Child maintenance reduction

[Istheregoldattheendoftherainbow]

I earn 3x as much as my DH. This isn’t an issue at all but we’re wondering what to do when it comes to child maintenance.

DH was paying his ex girlfriend a very generous amount (at this stage no CMS involved and turns out he was paying 3x more than CMS would’ve calculated)

When his ex found out me and DH were pregnant she unilaterally reduced contact to half of what it was and went through CMS thinking she would get more money. I don’t think she realised our lifestyle was because of my salary; not DH’s.

Anyway, things have always been toxic with her and DH served a court order on her when she reduced contact which saw myself and DH gain overnight contact. Not as much as we would’ve liked but it was better than what we had.

His ex has now broken the court order by saying the children do not want to visit us, stay with us etc therefore we are barely seeing them. DH doesn’t want to force them to come but we miss them.

DH has reduced his salary and CMS would decrease by 25% at the end of the month. Is it unreasonable to reduce it to the CMS suggested level?

I’m not sure why you commented when all you’ve done is make assumptions and clearly been triggered in some fashion?

I would point out that your entitled to drop it but you will leave it where it is so long as you get the amount of time with the children the court prescribed. If she doesn't do that you will reduce to the minimum legal level.

Not the 'exact same' situation at all. OP hasn't said the mum only spends maintenance on herself. That isn't the issue.
On a side note, how do you know the mum spent the maintenance on nails, hair etc? By any chance are you his current partner?

I disagree with others and think if the Ex is willing to use the children as a bargaining tool you need to do whatever you can to get more contact. I would use money as the bargaining tool, e.g. we will push for the 25% reduction unless contact increases and we will report Ex to SS if we feel she is emotionally abusing the children - by briefing against their father she is. The courts won't protect the children - they are useless in my experience (as a child and adult). I would still pursue more contact through the courts. You need to use every weapon you have.

And in the mean time left the DC to go without and saved the money to look like 'the big I am' when they turned 18 rather than providing the DC with the things they needed.

Interesting that some think DH shouldn’t reduce payments due to earning less because “kids still cost the same” but can guarantee if his wage was increasing they would insist he should pay more. But why? The kids don’t suddenly cost more
so by this logic why should the payment change?

Also the only reason CMS payments are being discussed and potentially changing is because the ex thought she could get more
money this way, the irony.

AIBU isn't the right area for these type of posts other areas of mumnet are better if you want advice.

Children aren't pay per view. So your DH shouldn't be doing tit for tat with decreasing payments because he isn't seeing them.

As PPs said he should go back to court to enforce the order. It needs to be done asap otherwise the Court won't think he is serious in having a relationship with his infant school aged children.

In regards to CMS if he cannot afford to pay it then he can decrease the amount. My DP use to do lots of overtime but this stopped when our DD was born meaning his CMS payments reduced the year afterwards. (They actually reduced that year but I gave him money because he was on shared parental leave. )

In regards for paying for other things for his children - if the children are seeing him and they need say a winter coat, new school shoes, etc he should be paying for it anyway.

It is important that he pays for things for his children as they need them not you. His children need to know he cares for them now and not when they are 18 when their relationship with him is completely damaged.

In the interest of reaching a 'happy medium' that works for your family and his previous children, I don't think you should hold financial responsibility for his children. However, your higher earner position is enabling him to take that day to spend with your child a week. I think his CMS to his older two children should match what he would earn if he was working full time. Then this 'dropped day' isn't an issue. If you can afford what that would be as a family, then I'd just do that.

Separately, he needs to get the court order enforced, it's a slippery slope from there, speaking from experience if you don't.

I don't think most parents think that. Yes it should increase if he is paying a normal rate of CMS because it isn't enough to actually support a child. It requires another parent or the state to pick up the pieces. But I don't know many that over indulge their DC when earnings increase. I think most parents make sure they earn enough to provide for their DC.

I wouldn't be paying if it was me. I think you need to let him sort this out. You sound like a nice person who is empathetic to ex but no good will come of propping up the maintenance.
I totally understand the thinking behind your husband looking after both your dc. To imply it's 'free labour' reduces the fathers role even more and diminishes him. Ignore ridiculous comments like this.
I would continue to fight to see the children as it's the right thing to do. Then if things change he can show his children he didn't give up.

she has asked for more money after she initially went to CMS and DH said he wouldn’t give her more cash HOWEVER he would actually buy the items. For example instead of giving her money for school shoes, he just bought them. I think (and I know it’s ad hoc) but that’s maybe a better way to do it? Decrease the CMS payments but expect a rise in the amount of items that need to be bought?

Ex sounds toxic.

But, I dont think he should be reducing his working days when he has other commitments. it's not just about your family now it's about his children from prior too. If he can't afford to support them and his new baby then he needs to be working full time to provide better for them. So no I wouldn't reduce it, because unfortunately its the ex who is a prick, not his kids.

