To challenge the CMS calculation

[UserWhatYouLike]

Dp has 2 dc (14 and almost 16)

He was paying for them through the CSA but the case was closed due to switching to the CMS.

He’s received a new calculation from the CMS which is (roughly £100 a month) higher than before. He queried this and his ex has told the CMS that the dc don’t stay over at our house anymore. This isn’t true. They’re supposed to be with him Friday night one week and Saturday night the next, but being teenagers they pop their heads in and go straight back out with their friends. 9/10 they are sleeping over one or other of their friends houses on one of the nights but he is still responsible for them those nights.
The older one also has a babysitting job so depending on if they have a job that weekend is whether or not they turn up.

He normally pays the amount the CSA suggests plus half of uniforms/trips, pays their phone contracts and gives them £10 a week each. we also take them clothes/shoe shopping twice a year and get the majority of what they need.

We are not well off and are just about breaking even each month. This £100 will mean we will struggle. I have 2 teen DC (who spend the weekends in a similar way) and we have 2 toddler dc together.

The contact is court ordered but we’ve allowed the dc to choose to go out/stay with friends if they like. DP is loathe to make them stick exactly to the script as we will then have unhappy DC, plus it will be treating them different to my own DC which we’re conscious of not doing.

We are lucky(?) enough to all live within 5 minutes of each other so his DC often come here straight from school to hang out with my DC, or for dinner a few times a week (depending on what we’re having😂) so we do actually see them a lot more than I’ve suggested.

How do we handle this?

Does DP suck it up and pay the extra or should he challenge it and explain that they should be staying over but choose not to? Or should we enforce the court order and make them stay at ours/not let them go for sleepovers or babysit?

Yes why shouldn't CMS be aware of all facts - and I wondered if the elder 2 were included in the old CSA case anyway. If it was the other way round and OP partner suddenly was in receipt of higher earnings their mum would expect that to be looked at.

@justneedsomeinfo the CSA case was made before me and dp even met. The amount he pays has obviously gone up in the 11 years since they split up, but he just rang them whenever he had a pay rise and they’d give him a new figure to pay and he’s amend the standing order. There’s never been mention of my older dc to them at all. It’s only since the CMS took over that she filled in the form to say they don’t sleep over.

No probs OP you don't HAVE to tell them.

So essentially

You could have put in ALL the other children of the household and he'd have paid a lot less

You didn't

She got narked and wanted more

By accident and not even by design your twins got put into the claim (which is fine, you're entitled to do that)

He's still paying more than the 'correct' amount set by CMS

Basically she's decided to try and get more from him by telling them wrong information (regardless of whether the teens are at a sleepover they're still on 'dad's time' and if there was an issue it would be him collecting them) and it's backfired spectacularly on her, but he's still being magnanimous and paying the original amount even though he could 'legally' pay less.

OP YANBU.

Simple ... stop paying for the extras ... sometimes parents need to met in the middle ... this isn't being done here.

The fact of the matter is, teens might cost more than £30 a week (or whatever) but if you don't have it, you don't have it . If the parents were still together and not able to provide any extras to the child, would that constitute neglect? Or is it only when you're a step parent that you're expected to find money that doesn't exist, without impacting the first born children one iota?

YANBU OP. You didn't have to share any financial details, but I get why you did. I also get why people get pissed off but at the end of the day, if money is not there, it's not there.

There’s no wonder you need to pay towards extras OP as £34 per week won’t even pay my DS’s school dinners and bus fare

The first family teens can breathe a big sigh of relief that they get to keep their phone contracts after all

Well done your OH what a stellar father he is

He is paying more then the minimum he is not a big earner. She lied to the CMS to try and get more money but it has back fired as he does not need to pay more in fact he could pay less legally but hey lets forget that NRP have bills to pay themselves lets make them all pay the vast majority of their wages to fund the life style of the RP and the children the NRP can sofa surf or be in a house share or homeless as long as he funnels all his money to the RP and the NRPs children.

Life is expensive both the RP and NRP need to pay bills and to maintain a home big enough for the children expect the NRP does not have the large amount of benefits available to cover these extra costs (Tax credits, child benefit etc).

