CMS - should this be included

[Cupola]

I'm looking to make a CMS claim for the first time for 16yo son who is full time education, due to a break down in the private arrangement made. My ex is employed and also receives a monthly payment from a life insurance policy relating to his first wife who passed 21 years ago. The value of the payment changes as it's paid in euros and converted. Is this considered income for the purpose of the calculation?

Also, my ex lives with his current partner, their joint child and her child from a previous relationship - I presume I state my ex lives with 2 other children?

Thanks

Bit flabbergasted as to why you are even considering factoring in money paid out due to someone's death. Not condoning the break down in payments. Just personally feel that given this lady died 21 years ago, and the son you share is 16, how this feels morally justified.

Yes they will factor in all the children the paying parent is living with whether they are his or not.

I too am shocked at you factoring in the payment from his ex wife's debt. CMS as far as I know go off anything that is taxable for income purposes. I don't even know if this payment would be however given that your child came many years after her passing I cannot see how you feel this should be considered

*death

It's not the OP who is factoring in the insurance payment, she's asking if the CMS will.

Thank you @Disfordarkchocolate, that's exactly my question.

To those questioning the morality however, how would you view this if my ex had chosen to work part time enabling him to pursue hobbies on the basis the monthly payment from the life insurance made up his income? This is a child support question, not one of marital assets.

Even if the CMS was willing to factor in, I don't know the rules, doesn't mean it's morally reprehensible. Only you can know whether your son would be comfortable to know, if he were to find out, that his needs were met by this ladies death payout. Personally I would look a little further beyond the end of my nose. I'm not saying let Dad get away without financially supporting, I'm just saying consider the implications. If your priority is get the support by hook or by crook, that's your prerogative. And you know your son best. But having worked with teenagers for almost 15 years, they have strong opinions just as adults do. Some may be fine with it, some may feel weirded out by it and be more comfortable with the focus being on holding Dad to account rather than anyones financial policies (dead or alive) being utilised.

I've been looking beyond the end of my nose for 8 years @Willydish. You are right in that I know my own child, and his needs, best

Good luck to you both then and I wish you well in securing the maintenance payments you require to meet his needs. If your sure that he will be happy knowing that his needs were met down this route then everyone's happy.

Think of it this way. The life insurance payment is to meet the needs of the living spouse. That spouse goes on to remarry and have a child. The spouse, because of the insurance chooses to work part time and uses the insurance to supplement income, enabling him to pursue a hobby. What are the needs of the living spouse? Pursuing his hobby or supporting his subsequent child?

Then if you feel that way, that the money is open game to be used to meet the needs of the living spouse left behind, then perhaps the fairest thing is for the death payment to be factored in between all the children you acknowledge in the original post as being dependent on your ex: your son, his child with his new wife, and her child from a previous relationship. I don't personally agree with doing this, but it's a compromise in the best interest of all the children dependent upon this man.

If it is to factored in by the CMS then it will be factored in equally. I will be stating, based on the advice I've reviewed here that my ex has 2 other children living with him and the payment, based on whatever is considered his income will be adjusted accordingly. I'm not sure how you would think otherwise from what I've posted. It was never my intention to deprive the other 2 children, one of whom is my son's brother and the other is his step brother but equal standing in my eyes. If my ex was to exclude the step brother from his will I'd be disappointed.

You've had some really weird responses here OP. If your ex is treating the life insurance money as income then I think (ignoring the position of the CMS) you're morally entitled to see it as his income for the purposes of contributing to his child's costs. Particularly as he's made a choice to take a part time job and therefore a reduced salary, and live off the insurance money. If he's choosing to live off it then his son should be able to also. The passing of his former wife is of course very sad but he chose to remarry and have a child who he is responsible for supporting.

Your attitude towards the brothers is lovely

Thanks @Forestoflean, that is how I see the situation. It's down to the CMS of course.

I concurs that it is his income as a whole. But be prepared for it not to be that simple. The father of my children has an mod disability pension. He was considered a risk and was happy to be pensioned out. And went on to work in similar role privately. As a family it was part of the family pot. But for cms it is ring fenced. I have been waiting over a year in the appeal. And like you it is not greed. It is about being able to provide the best I can for the children. And I struggle to see why he wouldn't want the same.

Thanks for that perspective @unicornsarereal72 and I'm sorry you're having the ordeal of an appeal, I know from a good friend's experience how draining it is. The question is indeed why a father wouldn't want to support his children and as other posters have pointed out, at 16 my son has the maturity to question the behaviours he sees.

Presumably he used it as part of his income to support the family when they were together? And uses it to support his new family? So why shouldn't it be used in a cms calculation? I really don't get why this would be considered at all 'reprehensible'.

@Cupola Thank you. Sadly some nrp feel they are lining the rp pockets. Sadly the £100 or so that I'm 'arguing over'. Is the difference of me being able to pay for swimming lesson and the like. I'm Not holding my breath for the appeal. Good luck with your claim.

Thanks @unicornsarereal72, and @BarrenFieldofFucks for your supportive comment