You seem to feel you know an awful lot about the financial situation -over a considerable period of time - of a woman you have never met and for whom we are receiving information from someone equally removed from the reality of the situation and who, at best, thinks she knows how it is.

Neither of you have any real clue. There is no obligation to save child maintenance. There is no obligation to save anything at all for your children, let alone maintenance.

Just to correct OP here
Blankscreen Sun 21-Jan-18 00:23:26 "Also it is my issue to deal.with. dh and I are married and share finances so money into and out of the family pot is my concern."

Maintenance relating to children that are not yours is nothing to do with you, regardless of whether you are married or not. Your income regardless of how you share it with your husband would not have been taken into account when assessing the maintenance figure. The only impact to the maintenance calculation would be that your husband's expenses would be considered to be shared so they would be reduced. You sound like you personally want to score points. Not nice.

Family courts get decisions very wrong a lot of the time. Hope they got this one right for the DC sake.

I don't see how you can say whether we receive the maintenance is nothing to do with me. Clearly it is something to do with me but you are correct that historically my salary has not been counted in the maintenance payment, nor have our expenses other than our 2 children. It's a % of salary and thats it.

DSS wanted to spend more time at our house just an extra night a week initially. His mother refused. No good reason , she just said no.
She also refused to let him take part in football matches that fell on her weekends. DSS wanted to join a team, Dh paid for it and sorted it out but she refused to let him join in.

Refused to let him come on holiday with us.

She did herself no favours and I think DSS eventually saw through her games.

DSS pushed and pushed and pushed to come and live at our house. It was his decision and not one that dh jumped at.

We haven't stolen her son away. If anything she lost him through her own behaviour.

Just to correct greenlanes here, the OP hasn't suggested it's her business to set what minimum maintenance ought to be, but that it is her business as to whether her husband should pursue sources of income the family is entitled to and can use to support the DSS. The OP is absolutely entitled to have a say in the extent to which the family (because if they don't get that 300, it will be everyone - her DSS, her DH and her getting a little less in order to make up the shortfall) is prepared to subsidise the mother's minimum financial responsibilities towards her son.

Oh really
She could have been decent. She could have put money aside. If she didnt spend it on the child where did it go. She wasn't on the breadline. Where was her contribution? It went on a lifestyle and yeah i would be annoyed if i was OP.

It is really telling that the child wants away. In fact it speaks volumes.

Some people have the hide of a rhino.

You seem very annoyed, even defensive maybe. That's how it looks.

Greenlanes
More bollocks about it being none of OPs business - not forvthe calculation but it affects her life. You are on a different planet. You wouldn't be saying that if it was you in OP's position.

I could easily spend 700 a month on childcare before secondary school. School trips, transportation, holidays, entertainment, sports gear can also all add up quickly once they're older. I don't really see what the surprise is over the fact it's been spent. She lived at the level she had income for at the time, many people do. She seems to have been financially short sighted but, again, that's hardly unusual. I don't see the need to castigate the mum here, but it also doesn't mean she shouldn't be expected to live up to her responsibilities in the new situation. But it also doesn't mean that she couldn't be cut a little temporary slack in order to help her adjust in the most sensible way - for the DSS's sake, since he will presumably still be spending time with her. It won't be in his best interests if she has to sell up quickly, lose more equity than necessary and have to move further away (for example). But if she's been really difficult in the past it may be impossible to give her some slack without her totally abusing it and it not helping the DSS at all. So possibly tricky to do what's best for DSS.

I'm sure the mother isn't happy. I'd be devastated if my DS decided he wanted to live with his dad. But I would respect that it's his decision.

BitchQueen it is the most gut wrenching feeling in the world but you have to do what is right by your child in those circumstances. If they want to live with their Dad for whatever reason then so be it.

It certainly opened my eyes to see it from an NRP perspective, and it's not very nice.

Family courts get decisions very wrong a lot of the time. Hope they got this one right for the DC sake.

Why? Because a child isn't living with their DM. If that is what you are saying then stop being ridiculous.

All NRPs should pay it, but this is not a run of the mill situation

Yes it is. NRP should pay. The end.

OP YANBU about her need to pay - she should pay - no argument

but don't get caught in the 'i bet we paid for her holidays' argument - it makes you seem petty - you said she works - so she paid for her holidays (and her sons holidays) Maintenance goes into our family budget here and that budget pays for school dinners, trips, clothes but also Gin and nice shoes for me (also in that budget are my wages)

but she should pay

She needs to pay for her child and she's really taking the piss asking to pay nothing at all. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she had asked even to pay £50 a month to start off or some small sum, just so that her child would know she was making a financial contribution.

As she'll effectively be losing 1k a month very quickly, if I were DH I might perhaps judge it in my child's interests to let her build up to the £300. Depends on the wider circumstances, whether she would need the money to ensure she has a suitable home for him etc. But she needs to be paying something if only so her child understands he is worth paying for.

The maintenance isn't nothing to do with you OP, it's lots to do with you, but the CMS or not has to be DH decision.

I don't really understand the points being made here.

Granted, childcare, clubs entertainment, holidays etc can easily cost £700 per month. But she now isn't footing the bill for any of that, so surely it's a bit of a moot point? (unless maintenance payments were indeed being used to fund her lifestyle rather than the cost of raising the child?!)

So she's going to be down £300, but she also won't have the same level of outgoings.

This makes me laugh. Maintenance being used to fund the lifestyle of the RP. CMS has always been to contribute to the additional costs of bringing a child up. Including housing costs. Does the extra on the mortgage for the extra bedroom the mother needed suddenly disappear along with the reduction in gas/electric/tv package/etc. I appreciate a LOT of costs reduce but not always to the tune of £700.

