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 you do correct. So if cms have worked an amount out on the mums new reduced ‘income’ which is in proportion to what she receives then why is she trying to get it reduced to nothing?

Taking 3 months off unpaid is a choice you make when you can afford it. Many women can’t, and stick with 9 months. If she can afford to take the final months off unpaid, I assume she can afford to pay towards providing for any existing children.

We can’t afford for me to take 3 months off unpaid, it doubles the deficit in my pay across the year.

She shouldn’t have, but she did, and now this new child exists, and they don’t deserve to live in relative poverty compared to their siblings because of their mother’s choices. CMS payments have to reduce to reflect that their mother’s income is now supporting an additional child.

Morally, many people would agree with you. But legally, there’s nothing you can do about this.

They are not caring for a baby.
As a pp said SMP is 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.
This is why according to CMS rules she is not eligible to pay.

Because she’s on SMP which isn’t considered income for the purposes of CM. This is why she has challenged the decision.

@Tandora I think people understand that it would be v difficult to pay CMS on SMP but the overriding point is that she chose to be in that position..let's drop the rape scenario since it's an fairly unlikely outlier and not the OPs situation. It's not ok for any adult to deliberately put themselves in a position where they are less able to provide for their dependents and expect / require a separate adult to take up the slack. Key words are deliberate and choice.

Absolutely bonkers that the “state” has decided this minimal amount is “enough to keep an infant alive” it barely covers bills, rent/mortgage or food.

Don’t even think it could keep anyone alive tbh as it is below national living wage.

The obligation to provide for their child financially never mind physically or emotionally escapes many parents, this is an example of that.

Morally she should want to pay something for her children. I know she’s not on a lot of money but she can afford a bag of chicken nuggets for her kids.

I hope she does more school runs/ tea times as a way of doing her bit for her children.

I suspect when your husband was paying CMS and you had your child together his income wasn't impacted? He wasnt taking a drop to maternity pay?

The mother of your sc IS taking a drop to her income therefore CMS should adjust accordingly. Because it's their personal income not household I come that is taken into account.

Can you not see that?

Again though, she has made a choice to limit her income by having a baby. Her existing children will be impacted by that choice. Her choice. People on here are always very vocal when dads choose to limit their incomes for whatever reason. So yes I am judging this mum in the same way.

Yes CMS should adjust if her income has gone down. Doesn’t mean she should be paying nothing. I know CMS can’t do anything at the moment but if she’s a good mum she should want to pay something.

@Barnbrack to repeat my point from upthread..I think we can all understand the maths that she will have less income as she, as the mother, will have a drop in income if she takes SMP / mat leave for the whole year. However, she's not ringing up the mortgage company and asking to pay less, or Tesco, or British Gas. Those bills are still being paid by someone whom she had presumably agreed jointly with that he will take on those additional costs. Her new partner has no obligation to continue to cover the CMS to his step kids so that falls to the NRP who has had NO SAY in this at all. I think we're talking about the morality of this now, not the legal or actual economics of it. Would you be ok if someone made a decision that gave them a hugely wonderful thing and then said, by the way, it's going to cost you £500 pm and you have no say, no choice, and absolute obligation to meet that cost and no share in the wonderful thing?

I didn't think anyone said she should pay nothing? Just that it would reduce with income as it would for a man who reduced his income for whatever reason.

If they were still together and had a baby together I their I come would also reduce, by virtue of being a woman her I come is impacted by pregnancy and birth in a way her ex partners isn't. So should she be more limited in having another child than he is? Really odd stance

Are you as bothered that a male nrp also has his CMS reduced forever when he has further children too. So the only logical answer is no one has anymore children after a break up.

This feels like a lot of vitriol because mum isn't rp

@Barnbrack I'm absolutely 100% bothered about male NRPs reducing CMS when they have more kids or move in with a woman who has them. But that's not the topic of this thread. The difference between this scenario and the one you mentioned about further children in a non split family is the element of CHOICE. if two parents go from 1-2or 2-3 kids and have mat leave and more mouths to feed that is a joint decision that they choose to make and deal with. In a split family the NRP is given an additional burden of costs for the existing children if CMS goes down. So no, actually I don't think women or men should have further children in new relationships if it means that the existing contributions go down. If their new partner is willing and able to cover it, as they'll be covering their other household bills, great, but otherwise no. This is exactly the same regardless of sex. Plenty of male NRPs do reduce CMS when more kids come along and that's just as appalling. I have plenty of vitriol for both.

I agree with noo e should have more children, however women are hugely disadvantaged financially when on mat leave so given the baby exists and may pay is a definite it's a short term necessary evil. No I don't think their partners should have to contribute, I see threads on here all the time urging stepmums that their step kids should expect nothing from them so why is it different with a stepdad?

It’s bad when both a mum or a dad deliberately reduce their income available for their existing children by having more children. I have said this about dads many times over the years. So yes I think a mum reducing her income by having a baby is shit behaviour too. You can dress her situation up all you like, but her existing children aren’t getting adequate support from her.

And someone upthread said she can’t/shouldn’t pay anything. It’s a really low bar.

But it's not necessary is it..she didn't have to have a child? Again, yes in this particular scenario the baby is here and maths is maths but hypothetically, morally, this shouldn't happen and again, regardless of sex, actually I do think a step parent should cover CMS if it goes down due to a deliberate choice, eg if they have a child and the father stops work to provide childcare, savings them thousands but putting the burden on the RP.

While that's true it's for a finite period, the child has 2 parents, if they chose to have a baby together he'd have to take this into consideration. These are all things to consider before having children together than before having children again with someone new

Given she's having another child, it sounds like her ex has had another child so clearly sees it as something he should be allowed to do, then he should surely also see it as something she should be allowed to do? The realities of a woman being the one to give birth and take mat leave shouldn't stop that equal opportunity. I think the step mum griping about it is a nonsens as she didn't mind reducing the CMS to her partners older children long term by having her own children with him.

It wasn't necessary for their father to have more children either was it? At a time when he was paying CMS, therefore reducing his CMS payments for the rest of their childhood.

You are not being unreasonable. Of course she should have taken all her children into account when planning on children. However, morality doesn't matter legally and fairness has very little to do with CMS.

The NRP not having an income means that they don't have to pay. NRP marrying rich and deciding to quit job and travel full time means they don't have to pay. NRP seeing children every other weekend means that they don't need childcare and therefor RP has to use all their income to daycare fees. NRP is self employed then they can just opt out from paying and nothing happens. NRP can just pay the amount ordered and they get away with not paying for anything else.

Should this happen? No. Should both parents be actively involved and work together? Yes. Should step parents also consider what is best interest to the child? To an extend. But none of it matters if the other parent doesn't want to.

By that token no one should have anymore than one child as it takes away from the 1st.

i would say you have the moral high ground and that the mother should be paying for existing children ( in the same manner in which men are expected to )