AIBU about paying CMS on maternity leave

[Odellio]

Are we (DH and I) being unreasonable in thinking that CMS should still be paid even if non-resident parent is on maternity leave?

SC live with us, their Mum pays DH via CMS, collect and pay method because of history of non-payment. It looks like CMS have decided payments to continue on weekly basis now she is down to SMP. She has applied for reconsideration of their decision to not pay.

DH never stopped providing financially for SC when we had another child, so we don’t see why she should have to stop paying CMS. Surely if you can’t provide for your existing children, don’t have more?

We are expecting another child and again, SC will not go without from DH financially because of this. She is having full year off on maternity leave whilst I’ve had/having to keep mine to 9 months both times for us to manage financially as a family. So maybe I’m just resentful of this fact.

Op isn’t talking about caring she’s talking about the financial side, which cms can force her to pay. They have given the mum an amount to pay so she has to pay it (they’ll just take it anyway cos she’s on collect and pay).
It doesn’t sound like op is wanting her to pay more than what cms have said but to just pay the amount given. The mum has been given an amount to pay and she’s trying to challenge that, if cms doesn’t agree she should pay nothing then they will continue to take what little she has to pay

As the op has just pointed out, it can’t come out of stat maternity pay. Which was what I thought and to what I was told was wrong.

It’s not about being reliant on it. It’s about the principle of paying. Would you say the same flippant comments to a mum who is the resident parent or is this all about twisting it so it’s always the dad who is the problem?

OP, morally, of course she is obligated, even if it is at a lower level.

But let's be honest, any absent parent is never going to step up and do the right thing. And let's also be honest and acknowlege that when the absent parent is the mother, this is even more so because it's so unusual for mothers to do this.

(and note, I say "absent" parent and not NRP ie a parent who appears to have just abandoned their child).

That’s fine we can agree to disagree. I don’t think life is as black and white as you seem to- context is always important. In this case I
was interested in the broader context of the relationship because it is less usual for the NRP to be female. I was wondering, for example, whether this was an arrangement that the mother wanted or whether it was forced upon her (given the gender bias in the family courts at the moment , etc).

Plenty of moronic mothers abandon their kids... my stepson is raising 3 alone after their mum decided she had had enough of parenting she refuses to have them on her own now.

This would really piss me off. But then it pisses me off that NRP are legally allowed to reduce their CMS payments if and when they have children living in their home, either stepchildren or half siblings to their existing children.

If the statutory maternity pay is the only income they have then it can’t but if the mum gets statutory maternity pay and another income then it can count as an income. I obviously don’t know the mums incomes

We don’t know - but from the OP, it looks like just stat maternity pay

It looks like CMS have decided payments to continue on weekly basis now she is down to SMP. She has applied for reconsideration of their decision to not pay.

Sorry I missed that!

Morally she should still pay but unfortunately not everyone has those. If people can’t provide for the child they have why have another?

@Coconutter24 Absolutely - its a fairly oft repeated debate on here with some people arguing that if a woman with no children marries a man with some, who visit EOW, she shouldn't be prevented from having her own "just" so that the CMS will remain the same. People argue that non spilt families divide the pot between more children when they come along but these arguments miss the point that in non split families that is a JOINT decision by all adult parties involved - completely different to a divorced NRP parent unilaterally deciding to reduce their contribution to the already existing children due to a conscious choice, ie not due to redundancy or illness. You don't get to pay less on your mortgage or bills because other expenses go up, you don't get to just not pay those when your circumstances change. All you can do is maybe downsize, economise etc. But CMS is minimum anyway so if an NRP makes a conscious choice that reduces their ability to pay CMS, such as going part time, going to study or having another child, they should only do that IF they can afford the existing payments because you can't downsize existing children, or get the Aldi rather than Waitrose versions.

Thank you, this is really helpful!

We will prepare for no CMS for next 6 months on that basis.

Still don’t agree with it morally, but as many posters have pointed out. Many RPs get screwed with CMS, system is flawed.

Completely agree with everything you wrote!

You are definitely not being unreasonable to think a mum should continue to pay towards her child.
Im shocked the voting is so close!! I’d bet it would be very different results if it was a dad trying to reduce his payments to zero because his new wife/girlfriend was having a baby

Well yes, because he's not the person who is giving birth to a child and whose income has reduced to a maximum of £187 a week/£9732 a year/less than the NI threshold/the minimum the State determines is just enough to keep an infant alive. His income is unaffected as he can work full time throughout.

I posted because there is so little information out there on this particular issue, as it’s rare I guess for Mum to be NRP. I obviously didn’t post with the expectation that every would agree with me, as it’s a tricky issue. But it is interesting that it is so split, normally AIBUs are fairly unanimous!

Its divorce I'm afraid. Complicated and messy. You knew he had a child when you got together and decided to have 2 more children. What would happen.if anyone lost their job? Things change. Poor child.

But her choice to have another baby is impacting the other household. That’s where the problem lies. Why is that ok just because it’s a mum? What are your thoughts if she decides to go back to work part time or becomes a SAHM and therefore has reduced or no income for CMS purposes? These are all the things people moan about when dads do them. And I’m also sensing it’s where the double standard shows.

If one of us lost our job? Use the money we have saved for such an event, or the payout from our insurance policy/our decent sick pay that we have in place to protect our family.

If she lost her job? Same that happens the last 4 times she’s lost her job, her CMS goes down to zero, she doesn’t declare her earnings when she gets a new job and we wait until the next recalculation based on tax earnings for CMS to do collect and pay again. We carry on as normal in the meantime.

Partnering up with a man who has children means that complications always arise. If you don’t want to deal with these challenges, perhaps you should have dated men who didn’t already have children.

Yep OP, stepmums always get the blame somehow 🤦🏼‍♀️. The mum has a convenient loophole to get out of paying for her kids but there’s no anger towards her. It’s all on you.

1. What's the alternative? Remove maternity rights from certain groups of women for not behaving as other groups think they should (generally having a termination so as not to financially disadvantage the second wife/subsequent children)? Take the entirety of maternity pay from the woman and her infant because the father of the first child is entitled to first dibs over the infant's formula and nappies?
2. You can't take money that doesn't exist - whether it's a man or a woman.

It's not as much a double standard as separate situations.

It’s never the stepmum’s fault. But if you’re going to marry a man with children, you’re naïve to think your life will be smooth sailing and drama free. One of the reasons when I was single, I gave all men with children a wide berth. No thank you.

😂 I’ve got used to the ‘you knew what you were getting into’ comments, classic.

How dare I marry a man with children, help bring them up and provide for them in the absence of their mother, financially plan having my own children to reduce impact on whole family inc. SC and have the audacity to question their biological mother’s contributions to all of this.

I am allowed to be annoyed by her downfalls regardless. Being divorced and having to co-parent doesn’t automatically give people the right to be a morally poor person. You can separate from someone and consistently do the best for your children.