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?

Reducing for step children really is a piss take. Mine did it for his new DPS 2 kids who she got maintenance for.

CSA is the basic - I really resent the SM forum, where SMs say we pay CSA and then buy extras. Like the £100 pcm and the same contribution from the RP covers, all clothes, food, activities etc.

My Ex gave me 200pcm for 2 DCS - insisted on them learning to swim, play footy and learn an instrument . So £2400 from him and £2400 from me - £4800.

Swimming 350 per child x2 - £700
Football - £300 perchild x 2 - £600
Instrument - £750 per child x2 - £1500

Clothes - shoes, trainers, football boots - £120 per child x 2 - £240
School uniform /sports kit - £150 per child x 2 - £300
Childcare( cos he can not do his share!) £150 per week - 40 weeks of the year £6000

So there we are combined income for children £4800
Not including food, elect etc - £9340

Take out the luxuries- sport, music etc - £6540

And some people say CSA should cover everything - I am already subsidising my EX and his new family and the DCS still have not eaten!!!

@what

But the first children (and their mum) don't get a say either. As I've said many times, if it is seriously unaffordable than it should be cut. I wouldn't want any siblings of DC to go without. But I have an issue with that happening automatically - not all men who have children with different mums are impoverished.

My kids get 40 a month in total. It's disgusting. My ex lives with a lady with 4 DC and they are expecting another baby. Makes me.mad.

They reduce the money when the Dad moves in with a woman with kids because her benefits then get reduced to take into account there is two adults and 2 incomes coming in. Her kids are then also his financial responsibility because of him
Moving in her money reduces massively. My partner moved in and although I was working 40 hours a week I use to get £850 in tax credits and housing allowance. This then reduced to £120 when he moved in. He had to make that money up, plus maintenance for his kids from
Previous relationship and high travel fees to visit them. I know that in some
Cases they will even reduce the maintenance because of travel expenses aswell as subsequent kids. It doesn't reduce it by much. My partners got reduced by £40 a month with both my son and our son on his claim. We did apply for th travel
Expenses but didn't get it. Csa already doesn't rake into account the rent, food, bills the dad has to pay along with the girfirnds or wives wages and it can some months leave them really short.

I think 40 a month is an insult. My ex drinks that amount on a Friday!

I guess because the government assesses finances on a household, not an individual basis all the time.

In that case, the NRP's partner's income should be included for CM.

(Btw, I don't think either should matter but it is important to be consistent.)

I get £280 a month now for my 1 child left at home, which seems fair to me. However we had 4 children and the most he's ever paid, even when he'd managed to accrue £4000 of arrears was £400 a month. He went out of his way to avoid paying me for years, he'd lie to the CSA, top up his pension, threaten to quit work etc etc. He even 'forgot' to tell them when his stepchild moved out of home and kept on taking the 15% from that. It took 4 years and an attachment to earnings to finally get some money from him.

All that pales into insignificance though, when you consider we had residency of our 2 stepchildren. Their mother decided that because she didn't go for my husbands pension that we should be 'grateful' and never paid him a penny in maintenance. He, being somewhat foolish refused to chase it as he'd 'agreed it in the divorce'.

So my stepson would be there in his designer gear that mummy got him, whilst my kids had their arses hanging out of cheap tracky b's. She never got the practical stuff like school uniform, so my maintenance, when I finally did get it, had to be stretched around an extra child, since my DH was incredibly ill by this point and we were struggling massively.

I never really understand the whole Bio Mum vs Stepmum thing. I'm both, and both have been bloody hard going at times.

Its even more of a joke if your ex is self employed and decided that he will pay him self under 10,000 a year. Everyone knows he earning more than that but hes able to hide it. There is so many holes in they system and then when you call them they are useless.
None residing parents should be made to take responsibility for their children in a fair way. As far as i can see a man (or woman) can walk out on their children live the high life with another woman and contribute next to nothing financially for their own children.

Dont get me started!!!

But tax credits and housing allowance are reduced taking into account the two salaries, and seeing that it is now affordable. I understand that its frustrating as many people don't share all finances now, but I think most at least share rent, bills and food?

I know this sounds harsh but generally I don't think people should have more kids unless they can afford them. As a lone parent I doubt I will be able to have more than one child - it makes me sad sometimes, but I wouldn't want my DS to go without. Why should my ex pay less the more children he has? It's just not how it works for most people.

As I said the cost of children isn't simply 1 pot of money for one child divided by subsequent children. That's just not how most people budget for children. You need to find extra money for more children (although if in the same household it could become relatively less due to room and clothes sharing ect), its still extra money.

As I said, if I coupled with a man already with children, they would also be taken into consideration when working out affordability of subsequent children. I wouldn't have children with him knowing it was only affordable if his CM was cut. That would make me feel like shit.

Of course unplanned children happen, and for the millionth time, if its really unaffordable, than the CM should be cut. But I don't think it should be as easy as it is now.

Its awful how its reduced if the nrp moved in with someone elses kids. Its bloody wrong.

