EW and CMS

[kitchen123]

NC for this as could be outing.

DH has two children. One in junior and one in senior school. I get along really well with them and exchange pleasantries every time I've seen his EW.

Things has got bad between DH and his EW and they haven't spoke for months, only email.

EW went to CMS to recalculate the CM as she wanted more. DH provided documents and CMS reduced his payment significantly. Turns out he was massively overpaying and they told him to reduce. He decided to reduce as EW was being extremely difficult and was threatening him with all sorts of legal action / reporting him to HMRC (false allegations). He asked her to stop, she didn't so got the solicitor involved.

EW is now preventing DH from taking children away on holiday but still allows contact EOWend. EW tells children they could go away with EH but then changed her mind when he went to double check with her. EW tells kids EX isn't paying the right amount of CM (he is, but it's not the high amount she wants). FYI no access order in place.

EW now threatening she will lose house as can't afford it but has somehow managed to book two week villa holiday and tickets to an expensive event, all in the space of the last few weeks.

I will support DH but want to be fair too.

EW works and EH wants to actively
have DSC more, without the threat of reducing the CM she would receive.

What advice would you give? He does listen to my opinion.

Thanks

The DSC have said they want to go in holiday with their Dad but Mum won't let them.
The financials should be dealt with as a separate issue.

Maybe the financials are why the ExW doesn't want to let them go on holiday? I believe if your DH is paying £500 CM on a salary of £40k that means he has them less than 52 nights a year (which ties in with having them EOW). If the DC go on holidays with their DF and he has them for more than 52 nights, the CM will reduce by a further £50 a month. If that is the case, the ExW will lose £600 (10% of the CM) just because their DF has had them just for an extra 7 nights (2%).

@Dontdisturbmenow if EW can afford the villa holiday in Italy that she's booked she's not suffering from any sort of punishment at all.
An earlier and very sensible poster suggested that my DH and his EW go through finances and look at what DSC needs are in terms of financials. That would seem like a fair and amicable way. So long as both parties are open and honest.
There has been a suggestion that because I am comfortable then he should pay more, clearly I don't see why my finances come into question. I already contribute to the DSC financially, just not directly to his EW.

@goingoverground please read earlier posts before assuming.
DH has already agreed in writing to his EW that he will NOT reduce his CM if she agrees to let him take HIS children away on holiday.
Let's not demonise a father who wants to take his kids away on holiday and has agreed he won't reduce CM!

He's quite a reasonable man but is sick to the back teeth of being treated badly by his EW
Not disputing the way he feels, but ultimately, he is acting on them and in doing so affecting his children. This he can't deny however much he thinks she deserves it.

It doesn't make much sense that she would be so adamant that he is earning more. Why would she so strongly believe it if he is PAYE, not working extra hours, not contributing more in his pension?

She clearly came across some information to be willing to go to that length.

the ExW will lose £600 (10% of the CM) just because their DF has had them just for an extra 7 nights (2%).

And that’s a bad thing because? If he genuinely wants to see his children then he should see his children as much as possible. An nrp shouldn’t go without seeing their children just because it might inconvenience the rp financially!

Or how about this? DH gives up work...I support him (which I could do). Then EW gets nothing, no CMS payment and no whole host of additional extras which she's getting at the moment. Who wins there? No one. DH feels like crap as he wouldn't be providing for his kids, EW is drastically worse off financially and EW will probably try and stop contact all together. It would end up in court, Judge would separate the two issues; child access and financial, as that's what they do (the two are not linked).
Clearly that's NOT going to happen but I'm sure there's many sh@ts of Fathers who have actually done this before.

@Dontdisturbmenow if there is any additional info I'd love to see it. I suspect it really is a case of delusion and feeling entitled

@kitchen123
There have been threads about that type of scenario and usually it’s deemed fair for the SM to continue paying the maintenance. Moral obligation and all that.

