To say no to OH increasing child maintenance

[Nastyurtium]

Need a sanity check here.

OH pays maintenance at CMS level to his ex for their three children. We have them every other weekend and half the holidays and provide everything they need whilst they’re here, as well as paying half of school uniform and trip costs.

I earn double OH’s salary and pay around 75% of our household costs. He is paying off joint debt from his first marriage; I pay for the children’s holidays, clothes and hobbies whilst with us. We live ninety minutes from the children (his ex moved after the split and this is as close as we can be with OH working in his field - if we weren’t worried about proximity, we could both earn double living further away in the UK).

His ex has been commenting a lot on the children costing more as they grow up (they’re primary age), the cost of living going up and the fact that she’s had another baby so can’t work as much, and I’m expecting a formal request for more maintenance money soon. We have a cordial relationship. She has a partner, who is self-employed and she works some hours for his business. I don’t know a lot about their finances but they take more holidays than us and seem to have a similar lifestyle, albeit in a cheaper region. We’d happily have the children for more of the holidays or even full-time but this has always been refused.

AIBU to just say no? If OH was paying half our living costs, it’d be his choice, but he isn’t and has nothing left at the end of each month, so realistically any increase would be coming from my salary.

@YaWeeFurryBastard I don't think second wives (I'm not one) do worry from what is being said here. It's all the first wives thinking their ex should keep them and kids even when they have more.

If you are wondering where 2400 income for him came from, the OP claimed that 400 maintenance and 400 debt payment took 1/3 of his income.

You’ve based that on gross income. Have you forgotten that tax, NI and pension deductions come out of that? CMS requires a payment of £400 a month for three children on a salary of £36k.

Tbf OP said his take home somewhere amongst the 20 pages.

So did the Mother of the other children when she chose to have a children in a relationship that lacked longevity and ultimately ended. Where’s the onus on her to “chose better” ultimately if people made better choices we wouldn’t be having this discussion as there’d be no relationship breakdown.

The first Mother should have chosen to procreate with someone on more than £36k. It was never going to be a champagne and caviar lifestyle and really isn’t enough for a single income household - she doesn’t work and hasn’t. Should have had some foresight then if she wanted to be SAHM.

CMS is the bare minimum and Dads are lambasted for providing it, but any extras don’t get counted for. How do they win?

Or it could be avoided by the parents taking financial responsibility for their kids and not viewing a new partner as a source of income for their benefit. It should be possible to separate finances for children from a previous relationship, the only difficulty here is that the parents don’t want to - they’d much to burden a new partner.

No, the PP you quoted is right. You’re also right that no child is “more deserving” but the existing child was already born. If you look at the set up and think “ah well they’ll just have reduce their standard of living so I can have more babies” then IMO that’s really selfish arsehole behaviour and I find it quite shocking people think that way and it’s two fingers to the existing children so long as the new partner can have what they want. (To spell it out, I think it’s just as bad when the RP/NRP does this as well).

Can these people not get another man or something which is why they insist on having more kids with men who can’t provide for the ones they have?

No need for dick swinging, I also work in a highly qualified role.

I agree with what you’re saying, I don’t think the mum should be doing it either but that doesn’t mean it’s fine for everyone else to just do what they want! Someone needs to prioritise the kids.

I’m sure you’ll agree that £400 a month for 3 kids will not provide even half the basics. You’re absolutely right, if it’s all that’s available it’ll have to do but is it good enough?

A low earning father seems to be tolerated/accepted in ‘together’ families, but not when separated, which is always a mystery to me.

Oh so doing the vast majority of the parenting is no contribution?

It's a good thing the courts disagree with you in divorce cases.

I see what you’re saying but CMS reduces by £7 pw for each child living with the NRP. If that figure is really so significant then neither family should have had children as he couldn’t support the first either.

The family courts do not encourage, or look kindly on Mothers having an expectation of staying at home and not earning.

He's providing £400 for 3 children which is an absolute pittance.

Any debt payment has no bearing on child maintenance. If its shared there is a joint liability and it can be enforced through the courts. Happily this is exactly what the judge did to my ex husband when she ordered him to pay substantial amounts on top of CMS.

I didn't say that.

But they certainly give weight to parents who have sacrificed their career, future earning potential, pension accumulation etc.. by staying at home and providing childcare for the working parent who has had the opportunity to accrue all these things. And rightly so.

But it does

You can apply for a variation for:-

repaying debts from the former relationship – for example, if you are paying a car loan for a car the receiving parent has kept

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/other-financial-commitments-child-maintenance-

I agree it should be a consideration, but not a carte blanche to stay at home forever like this parent appears to be doing.

Also posters seem to confusing CMS with the family courts who don’t have jurisdiction over CMS. It doesn’t say anywhere that these parents were married so the courts are irrelevant.

It depends what the divorce settlement was.

I may have missed it in 20 pages but he may have been court ordered to pay these debts, they may have been in his name as she was a stay at home mum and so they may have already been taken into account. The fact remains £400 is a pittance to raise 3 children.

If there isnt a clean break in place she can always ask the court to revisit it if indeed there was one done in the first place. It may be more beneficial to get a share of his pension.

They weren’t married.

But they certainly do over financial settlements and the division of assets accrued during the relationship.

That won't affect the debts.

It will - because the courts don’t have jurisdiction, CMS therefore can take it into account.

The court does. Not over child maintenance but over the financial settlement of the assets, property, debts etc..

There is NO financial settlement for unmarried, Co-habiting couples. It is NOT a legal arrangement. The courts do not have any involvement.

the courts deal with DIVORCES you can only get divorced if you are married. 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

FML, £400 towards 3 children is a drop in the ocean.
If you were to split, after having a child, then that £400 would need to go four ways.

This man cannot afford the children he has and is off his head to be considering another.

And yes, he's taking the piss out of you too. I'd take more issue with a man who doesn't pay his fair share in the household because he's paying for his kids, and what he's paying his kids wouldn't make that much of a difference to the running of a household than a mum potentially asking for more.

Why isn't he finding another income stream?