When my xh had another child money that csa had when to her and my money stopped never got a penny after that no matter how many times i phoned and they told me they were looking into it

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

It’s not really comparable though is it.

If me and a partner decide to have/continue a pregnancy then we have made the choice.

If ex-H and his wife have a baby, I don’t make the choice and DD’s expenses don’t magically reduce!

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

If that’s the case one could argue why the step parents income isn’t taken into account when doing maintenance calculations when a step child living with a NRP is included especially if the mum gets maintenance for that child. The system is very much flawed on this basis.

My ex has 4 children with me and 1 child with another woman who he was with before he met me. When we were together the other mum's maintenance never went down because we had our children, but when we split up it did because I then claimed maintenance too. I did get a lot of shit from her for it but her gripe is with ex not me. I just cut all contact with her and left them two to sort it between them.

How much does a child cost per year, average or minimum? There must be an official figure somewhere.

Please read the thread on SM forum - where NRP has lost his job and the new DP is paying all the households bills.

The support is universally that even though they will now get all tax credits and benefits - the hosuehold income and all children theory only works one way - ie as a mechanism to reduce the payment to the CSA. The over whelming opinion is the hosuehold income is not asesable for CSA of the NRP and no maintenance should stop!!!

The EX is expected to subsidise the unemployed EX but he can reduce the CSA on the basis of his step children!!!!!!

There’s no clear cut answer here to what is fair. Therefore I sit on the fence as I can see it from all points of view.

I suppose if you were still together and you had 6 kids your income as a couple would have to go further together than it does for 1 child. So if an NRP has more children (albeit with a new partner) that their income is spread around further so this logic applies.

Its a reduction for current family so I suppose I look at it like that, if the baby mummy got together with another man their finances would normally be joint and you would spend money doing day to day things that aren't set out from CSA as a bill. Is this making sense? So the child in the current family isn't cast aside?

Because it's not that child's fault,?

It's just another way for men to steal from women.

The only way it would be ok to change maintenance when nrp has other children in the household would be if the maintenance amount was based on the household income and not just the nrp earnings. It is a rigged game and society is allowing women and children to be financially and coercively abused.

There are the odd rps who are men but the majority are women and they are supposed to receive maintenance in lieu of shared parenting because it takes two to make a baby.

So woman rp has to pay for cms service.
Woman rp has to pay all bills, manage childcare, everything. Cost of bills is actual cost, not relative in any way to actual income.
Woman rp wants more children - has to budget for more.
Woman rp doesn't pay bills ends up homeless, debts/court, children suffer - in care.

Man nrp can choose his income and keep it all if he likes.
Man nrp supposed to pay teeny weeny percentage of declared income if he feels like it.
Unfettered by financial obligation man nrp can feel free to repeat behaviour with further children.

Man nrp could be earning a million a month or have disabled or terminally ill children and still the cms wouldn't force him to pay.

Because that would mean the woman rp paying to take him to court - there is no legal aid.

The system is a fucking embarrassment.

It’s a bit ridiculous to expect the maintenance payable to stay the same even if nrps circumstances change. Yes, rps don’t get a say in that but you can’t control someone else.

Benefits aren’t reduced for maintenance payments so basic minimums are the same. I think there’s just no argument that available funds should not be split fairly between children- later children shouldn’t suffer for being younger.

We should have a better system where men (and it’s almost always men) pay fairly for their children. Penalising children born later won’t help with that.

The nrp can be a woman as well not just a man. My sister's stepchild moved in full time but his mom refuses to pay any maintenance at all for him and even asked for them to lie and say he was till living with her as it impacted her benefits. So it's not a gender issue, it's a person issue!
The system needs to be fair and is done on a most cases scenario so unfortunately does not allow for all cases to be treated as people would like.
My partner overpays for his children by twice the CSA threshold states he must and has them 50% because he's desperate for them not to miss out. This isn't sustainable while I'm going to be on maternity due to our financial situation changing, but once I'm back at work it will.go back up again. This is fair as it is what would happen if they lived with us full time eg cuts would have to be made as incoming income is less.
People shouldn't have to pay for children they have chosen not to have - as it is a choice - but i do agree that if you have chosen to have children then both parents are responsible equally. Everything should be done to ensure all the children, regardless of order of birth, are treated equally and don't miss out.

what annoys me is that my ex pays £26 a month for our 4 children. he owes arrears but doesnt have to pay them as he is on benefits!! no incentive to work then! whole system is a joke.

To those saying as you have more children you pay less for all of them, that's just not how it works!

Say you have 1 child, and its said they cost 100 a month. If you have 2 more children, you don't simply divided that 100 by three, and say "they cost 30 quid each" that's just not how it works!! You make sacrifices to take EXTRA money from elsewhere to pay for the extra children that YOU make the choice to have.

what annoys me is that my ex pays £26 a month for our 4 children. he owes arrears but doesnt have to pay them as he is on benefits!! no incentive to work then! whole system is a joke.

TBF if you were on benefits you wouldn't have to pay anything either.