My opinion is that when you think about dropping hours, you should only do this if finances work for everyone. I don't think it's OK for him to drop his hours if he is dropping below what the CMS payments were, if these were the minimum anyway.

It sounds like you both acknowledge that he maybe wasn't the best father to his first two children. At the moment he isn't able to spend time with them and support them practically and emotionally. Therefore, in my opinion, he should be doing his very best to support them financially as this is the thing that currently, he can actually do for them. He can then say to them when they are older that their mum wouldn't let him see them but he always financially contributed, as much as he could.

I fear that if he drops a day, it may come across as not supporting them emotionally, practically (as much as these may not be in his direct control), and also not doing as much as he could do financially. He has commitments to finance his first children that he would effectively be not sticking to, though choice rather than necessity (I think it would be a different discussion if he was dropping a day because he was a mega high earner so it made no practical difference or because he was ill).

When there is a split I think a sensible principle is trying to keep things the same for the children as if there hasn't been a split. And he wouldn't have ever (bar illness etc) decided to drop his contribution to his family by 20%.

Also I don't know if you know anything about his ex's finances but I'm assuming this could have a material affect on the children?

In the circumstances I'd think 20% of a CMS payment for a lower earners salary is quite a small proportion of a high earners salary, so although you're not obliged to pay it, I would consider this as these step children are still part of your family and I'd struggle to support a decision which negatively affected them

Is there any compromise like he works condensed hours, takes a half day instead of a full day on a Friday etc to reduce the financial impact?

Ultimately he is taking from his eldest two children to have a day with his youngest, which does save you on childcare. If all three children were both of yours, would you tell the eldest that they had to give up paid hobbies (as an example of somewhere to cut money that directly impacts them alone) so that your husband could reduce his hours for the same reason, is choice not necessity?
It sounds like the kids mum isn't doing a great job of co-parenting, and comes across very poorly in this. But nor does your husband, and you, if you decide to reduce CMS in these circumstances. You should continue to pay it and if you can't from his salary alone then you do it from yours too, or he doesn't reduce his hours.

Also why would it be a 25% decrease? Reducing from 5 days to 4 is a 20% reduction? Does he already only do 4 days and is reducing to 3?

Thank you for your reply. I think that’s the big fear of DH; that he didn’t try. I know there’s already been monetary things discussed e.g. the older one asked if I earned a lot of money, his ex wanted more money after we bought our house, after we came home from holiday, after I upgraded my car etc. i don’t know if she realises though that that’s from my salary that we can do those things and to be honest, I’m proud that I worked very hard to get into a good financial situation. I just don’t think it’s my responsibility to top up cash payments but I dont mind buying the kids things. We have a joint bank account so we just class it as ‘we’ bought.

its a different role completely. It’s not just reduced hours in the same workplace, apologies I should’ve made that clear

i understand completely about his first two children…but by the same token, our DC shouldn’t be missing out on time with their dad either. As I’ve said in a previous post the material items will probably increase and that’s fine, that’s to be expected I suppose.

With all due respect, I haven’t worked my backside off to subsidise his former life too. Plus he also has an obligation to our child too so am I to pay everything for our child and then some for his children too?

I said a normal CMS rate, I meant based on an average wage. If he cannot afford to reduce hours and keep up a CMS rate, he's not going to be earning £££.

His ex has now broken the court order by saying the children do not want to visit us, stay with us etc therefore we are barely seeing them. DH doesn’t want to force them to come but we miss them.

I can't see how old the children are but if they are young then I think their father should go back to Court to firm up the CAO. Show the children that HE really wants to have a good relationship with him.

Keep the ex (clouds judgement) and the money out of it(for now at least. It sounds like no one is struggling) - keep the children at the heart of the issue.

I read it (I may be wrong) that the OP was paying three times as much as the CMS would have been. Therefore, by reducing this by 25%, he will still be paying way more than required by CMS?
It is a MN thing that mums can use contact as a weapon (shielding behind 'the best interests of the children' ) but dads must never, ever reduce maintenance. Second families are viewed as an irrelevance, unless they are the mother's second family, when they suddenly become very relevant. It's not a level playing field at all.
You are right that reducing maintenance is absolutely playing into his ex's hands though. When my DH reduced maintenance to around double the CMS level when his ex steadfastly ignored every court order for contact and encouraged the children to turn against their dad, she immediately cut out all the things the kids enjoyed, such as after-school clubs and weekends away, telling them it was daddy's fault because he didn't think they were worth paying for. She was a piece of work, that's for sure.

His children aren't his 'former life' though, they are still his current family, even if he doesn't see them.

I don't think there are any clear cut answers here, but I do think he should be trying his best to reduce the financial impact on his children.