Child maintenance, am I in the wrong?

[RR94]

For a little bit of background I'm 24 and have a 5 year old and 3 year old with my ex. We broke up when child 2 was 6 weeks old. Although horrific at the time we managed to have a good parenting relationship afterwards and have always shared child care costs relatively equally.

I work 4 days a week - I pay 40% of childcare and my ex pays 60% (as I'm working for one day less). I have the kids 9 days of every 14.

My ex has been with his fiance for 2 years and she is pregnant.

I have been with my boyfriend for around 18 months. We are moving in together in June.

My ex now wants to reduce how much he pays as my boyfriend is 10 years old than me, has no kids and earns a significant amount more than my ex (and me). So he sees no reason to still pay as much. I said they are still his kids etc but his response was 'you wont have to pay for anything with the house or shopping when you live with him'. In my view this is none of his business....

Am I being unreasonable here?

Oh and the idea that because the OP’s new partner has more money, then he should contribute to the Ex’s kids is also highly unreasonable. It could put the new relationship under a lot of strain.

If she moves in with him and loses tax credits as a result you don't think he should contribute? Surely that's a key consideration when considering a relationship with somebody who already has children..

@Felford the new partner will be paying towards the children. The new partner unless they are a complete CF will pay towards the household food, bills including council tax, water and rent/mortgage.

A couple moving in together need to discuss finances obviously, work out the tax credits, loss of single person council tax etc. Those are all the legal consequences of joining two households. I can’t think of any law where OP’s Ex can say that the new partner has more than him, so must pay for the privilege of living with OP by paying for the kids which the Ex and OP have together. I think it’s shameless of OP’s Ex and I hope his new girlfriend is watching carefully.

How can the ops ex expect her new partner to pay for his child when his partner isn't paying for his child.
Personally I don't think cm should be reduced when a nrp moves in with a partner with children.
What is the logic in that?

He should still pay the same amount. New partner’s incomes on both sides should not influence the amount whether up or down.

I take it you didn’t ask for an increase in the amount when his partner moved in. If you didn’t then he shouldn’t be asking to decrease it.

When I got a gift of £300 from my parents towards baby things I had to give his ex £150 of it to ‘pay what we owed’.

You’re much nicer than me. You should have just kept the money secret and spent it on your baby. You didn’t owe her anything if your DP had a pay decrease- maintenance should have been decreased accordingly.

I think the problem I have is that when me and my ex where together he was on £45k which I believe is now more. I'm of the opinion that he should pay fairly for his children they (obviously) adore him - so paying for swimming lessons/gymnastics/karate should all feed into that.

My boyfriend earns more than me - and my ex that being said they aren't his children no doubt there are financial benefits to me living with him but in a similar vein I'm very aware thats a VERY big commitment for him to move in with two young children. There is 4 months left of nursery so his new cost of nursery in (I estimate) 16 months of time won't be a large financial hit.

If we have to do this through solicitors I will - that being said I think at this point in time he is aware he is being unreasonable.

You can either expect 50% of the child costs

or

Maintenance towards the children (as determined by CMS)

If the childcare costs (which make up the majority of the current child costs) are likely to end/reduce soon, then you may be better using the CMS calculation. Will be less now, but consistent even when childcare stops.

However, manage your expectations, you are morally entitled to 15% of the costs of you housing, feeding and clothing your children (based on him 35% you 65%) and 50% of childcare. That is all. You BOTH need to support your children equally, regardless of your respective salaries.

Or go by CMS,

Tbh it’s despicable that we even need to CSM it reflects badly. The trouble is in my case, he literally pays 50% of the childcare that therefore allows me to work to pay for everything else. And he thinks he’s hard done by

He’s been over paying (much more than legally obliged) and has your children 5/14.

His children. Corrected that for you.

We need CMS as everyone always feels hard done by and this thread is a fine example. The OP would never be satisfied and sees it all from her perspective alone. There are plenty of threads with new partners upset that the maintenance going to an ex is too high. The CMS has some sound principles that make things fair - new children for example would obviously change the payment, as would an ex marrying someone rich. This is fair. Otherwise people make up moral rules that are ludicrous and mostly suit ourselves only, as the OP has done

It might make some people stop and think if they can actually afford a second family if they were forced to pay the correct amount of raising the first

Are you claiming child tax credits/UC?

I wouldn’t imagine so earning £45,000 each

She’s on 36 pro rataed for 4 days a week so that’s only 28800 and she should be eligible for some help with child care should she not?

Don't set things up so he gets every weekend. Once your children are both in school you will never see them.

I'm a bit confused. He mainly has them weekends now, and you want to stop that because he wants to decrease the amount of CMS he pays, as he has another child to budget for, and you want to stop weekends suddenly because you're mugged he can no longer afford what he currently pays?