@funinthesun19 he's already guaranteed he won't penalise EW financially if she agrees to let him take them on holiday.
Ironically if she doesn't let him take them then I'm going to book us a holiday anyway (I'm paying). The kids will be pissed off because they can't come with us and want to. I don't see why we should sit at home and not go away just because his EW won't let us take them away. Trying to explain that to them is a little difficult as how do you do that without making their mum seem like that bad guy (I don't want to do that as I always sing their mums praises to them).

@HillAreas that's a decision by the 'Court of Mumsnet' not a UK Court!
Clearly he's not going to do that, I was merely referring to what could happen

@kitchen123 I have read earlier posts although I didn't take notes. I don't think you stated that there was an agreement in writing though.

You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person. Put yourself in the ExW's shoes. Currently she and your DH are at loggerheads, he has just reduced CM by £200 because CMS have said he only has to pay £500. If your DH goes back to the CMS and says he now has them more than 52 nights a year, CM will be reduced and the CMS decision will supersede a family based agreement. I am not saying that your DH would do that but can you not see that his ExW might have valid concerns that he could?

@goingoverground shame on you for not taking forensic notes 😂😂
You make a good point about EW not believing, perhaps that's something they could discuss in mediation, thanks I hadn't thought of that x

There have been threads about that type of scenario and usually it’s deemed fair for the SM to continue paying the maintenance. Moral obligation and all that.

In most cases I’m extremely cynical about a sm paying maintenance. Especially when the nrp has been made redundant/sacked or become ill.
Even in cases where the nrp is being a “SAHP”. Because the nrp might not actually want to be a SAHP and is just doing it to get out of paying maintenance. Therefore I always think the blame is on them whether the sm goes along with it or not. I certainly wouldn’t be happy with being with a man who had a child from a previous relationship who decided to use our children to get out of working.

Indeed. I don’t think anyone other than a child’s parents should be held responsible for paying for their upbringing. If my DH tried to wriggle out of paying for his DD it would be the end of us as I could never respect him again. It still wouldn’t make me responsible for paying his ex though.
Court of MN often seems to say that SM should pay up, put up and shut up. 🤷‍♀️

If I’m honest I would probably judge a woman just for accepting money from another woman. Knowing the woman paying it has gone out to work to earn that money and the dad of the children hasn’t for whatever reason. It just all seems wrong and a bit icky to me.

the ExW will lose £600 (10% of the CM) just because their DF has had them just for an extra 7 nights (2%).

And that’s a bad thing because? If he genuinely wants to see his children then he should see his children as much as possible. An nrp shouldn’t go without seeing their children just because it might inconvenience the rp financially!

Really, @funinthesun19? It's not just "inconveniencing" an RP financially is it? In many cases, the loss of 5 weeks CM to facilitate an extra 7 days with an NRP is likely to have a far greater impact on the DC than the positives of a few extra days with the NRP. It could mean the financial difference between having to share a room, miss out on music lessons or a school trip, or the RP struggling to feed and clothe the DC. It's a major flaw with the CMS system. It's insane that just one extra night with an NRP could mean losing 5 weeks CM.

Unlike you, the OP and her DH are reasonable enough people to see the unfairness and don't want to do that. Sadly, there has been a complete breakdown of trust on both sides now so it is not unreasonable that the ExW might not believe that. A written agreement wouldn't stop the DH going back to the CMS and going back on the agreement.

So are you saying the maintenance shouldn’t be reduced when the nrp has the children over night? What if it’s 50/50 or near to that? How on earth do you expect the nrp to provide an adequate place for the children to live/a suitable place to sleep /clothes/food/enough gas and electric/payments towards extras if a reduction in maintenance is not allowed? You’d soon be moaning if an nrp can’t provide a bedroom. It’s not a flaw at all, because the money is reduced for a reason and that’s so that the nrp has more money to provide for their children themselves.

Unlike you, the OP and her DH are reasonable enough people to see the unfairness and don't want to do that.