I strongly feel that any non resident parent should pay towards the upkeep of their joint child with the resident parent, but under these circumstances I also understand why the new nrp may struggle.

The op's ex has every right to go to the CMS and should if he wants to.

I accept I may be more hot headed about this than usual but my exh has literally had a court order put in place for my daughter so is still raw but I have re-jigged my finances, and my dp is paying in more to household expenditure so that my children can be adequately provided for. If he didn't put extra in then I couldn't afford to pay all my bills including mortgage including child support because I bought a 3 bed under the impression my children were coming with me.

I could easily spend 700 a month on childcare before secondary school. School trips, transportation, holidays, entertainment, sports gear can also all add up quickly once they're older. I don't really see what the surprise is over the fact it's been spent

Where was the mothers contribution? The cost of a child should be halved...If the NRP was paying £700 does that mean it costs £1400 a month for a 13yo? The ex was taking the piss and she's had the rug pulled out from under her now.

It's a common refrain on Mumsnet that the CMS is only a minimum and that NRPs should pay more if possible, Strange how I haven't seen that posted on this thread when the NRP just happens to be the mother.

Nevertheless.

The CMS formula is a "blunt-weapon" and can never take into account all the factors at play. In particular in doesn't factor in the differences between the RPs income and the NRPs income. Sometimes the amount the formula gives will be too high, sometimes too low. That's why the government wants couples to come to their own "family based arrangements" if possible. As a general rule, maintenance is always too low if you receive it and it's always too much if you pay it. Human Nature.

I don't think the OP & her partner owe the ex any favours. She sounds like a nasty piece of work and sometimes in life you reap what you sow and that's what's happened here.

However. If getting her to pay maintenance straight away could cause such hardship that it would also affect the son (who's the most important person in this issue) then maybe this is a time to be the better person and give her a couple of months notice to get herself sorted out.

Yes you are entitled to cms .

The fact this has gone to court suggests that this isn’t really a shock to her . She did know the possibility was coming esp as Ds was saying that was what he wanted. At 13 his opinion was going to be listened to .

Absolutely CM should be paid by the mother. No question about that from me.

What I do question is the attitudes on this thread.
Also it transpires that the maintenance hasn't been saved towards a uni fund or anything for DSS. There is about £1000 put away and that it I receive CM and haven't saved a penny specifically FOR my children. Does that make ME a bad person?

There have been lots of holidays over the years and I suspect the maintenance was subsidising them So? Or do receiving parents not deserve holidays? I do hope you do not plan on taking holidays whilst receiving CM

There's an element of lack of forward planning here too. It's the same with some RPs who are unhappy when maintenance payments stop at 18. 're payments don't and won't last forever. Rather than being woe is me about it..
I've had 3 reach 18 and was quite 'woe is me' for a little while. I know it's coming but there is only so much you can do to plan for it when you are already working full time and have done for almost the entire time since the relationship ended. CM ended at 18 as I knew it would but MY support for my children didn't and won't. I'm lucky to be in an ok position where I CAN still help my children but it really sucks to be the only one doing so.

I cannot honestly be the only mother out there that doesn't take the full amount of maintenance because I believe I ALSO need to financially support my own child?!!
Surely not many ncp are that stupid? I receive a decent amount of CM and work full time and I would say I still pay more for the children than their father. Whatever the amount of CM paid, it is rarely 1/2 the actual, true cost of raising the child/children when EVERYTHING is taken into account. I know, for a fact that my financial contribution has been higher over the years and continues to be so and I absolutely took the full amount assessed.

Where was the mothers contribution? The cost of a child should be halved...If the NRP was paying £700 does that mean it costs £1400 a month for a 13yo?

For most of the women I know who work and don't get benefits the cost of childcare was more than the lower salary of the two parents. Working cost money in the short term. So I could certainly see it coming to quite a lot more than 700, but there are a lot more costs to a child than just the childcare. The mother's contribution could include the childcare over and above the 700; food; transport; clothes; clubs; maintaining the household; insurance; pocket money; entertainment; birthday parties; holidays; opportunity cost of taking time off for sickness, being unable to take overnights at short notice, time constraints put in place by childcare inflexibility; etc.

Not that I know what this particular mother's financials were like, I was merely pointing out that 700 a month could be fairly easy to get through as half the contribution to a child's upkeep without any thought to putting money away for the future.

BoomBoomsCousin
700 a month could be fairly easy to get through as half the contribution to a child's upkeep without any thought to putting money away for the future

Yeah I have children, I know what they cost but thanks for the breakdown. None of my children cost anywhere near £1400 a month - this woman has quite obviously not been using any of her own income for her child.

I understand about childcare costing money, but this child is 13 and not in a nursery.

You may do things less expensively Pickles, I’m sure lots of people do. But average costs are over 10k a year and those costs are heavily weighted to the early years (which the mother has covered). If he has parents who earn more than average (which with 700 a month due from father or 300 a month due from mother seems almost certain) he will likely have more spent on him, things like better holidays, living in a nicer area, expensive clothes etc. can really push up the cost. The OP has indicated the mother hasn’t used her money the way the OP would, but she hasn’t said anything about the mother spending all her money on herself and keeping the child short. There’s no reason to think the mother has been selfish in that regard, just short sighted.

BoomBoomsCousin

The mother didn't keep the child short, she used the fathers money and didn't use any of her own. Look we're not going to agree on this. I think it's awful when RPs expect the NRPs to pay all costs for their children and blow all their own money on themselves.

How on earth to you conclude she did use any of her own? There’s nothing in the OP to say that this was the case.