There is value to the OP and their ex having an informal arrangement and it has benefited both the OP and her children. But of course informality means they could be interpreting and defining things differently and from different perspectives. It also means they are not using set rules and it’s not really fair to criticise how they express what they mean. The ex might be well aware of his actual obligation but has been willing to pay more to support the OP, a quasi form of spousal maintenance. Her new relationship would have bearing on that decision if it was the case. We don’t know if there was any other form of settlement when they split.

There is merit to a 50/50 share of costs arrangement but it does need to be affordable. This is why the new child is a new issue. As is choice of lifestyle.

The other factor that needs to be accounted for is not just cost of the children but income too. If the OP is getting benefits for the children then she should reduce the costs accordingly so the benefit is split if she wants to use this methodology.

My advice to the OP is to stop being offended by his need to reopen the discussion and to instead approach the need to renegotiate constructively. Defaulting to legal obligations could well see her very badly off particularly as she now faces being in a new relationship where she is disadvantaged by being a low earner and because she will have lost significant elements of her maintenance and benefits.

I’m actually baffled reading this thread, your ex has been doing a thousand times more than any single dad I know! He’s been over paying (much more than legally obliged) and has your children 5/14.

He's been doing more? He's their Dad. He's amazing because he's paying over the minimum directed by CMS? Every Dad should if they're able. And they're his children as much as OP's, so you really need to remember that next time you want to crap on someone's post because you think they ought to be grateful that a miracle Father has paid over the odds for children but wants to reduce the monies because he expects another man to fund their childhood now. Ridiculous.

This is the trouble it’s ingrained into us that child support is a bonus, a nice to have lucky if you get it .... and that going from 100% of an average wage, £45,000 is nothing to write home about and probably just about managing to 15% is acceptable and it bloody isn’t. It is not what we signed up for when we had these children.

as would an ex marrying someone rich.

New partner's income regardless of which side is not taken into consideration.

The responses here show just why men get away with not paying properly or at all for their children and women are disadvantaged at work after children.

Let’s start from a position that society should be striving for equality.

2 people have sex, in doing so there is a mutual acknowledgement that the women might get pregnant. If you don’t want to have children, then be celibate or double up on contraception, have the snip or get sterilised. No man should ever complain that he has been trapped. Genuine accidents happen with all forms of contraception.

The baby arrives and the parents split up. Who should bring up and pay for that baby? Shouldn’t both parents make an equal contribution. Sometimes that will be one working more and paying more, whilst the other looks after the child.

Usually, it’s the mother who is primary carer and takes the hit in terms of time out of her career.

In the OP’s situation, she worked out her work and custody arrangements around the Ex’s need to have the children at the weekend so his DM could help as he could not cope on his own. A luxury which the OP was not allowed, she had to get on with it.

Now her Ex has decided that he wants another child and will reduce OP’s maintenance for the children. Why should he be allowed to do that? Why does his desire to have another child mean that he shouldn’t pay for the one’s that he has already got? If OP cannot afford to work or has to go on UC because of his decision, is that reasonable?

Is it reasonable that the Ex’s refusal to pay for childcare means that the OP has to get tax credits? Are tax credits really made available so that a man can avoid his responsibilities in the happy knowledge that the tax payer will pick them up for him.

His excuse is that OP’s new boyfriend has more money than him. How nice of the Ex to decide how the new boyfriend should spend his money. And how humiliating for the OP.

Perhaps the OP wants a relationship where finances are kept separate and she pays her way, like an equal. Does the Ex think that the new boyfriend should ‘keep’ the OP? What a pathetic specimen the Ex is if he really thinks that another man should be paying for childcare bills for his children.

In addition to all of this, the Ex wants the new arrangement to start before OP has even moved in with her boyfriend. Can there be any justification for that? It smacks of spite.

And all those posters who say that the OP should be grateful that the spineless man who left her when their mutual child was 6 weeks old has paid more than the bare minimum to date, then please reconsider your views. A man who has to be taken to CMS to pay the minimum for his children is no man at all.

Those trying to ram their own version of what's fair won't do the OP a lick of good. Legally she is in a very weak position and it seems he viewed the amount he was giving her more like spousal maintenance which does take into account living with another partner and their income. A "deal in the round" is more like what she has. She would have been FAR better off having gone through court in the early days before the new partner to have the amount in an order. Now she hasn't got a leg to stand on legally and arguing with him is likely to damage what seems to be a decent coparenting relationship. By all means become politically active and try to change policy but this won't help the OP in her current situation.

@Ncouttaembarrassment not if she moves in with her partner who is a high earner, she will get no tax credits regardless of whether new partner contributes to childcare or not.

was you and him having a third child then then your first two would have proportionately less spent on them- that’s just what happens when family size increases

It’s not the OP having ana editions al child, is it? What you’re saying is that it is fine to have additional children, reduce the income of a household who had no say in that decision to have additional children as a consequence and expect that other household to pick up the financial slack that causes.

He’s been over paying (much more than legally obliged) and has your children 5/14

Legally calculated child maintenance is widely agreed to not meet the sides when it comes to the true costs of bringing up a child. He also has his own children, not the OP’s children. It’s parenting, not some kind of babysitting as a favour.