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.

Yes but this is mumsnet where people pretend that the positions/
experiences men and women are exactly the same, including in relation to reproduction, regardless of very obvious biological, social and structural differences- and you can win any argument simply by reversing the sexes , (except when the subject is trans people in which case , of course , men and women are fundamentally different, have nothing in common, and nothing will ever change that).

I think the alternative in my mind is to continue to arrear CMS whilst on temporary leave. It’s not a permanent change to income, so if you haven’t financially planned ahead to continue contributing then okay but you’ll have to make up the loss when you are back to work and earning.

Not many people’s lives are smooth sailing and drama free.

I am sure every step parent will agree and admit that yes they were naive going into a blended family. Because having the knowledge that your partner has an existing child and actually understanding what that realistically looks like in reality, day-to-day etc are not the same thing. So really no, I had no idea what I was getting into. But yes I was naive.

Alternative is that she doesn’t have any more babies after this one when she knows full well that when she goes on maternity leave her existing children will get nothing from her? Or if she wants more babies she could take a shorter maternity leave so that she can work to provide for her existing kids. Those are the alternatives that I can think of.

What if she were raped? Is she allowed her maternity rights then 🙄.
Or maybe we should just start enforcing abortions in these situations just to make sure that CMS rules are “fair” for men.

Don’t be so bloody ridiculous.
CMS is what is right for the children. It’s not about what is fair for men. That comment just shows you up.

And no we shouldn’t start enforcing abortions. 🙄 What’s with the hyperbole? I’m just saying mums should pay for their children.

she can’t because she’s on SMP while she births and cares for her baby.your solution seemed to be she shouldn’t have more children (was wondering how you were planning to enforce that?) or not have maternity leave (can’t really see how you could think that was in the best interests of baby, so your “it’s all about the children” argument doesn’t really wash). Much of this thread has been dedicated to “oh if it were a man you’d all be saying he should pay, so it should be the same..” hence my questions to you.

And she’s still an NRP not paying for her existing children. Well done her.

I don’t think it should be enforced. But you’d think a good mum would just ya know, choose not to have any more?

This. 100%. Kids needs do not stop because the other parent decides to have more children.

But if she’s raped presumably that doesn’t count right? Just want to be clear on the rules for judging her (even if we accept the practicality of the law)

If I was raped I would think about the impact on my existing children, yes. Why is that a bad thing?

Meaning I would at least pay something. Not their fault if their mum has been through something horrific.

She can’t pay something if she doesn’t have the money

She’s getting SMP. That’s not nothing. NRPs pay about £20 a month when they’re not working don’t they? It’s the least she can do.

I’d want to pay something for my kids in her situation. I take it you wouldn’t?

Sorry @Tandora I don’t understand your logic. If a RP mother was raped, she would have to potentially make the difficult decision to terminate if she could not provide for her existing children that lived with her. RPs have no opt-out.

To be clear this was a planned and wanted pregnancy with her husband.

Ah right so you are saying if a woman is raped she should terminate her pregnancy (although this can’t be enforced), but we still get to judge her?

Got it.

Feel sorry for the children involved.

She said potentially make that decision. Nobody is saying any woman should have to have a termination. You’re the one who brought it up, and my response is that yes it would be a very valid choice to make. But if she chose to keep her baby which is another very valid choice to make too, her existing kids don’t cost less no matter she’s been through. I’m expecting to be called a cold hearted bitch here but it’s true.

But the mum in this scenario has a child that doesn’t live with her and she has to pay cms, why should she not contribute to her existing child because she chooses to have another baby? Having another baby was her decision knowing full well that she already has a child to pay for. How is that fair?

Fairness doesn’t come into it. The way the CMS works- you pay in proportion to what you can afford.

Surely it's the ex who needs to stop having children if she can't contribute to the ones she has already.

Some of you will spin anything to blame a man

NRPs on job seekers allowance get less than what SMP is and they have to pay something.
Of course she can afford something.