I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t think anything I’ve said above is unfair so 🤷🏼‍♀️

Her request for a reassessment backfired....it serves her right.

He was already doing his fair share of paying towards his children's upkeep.

Let this be a lesson to anyone out for more money in this situation.

The fact that she's denying her DC a holiday just shows what kind of a person she is.

And yet people will bend over backwards to jump to her defence.

@funinthesun19 You’d soon be moaning if an nrp can’t provide a bedroom.

Would I? No, I wouldn't. Moreover, I fully appreciate that the CMS system can work to the detriment of the NRP. It isn't fair if the NRP is paying a fixed percentage of their income to support their children because that is what the law dictates and that means they cannot afford decent accommodation yet the RP doesn't need the money. I feel equally against RPs who take money on principle because it's "for the children" even though they don't need it when what would be best for the children is to have a bedroom at the NRP's home.

I didn't say that a reduction in CM is wrong. But a reduction that is out of proportion is totally ridiculous and unfair. If you reduced your electricity usage by 2%, you wouldn't expect at 10% reduction in the bill, would you? As it stands, CM is reduced by 10% for just having the DC one extra day.

Equally, the system of calculating CM based on where the DC spend the night is unfair and oversimplified. If DC arrive at bedtime on Friday and leaving before breakfast on Monday, that counts as 3 nights. Yet if they arrive before breakfast on Saturday and leave at bedtime on Sunday, that's 1 night. The time spent with the DC and the cost are roughly the same.

The CMS system is overly simplified and blind to the best interests of the DC. It can be unfair to the RP and NRP. It is difficult to create a system that is totally fair without looking at each case on an individual basis but it wouldn't be that hard to create a far better system than the current one...

I feel equally against RPs who take money on principle because it's "for the children" even though they don't need it when what would be best for the children is to have a bedroom at the NRP's home.

I’m with you on that one 100%. ^^

Regarding that bedroom comment, it was probably wrongly directed at you.

I’ve just seen so many threads on here over the years where an nrp is expected to provide a bedroom for their children at their house, has to pay all of their own living expenses and if they don’t pay a substantial amount of their income in maintenance on top of that it’s classed as a pittance.

The rp only has to concentrate on one household, and as the rp has a much stronger position when it comes to applying for council houses which would allocate a bedroom for their child (in my area you only have to have 1 child to get a 2 bed, just before anyone tries to correct me. I know other areas aren’t that generous) and also the rp gets financial help for the children. The nrp gets none of that but yet it expected to provide a bedroom in expensive private rents and has no other help financially at all. I think some people must think nrps have a money tree growing somewhere.

Judge would separate the two issues; child access and financial, as that's what they do (the two are not linked)

Absolutely. Except any half decent barrister would make it clear that the NRP had given up their job and as a result wasn’t paying maintenance. It paints a picture. And an unfavourable one.

I fully appreciate that the CMS system can work to the detriment of the NRP

Oh that made me laugh. The CMS fails children at every turn. Around 40% of maintenance due through the CMS is actually paid. Of the money that is paid, much of it is for the token £7 a week from benefits. Debts are being written off. The court process works in favour of the non-compliant from a time perspective.

I have some sympathy with lower earning NRPs and understand that the need to maintain a family home/space for children when paying out to an ex receiving child benefit, tax credit etc can be very unfair. It’s one size fits all when we are all different. But the idea that the system works to the detriment of the average NRP is beyond laughable. No, it is very definitely children who are short changed.

@Sotiredofthislife but he's not giving up his job. She has a well paid job and the children are not being short changed. They have a very good quality of life.
He pays CMS and extras on top.
His EW doesn't have the life she would like. But she never had that life when she was married to my DH anyway. That's tough luck, I'd like to be able to fly first class every time I go on holiday. I don't because it's too expense, doesn't mean I have a shit life.
We'll just have to see how they both get on in mediation and trust that they will find a way to agree.