The better system might be a standard 50/50 shared care were no one pays anyone maintenance until that time we have to remember that NRP needs to feed themselves and house themselves as well and that is why CMS is a set % rather then a set cash figure.

please how do you know they even need bus fares? op has already said they give the kids £10 a week plus pay the phone bills, twice a year shoes and clothing shops and pay towards school trips etc.
get off your high horse

Glad it's all sorted OP. Yep it's a minefield and I will be in the same boat soon as my baby is due any day now and I'm dreading the money chat which will need to happen while I'm on sat mat pay only so I can look after bump.
Glad it got sorted and that your step children are still getting the extras they want as well as their mom getting a fair deal eg slightly over the CMS calculation. Your DP sounds like a decent stand up bloke who is trying to do the right thing by all of the children, so I'm glad everything got resolved for you.
Good luck for the future x

I am aware my view is in the minority here but we are in aibu are we not and OP did ask the question

And digressing slightly .. nothing would make my fadge shrivel up faster than a man who goes on to have more children when he can’t even provide house room for the ones he already has

But yes they all love sharing a room

she asked whether she was bu to challenge the amount not attacks on her husband's choices and parenting. your opinion on their bedroom set ups, how much money they require etc is irrelevant, judgmental and makes you sound ridiculous because half the stuff you're pulling them up for has already been addressed in the op or subsequent posts

@Pleasebeafleabite ... what a delight you are 😱

Challenge away personally I would get a job to supply four bio children and my two step children

Wow, £68 a week for two teenagers. What a prince.

Jesus, why have children with a man like that?

I read the whole thread before I posted

It is about whether it is reasonable for the OH to challenge an additional £2 a day maintenance

Or alternatively cut off the children’s phones as considered by OP

I feel this may have opened the avenue to Parenting Decisions

But the OPs husband isn't just paying £68 per week/£295 per month for both DSC.
He's paying that, along with £60 on phone contracts; £80 per month pocket money between them; plus any additional costs of having them over for dinner on non contact nights (which they haven't complained about and saves the mum money), plus the cost of the contact days itself.
You're looking at almost 1/3 of his wages each month once it's all added up.

And that is before the summer and winter clothing haul, saving the mother money, the half of all school expenses, the extra weeks in the summer.

I'd say the costs are split fairly bloody evenly between OPs DH and the mum; she's just chancing her luck at wanting more.

OPs DH is working to provide for his kids, the mother isn't. Normally a woman who chooses not to work, when her children are old enough, despite struggling financially is dragged through the coals on MN. It seems this isn't the case if they are a RP and there is a man and step mother to bash.

Should he then have to not have a family life? Why not? She has another child but he can’t have any more? Why is he not entitled to be part of a family again?

Absolutely he is entitled to have more children. Absolutely he is entitled to be 'part of a family' again. I believe that wholeheartedly.
It should NEVER be at the detriment of the existing children though and it always seems to be. With cries of "why shouldn't I* You having children means that his get less. Fucking selfish all round.
The amount he pays is shit. Yet you both felt you could add more children to support and now they get less.
If that sits well with you, and more importantly, him, and considering you actively made sure his children now get less, then that really says it all

There’s been sympathy garnering drip feeding throughout this thread

I personally wouldn’t have more children if I couldn’t provide a bedroom for the ones I already had, nor would I if indeed maintaining my existing children was taking up a third of my wages already

I would say that if he is paying the amount stipulated plus a bit extra now then yanbu. I say that on the understanding that you really can't afford to pay more because in an ideal world I think it should be higher. As an aside, is paying £60 a month the best way of using those funds for the teens. I would consider trying to change their contracts (while keeping their number) for a lower cost one or even moving them to PAYG. You could probably cut this cost in half.

£2 a day does not add up to £100 a month.
also op said they could afford more children at the time when she had a good job and before she ended up having twins instead of one child. and extra £100 probably would have been affordable if they'd only had a one child or if she hasn't lost her job!

YANBU OP. Ignore the step-mum bashers. Your DP sounds like a good man and his children seem happy and don't go without.

Some responses here are bizzare.
If OP was the actual mum and her children needed to share a bedroom/their financial situation changed during pregnancy it would be met with a "these things happen"/"kids don't need their own room". As she is the step-mum her and her husband have ruined the DSC lives by being so selfish.

@sailorcherries the almost 16 yo shares with her 6 yo sister at her mums. Our kids call themselves brothers and sisters - there’s no ‘step’ or ‘half’ brought into it. They’re siblings who have (and still are) grown up together. They all (except the twins) went to Disneyland Paris the November before last with my dcs dad and his family - it wasn’t even thought of not to include them in the trip.

The contracts are better as they get a new phone upgrade every year so can have the newest phone like my dc get from their dad, and their peers. We couldn’t afford to buy them a new phone each outright every year, which to a teenager is a necessity.

They’re all really good kids, we don’t have any trouble from them at all.

OP you always get step mom bashing , I wouldnt worry about it. You are both doing the best you can and treating all the children equally. Glad it's sorted out so the kids arnt going without