Child Maintenance Issue

[Throwaway0912]

Name change as don't want this linked back or picked up by The Sun.

Looking for some outside perspective on this as I think we've got overly emotional.

Background info
DH has a child (11) from a previous short, casual relationship. Child maintenance by private arrangement since birth, currently £500pcm and has been for 2-3 years now. He uses the calculator as a guideline and rounds up to an easy number.

Child's mum got in touch and said she's struggling and needs CMS increased to £700.

The issue is, in the last couple of years, we've had children and DH has dropped hours to reduce our childcare bill. He was the higher earner initially, but I then overtook him and his job is more flexible so it made sense for our circumstances. The CMS was never reduced, wasn't really considered because we work from one pot, it's a non-negotiable outgoing, it was just left as it was. However, based on his current situation, when he checked the calculator said he should be paying around £330.

He got back to child's mum and said he can't increase to £700, he'd need to stay at £500 and then reassess in September when our childcare reduces. All hell has broken loose.

He's now saying screw it, go through CMS and pay the £330.

Child's mum is saying it needs to be £700 or she's "taking it further".

I'm just lost on what to do. I know it's not my issue to sort but he's my family and we're a team, I'm also a mother and don't like to think of another mother struggling. AIBU for wanting to push for it to remain at £500? Or should I step back and leave him to his knee jerk reaction of the CMS route? Is there a middle ground we've not considered?

It is not about what she deserves - it is the child.
Not paying for a month over a petty detail really does not reflect on the usually father - nasty vindictive and controlling

OP -- you sound lovely

The £500 is not meant to be a 50% contribution.

I have no idea why that always comes up on here.

Its meant to be a contribution proportional to the NRP’s income not an exact 50/50 split.

The child is meant to have a lifestyle proportional to their combined parents income - regardless of those incomes are similar or vastly different.

People see it like that as at 50/50 nobody pays anyone anything. So maintenance is seen as money in lieu for however much of that time, that's where this comes from.

I think we're sorted. DH left for pickup a bit earlier to have a face to face chat. Took a payslip and just set his stall out, as in, this is how it is, accept it or go to cms, here's my income, ball is in your court now. He said he tried to understand if there's been something specific caused this, like a big unexpected expense or a change in her income or whatever that might mean a bigger issue for DC, but nothing was forthcoming so he's no further forward really.

Just going to keep on as we were and if cms get in contact then so be it, at least we've done the best we can do.

Thank you again to everyone who has chipped in since last night, I've taken a lot of support from this, even just as a bit of reassurance we've not got this completley wrong. Off to drown myself in a bottle of red!

@Throwncrumbs hahaha oh I know! He is a walking red flag which is why I do not soley rely on him for nothing I have my own home I have my space and I do not do it. He’s nearly 40 and I’m preying I’m his last child mother in his lifetime honestly 😂 it’s been a rollercoaster!

*The £500 is not meant to be a 50% contribution.

I have no idea why that always comes up on here.

Its meant to be a contribution proportional to the NRP’s income not an exact 50/50 split.

The child is meant to have a lifestyle proportional to their combined parents income - regardless of those incomes are similar or vastly different.*

That's not really my point. £500 should be a more than adequate partial contribution to one child's upkeep, assuming the other parent is also in work and contributing.

I would suggest going via CS but tell them you want to continue with the same amount. Then it is all above board.

She will be stopping access next

That’s not what you said though. You specifically referenced £1000 and that is not the point of it. The share paid by the NRP is purely a proportion of their income.

£700 is a lot of money for one child. Especially considering that's supposed to be just his share. My 3 cost me about £500 a month all together.

So even £300 a month contribution should be enough to keep a child in relative luxury.

That’s not what you said though. You specifically referenced £1000 and that is not the point of it. The share paid by the NRP is purely a proportion of their income.

Yes, and now I've said that was a random figure and not central to my point, which remains the same. It's plenty of money for one child, especially if it's only a proportion.

You very clearly meant it as a half. Which is my point.

Anyway no point in discussion with someone pretending they meant something entirely different to what they said.

