Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Original poster

My ex-h has split up with mother of his second child and says my child support must go down?

51 replies

oiseau · 25/04/2011 13:33

Just a quick question really as to whether this is right - he currently pays 15% of his net income child support to me. Now he is splitting with his current partner with whom he also has a child he says he only has to pay me 10% and her 10% - is this right??? I find this slightly grating - it isn't a disaster for us financially but just questioning whether he is legally correct? Could he carry on fathering children and moving on when he gets bored and our child support decrease accordingly??

OP posts:
colditz · 25/04/2011 13:35

I actually think he can, appallingly.

Original poster
oiseau · 25/04/2011 13:39

Wow! I am quite stunned by that! Luckily we don't rely on it but what about the poor people who do? So unfair. He is only mid-30s so there could be considerably more off-spring in the pipeline.

OP posts:
JustCallMeGrouchy · 25/04/2011 14:01

yes and its not it could be as little as the 15% split between you and yes for every child he has and then leaves the amount taken from him stays the same it just gets split up between the children

tribpot · 25/04/2011 14:12

I think it's a bit more complicated than the 15% being carved up - I had a look at this page. But yes, ultimately he now has to pay 20% because he has two non-resident children, then it would be 25% for three or more.

ChocHobNob · 25/04/2011 16:11

You might find it doesn't go down much, if at all.

Yes, he will now have to pay 20% of his net income in child support, split equally between the two children ... However before, he was probably paying (if through the CSA) 15% of 85% of his net income.

He would have had 15% taken off of his net income for the child living with him. Then pay 15% to you.

So for arguments sake, he has £300 a week net income.

Currently, they deduct 15% for his resident child, so he has £255 net for assessment purposes. He then pays 15% to you = £38.25 a week.

Now he will pay 20% of his net income in total = £60 a week.

Split between the two of you, £30 each.

So not too drastic of a drop.

ChocHobNob · 25/04/2011 16:12

The only thing that might reduce it even more, is if the CSA were taking into account the tax credits received in the household, which they do a lot of the time. As he's no longer with the mother, he won't be getting any tax credits and that won't be included in the assessment amount.

Smum99 · 25/04/2011 18:55

Yes this seems to be about right - the child support is split across the number of children. It's 20% for 2 children and if the children are across different partners the actual amount is split. If he had 3 children with 2 partners it would be 25% and then that would be split 1/3rd, 2/3rds.

In contrast the calculations seem to benefit PWCs with children from different partners..i.e if you have 1 child with 2 ex's then you get 15% of each partners income which can be a reasonable sum. I think sometimes the 15% rule should be replaced with actuals..ie what are the child's mandatory costs - food, school costs, clothes, activities.At least with this the child would be fairly supported.

Original poster
oiseau · 25/04/2011 20:36

Thank you for all your replies - we don't do it through the CSA I just wanted to know if what he was saying to me was factually correct and it seems it is!
Hey ho!

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 25/04/2011 20:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tvoffnowplease · 25/04/2011 22:03

Hmm. whther this is righ tor not all depends doesnt it... I mean, if he had 3 children he couldn't pay out 15% of the net income to each child... how would he support himself? In a couple, when you have more children, the existing children have less money... it's the same when families split.

If he gave you and the second partner 15% each that is 30% of his income - could he support himself?

How much money are we talking?

Why is it the full 15% doesnt he ever have the children? Could care be shared more equally so he is taking on some of the costs in a more direct way?

administrator · 25/04/2011 22:10

My XH is still with his partner, they have 3 DC. We had 2 DD's before we split. For every child he had with his new partner , my maintenance dropped! When I remarried, we decided we couldnt afford to have more than 1 child as we already had the other 2 to support.
It doesnt seem fair that he can go on to have as many children as he likes, paying less for the others as he goes!!

JustCallMeGrouchy · 26/04/2011 07:51

yup my xh is on icapcity benefit now and g/f on is ( whole another thread there about how he swung it)

we have 2 dc and he was having to pay the minimum £5 a week in total but him and his g/f have just had a child so mines been cut to £2.50 a week becuase he appealed said due to their costs being more now that they cant afford it ,( yet they now get Cb and ctx .Now since i know they want another child im expecting to lose more .Though not sure if the csa can take it lower £2.50 a week fin total !!

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/04/2011 08:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

allnewtaketwo · 26/04/2011 08:06

What about a PWC who has 2 children from previous marriage - she receives maintenance, and has worked herself, until having 2 children in a new relationship. At which point she gives up her job and clearly is therefore not financially supporting the 2 children from first marriage. Is she also a tosser?

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/04/2011 08:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

allnewtaketwo · 26/04/2011 08:30

But childcare for teenage children doesn't really apply, which in this scenario, the first 2 are.

So the ex is providing financially for the first 2, she is providing childcare for the youngest 2, new partner is providing financially for her and the youngest 2 (expenditure on the first 2 has notably decreased since she gave up work), and the state is picking up the rest (e.g. tax credits)

ChippingInLovesEasterEggs · 26/04/2011 08:35

It's a stupid system - the original child/RP shouldn't get less because he goes on to Father more children. If he can't afford to keep up the payments and support a new family - then he shouldn't have a new family... end of. It's really not rocket science is it. 15% is low enough as it is.

allnewtaketwo · 26/04/2011 08:40

Any family I know of has less money to spend on each child as they have more - that's not rocket science either

ChippingInLovesEasterEggs · 26/04/2011 08:49

A family makes that choice together. The RP is not making any choice here but is left to look after the child on less than 15% of the net income of the NRP. In most cases 15% if feck all anyway and certainly isn't the same amount as would have been spent on the family home/child beforehand, but the RP still has all the same expenses.

allnewtaketwo · 26/04/2011 08:53

"A family makes that choice together" - I very much doubt that any PWCs considering having children with a new partner would consider involving the NRP in that decision. Not should they, but it most definitely impacts his children, as they will receive less overall.

Similar to if an NRP goes on to have more children in a new relationship - the existing children will receive less. The PWC has no say in this either, and nor should they.

tvoffnowplease · 26/04/2011 09:16

But chippinin although i agree that you shouldnt have more children than you can afford, it is not the fault of the children so when more come along they deserve an equal portion of their father's income.. it is impossible for this to remain 15% across the board, what if he had 4 children? Thats 60% of his income... impossible unless he's minted.

I actually don't think 15% is low to be honest. The avergae income for a male in the UK is about 25k which gives about £240 a month CM after tax. That is a lot more than half of a child's costs,(unless there is childcare to be paid for) and the cost of the second child is less than the first. Also bearing in mind that the RP will often be claiming TC and even if they only claim CB that brings it to £320 pe rmonth...

What I don't agree with is that children of a new partner are taken in to account even when they have been fathered by someone else. i.e. my dp could reduce his ex's maintenacne because he lives with my child - who my ex and I should be supporting. That's nuts in my mind.

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/04/2011 09:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stopthenonsense · 26/04/2011 09:23

Do you reckon 90% of farhers want to be NRP?

Unless there's a serious risk
Make childcare 50-50 after separation then there's no need for for CSA.

allnewtaketwo · 26/04/2011 09:23

Stewie - do you think that post has any real relevance here? In the case of the OP, the father is paying maintenance

Ishani · 26/04/2011 09:28

Make childcare 50-50 after separation then there's no need for for CSA

That's coming soon I've been told by a family solicitor.