To ask why child maintenance is automatically reduced due to subsequent children?

[freegazelle]

This doesn't affect me personally, but I came across this rule on mumsnet and its just been bugging me.

If I coupled up with a man who had DC from a previous relationship, I'd take them into account when working out if we could afford children, just as I'd take my own DC into account. Why should his responsibilities towards his existing DC automatically be reduced after we have another child?

Other countries don't apply this in the same way - in the US it depends on the State and in Canada CM is not reduced unless apply for "undue hardship" (as far as I understand).

Am I missing something?

For example my ex who I have 1 child with , had another child by one night stand (and begged her to abort). My child now gets 50% less maintenance now it has a half sibling. It's unfair.

Presumedly child support is to cover electricity, mortgage, food etc. All which get cheaper when divided by more people. Sections children often get childcare discounts and wear hand me downs. They are never the same cost as the first one for many reasons.

Sure, but loads of people don't adequately budget for having children, do they? If they did, no one would be dependent (even partly) on benefits.

It might not be "fair", but you cannot get blood out of a stone. If they don't have the money, they don't have the money.

It's messy my ds2 dad is living with a women with 4 dc only 1 of which is his yet my maintenance is reduce for dc that aren't even his! Now that's batshit their df should be paying for them.

Maybe to try to ensure children are provided for rather than the first child is and subsequent ones aren’t. Yes men should take into account their responsibility to their children before impregnating women, but sadly they don’t.
Why should any child miss out because of its birth order?

lol my ex had 4 with me, and married a woman with a child. His maintenance to me was reduced by 15% due to a stepchild in the home, despite the mother getting maintenance from the childs Dad. I never could work that out.

There's only so much money to go around, if the new child wasn't taken into account you'd effectively condemn them to poverty due to their parent's fecklessness.

What’s worse is that it’s reduced for the NRP’s STEPCHILDREN.

So if the NRP moves in with someone who already has, say, three children living with them, the amount they pay the RP is reduced. Even though presumably the NRP of those children is paying. So they are counted twice.

It baffles me.

Bluelonerose I totally agree.
My friends ex lives with a woman with 3 kids- none are biologically his and she receives maintenance from their fathers for them and yet my friends children’s maintenance was reduced
Makes no sense

X post Rachie. It’s fucking cuckoo.

I understand in some cases it should be reduced if it really is unaffordable and other children are suffering - (as I understand in other countries you can file for undue hardship). I'm just not sure if it should happen automatically

I think it should be done on a case to case basis. It isn't fair if your child is missing out because your ex has gone on to have more kids. But it's like above have said you can't get money if there just isn't any.
But when there is lots of money to go around then it should be automatically done.

We have two kids now and my partner hasn't change he maintenance he's paying for his first son because we can afford it. Although I'd love to point it out to the ex when she complains about not having enough money.

No wonder men think they can go round having kids everywhere. AT the lowest I was getting £3.28 a week!

Yeah coz if that's all it cost to raise a child ide pop a few more out

Don't get me wrong there are some nrp who do step up (my older dcs dad is a fantastic dad)
But some just have no idea or even care.
What can we do?

If both parents lived together you wouldn't get a pay rise if you had an extra child, you'd split your income between all your expenses including your new ones, so I assume the system reflects that when the parents don't live together.

had another child by one night stand (and begged her to abort).

He sounds like a catch.

Because they already take the maximum allowed from the father for the first child. Then, when any subsequent children come along, that money is halved, then dived by three, four etc dependent on how many subsequent kids they have.
It's bloody wrong. There's zero incentive for these idiots to stop reproducing.

Before anyone blows up, the idiots I am referring to are those prolific impregnators. You know the type. I am not calling all men who have kids to more than one woman, idiots 🙄

@sick

That's kind of ironic considering there's now there's the two child limit on benefits.

@Slarti Yes but they don't live together do they, they're split up!
The mother of the first child ends up with her money halved, divided by three, four etc etc. Without her having more children. Without her having any kind of say!
At least when a family have another child it is a decision they make together and they both benefit from the joy of another child.

To suddenly get a letter in the post saying sorry, your money has been cut in half yet again, is bloody heartbreaking! No 8/9 months notice. About 3 weeks notice I imagine. Then it takes them god knows how many weeks for payments to restart at the new rate. So no maintenance at all for a few months, then it's halved! So more money has to come out of the pocket of the mother of the first child, in order to make up the difference. Yet it doesn't cost the father an extra penny!
Especially in the case of these men who impregnate women then walk away! The amount they pay each month doesn't change at all.
Yet the mother of his first born, has to make up the difference due to her maintenance being reduced because of HIS actions!

How is that fair?

My ex pays less in maintenance as his DW has a DS. Pretty sure she gets maintenance from her ex plus I know she and XH have separate finances but my DC get less maintenamce. I can understand it for a new child but not really a step child

Every time you have another child the amount of time/energy/money you have to support each of your children decreases. That's true for everyone, it's not restricted to nrp.

I always thought it was because maintenance is for the children, not the parent, and the new children are therefore entitled to support just as much as the children from the first relationship. The children don’t get to choose if they are born.

Re: stepchildren being taken into account – I guess because the government assesses finances on a household, not an individual basis all the time. Just like they cut tax credits etc for the RP if they have a partner move in. The assumption is, I suppose, that a household are all financially responsible for each other, whether they are related by blood or not. It’s why stepparents’ income gets taken into account for student loans etc.

The idea is basically that it’s assumed that the NRP (usually the father - a MAN) will take on the (financial) responsibility of any child living under his roof.
So instead of putting the pressure in the father to look after his dcs, the pressure is on the man living with the dcs to provide for them. And you want lessen that pressure.

And in a practical terms this is the case, even more so in a system where the man is still (seen as) the financial provider.

I’m very uncomfortable with that arrangement though because it sorts of assume that, we, as women and mothers, must live with a man to provide that financial stability rather than being able to do it on our own with the very normal suppport of the ‘original’ father.

And YY about the fact it assumes shared finances too which is nowhere near the case, even when people are actually married.

@barbarian

But as @sick said, in the case of NRP having another child, its not the mum's choice. Many people decide not to have more children because they can't afford them/ continue to give the same support as the first. And when people do have more kids (before getting a pay rise or whatever) it costs more, and money usually has to be taken from elsewhere. I don't think it costs exactly the same as one, divided by two.

For example my ex who I have 1 child with , had another child by one night stand (and begged her to abort). My child now gets 50% less maintenance now it has a half sibling. It's unfair.

Not a clue what the has to do with anything. He's equally responsible for the child as he was an equal part in its conception. That doesn't get him off the hook for paying for it. Is your child worth more because it wasn't conceived in a ONS?

No matter how the second child came to be, it's entirely his choice to give you less money because of it. The CMS calculation is a minimum, he's not prevented by law from giving you more. Blame him. Not the system.