And again, the NRP proportion is not plenty or excessive - it’s a fair proportion in relation to their income (prior to deliberate reduction).

The standards for men on here are appallingly low.

Luckily for the kid in question the OP has higher standards. And so does her husband

*You very clearly meant it as a half. Which is my point.

Anyway no point in discussion with someone pretending they meant something entirely different to what they said.

And again, the NRP proportion is not plenty or excessive - it’s a fair proportion in relation to their income (prior to deliberate reduction).

The standards for men on here are appallingly low.*

I'm not sure what your issue is here. The idea that it is half of the money contributed is clearly a sticking point for you, but it wasn't for me, hence it was a flippantly included detail that was not central to my point. You are not qualified to tell me what my point was.

And my opinion that £500 should be more than enough as a partial contribution to a child's monthly upkeep is not related to whether it's mum or dad, it's just about how much it's necessary to spend on a child.

It’s a sticking point because of how many of you say it when it’s not accurate. It’s not meant to be 50%. It’s a fair proportion of their salary.
Your point was obvious. If you want to be disingenuous about it that’s up to you.

The fair and appropriate proportion paid by a bin man and a footballer would obviously be different. A child should have a lifestyle in fitting with a fair proportion of their parents incomes. Not a set standard based on the lowest level absolutely necessary.

And for me the sticking point is claiming to be struggling to pay for a child on £500 and claiming you need a minimum of £700. I find this fairy insulting towards people who are actually struggling to care for their kids. It's more than enough money for them to be comfortable.

That opinion doesn't hinge on whether it's half of the money being spent or not. Nothing disingenuous about it, I was just focused on something different to you. You're being oddly confrontational about it.

It's more than enough money for them to be comfortable

Days who? At one point my childcare bill was in excess of £1.2k a month. Just so I could work. £500 wouldn't have touched the sides. Not that I got anything.

I don’t think he should take from his own child to spite his ex who albeit sounds greedy but cms is the bare minimum and if I could afford to id rather pay extra so my child had the best quality of life they could than pay the minimum the law tells me too just to annoy the other parent. Everybody is struggling rite now and I know this sounds terrible but he had other children knowing he already had one to support and voluntarily reduced his hours and income which benefits only you and your kids but now disadvantages his other child and that doesn’t seem fair to me

@Thatboymum

CMS is worked out to replicate the standard of life the child would have had if both parent were together. This was worked out to be around £320 (would have to look up thread for actual figure). He has been paying £500 throughout even after dropping his hours, how is this unfair to the other child?

No it's not it literally a percentage of salary minus pension contributions.

I would ask him to input his details into the CMS calculator and take a screenshot to show her. Then tell her she is more than welcome to contact CMS but that’s how much she will be paid instead.

Ex CMS worker here. It never goes off what the receiving parent wants, it is strictly by calculation that an amount is agreed. So as long as the minimum amount is paid then he’s done it correctly by law. (Parents can agree a higher amount of course but all CMS cares about is that the minimum is paid.) I imagine she’s probably shot herself in the foot. My memory was that for 1 child it’s 13 to 16% gross pay. Any additional children to same parent have an extra percentage put on top of that. Hope this helps

Yup this is correct. Ex cms worker here, not based on lifestyle at all. It is based on gross pay minus pension

Also just want to add OP, I really encourage your dh to not change the arrangement though if it was working. Maybe look at it in September like you said when your circumstances will change.

I've seen this happen with someone I know too. Father was paying £200 a month even though they had 50:50 contact, mother wasn't happy, constantly demanding more because 'dads pay the mum'. Went to CMS and she now gets nothing. Can't say I have any sympathy really.

Child's mum is saying it needs to be £700 or she's "taking it further"

He should just reply "take it further then". She'll only shoot herself in the foot. Whatever happens don't you make it up to £700. If you're happy to keep it at £500 then great but that's it and if she does insist on going to CMS well she's in for a suprise isn't she.

I'm aware I've not come across well but I do appreciate all of the comments and viewpoints, it's helped see things more calmly

You've come across fine. People just think mothers, especially first mother's, are saintly on here and can't make any unreasonable requests.