Child maintenance & children living with ex

[Pinkyxx]

I'm really struggling to understand how CMS works.. and hoping someone can help me out.

My ex pays me a fixed and minimal amount of CM for DC. It's not changed in years despite his earnings having increased considerably (or at least his life style makes it look that way). I feel this is really unfair so am considering going via CMS. He's told me I'll get even less than I do now because his wife's child and their mutual child live with him.

DC spends less than 50 nights a year with ex, and his wife's DC splits his time 50/50 between them & her ex. Their mutual child lives with them.

Having read all of the guidance on CMS it seems other children are (amazingly) taken into account - why this would be the case when they have their own parents I can't understand. I'm still however totally confused about how other children factor in any payment assessed.

Looking at the guidance it seems possible my payments would be reduced for both children even though one is only there 50% of the time and reduced for the minimal time DC spends with my ex. I really struggle to believe it is possible that they'd reduce what he has to pay me because a child is the household when they aren't his (and are supported financially by both their own parents) and only lives 50% of the time in the same house? Surely if my payment gets reduced for time DC spends with ex it stands to reason to recognize the pattern other kids have?? .

I hope this all makes sense, I am so confused by it all I don't know if I'm explaining properly! Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear this up for me :-)

[Happycat1212]

Yes it is correct

[Theunamedcat]

If he is underpaying anyway it might not be a reduction

[Ligglepiggle]

It’s correct and I agree it’s ridiculous, using the same logic the NRP contribution would increase if RP had another child or moved someone else’s child in

[whiteshark]

It's correct. And ridiculous.

You may end up with less. In my situation my ex purposely went self employed. Fiddles his income and now he pays an insulting amount towards his children. The system is appalling.

[CombatBarbie]

I had a similar issue, knew he had a payrise but had his DPs child accounted for.... I still went from 170 to £280 a month.

[Pinkyxx]

I reluctantly accept the child they have together has to be considered but I'm utterly gob-smacked that my child gets less because her Dad decided to marry a woman who already has a kid when that kid only lives with her half the time. When his payment is based on nights it makes no sense that who often her kid is there doesn't factor at all.

It's so terribly biased and illogical I am speechless.

[Kindasup1]

Why is it illogical the children in your exes household cost money just like any other children they are classed as dependents?

Sorry he got a life beyond the one you had with him

[RedGoldAndGreene]

Yes- stepchildren count but use a CM calculator to see by how much (assuming that you know his ballpark salary)

[Ohpulltheotherone]

Use the calculator to work it out, if you know his rough salary. Or at least work out backwards what he would need to be earning to pay what he currently does.

You might be pleasantly surprised - if he’s never offered more in all this time then it’s likely he knows he should be paying more.

Don’t ask or consult him, work out your sums before you formally approach.

And yes it does seem a bit rough that your kids get less because of the sc

[Theunamedcat]

@Kindasup1

Why is it illogical the children in your exes household cost money just like any other children they are classed as dependents?

Sorry he got a life beyond the one you had with him

Not the child they share but her child the one who has a father paying for the upkeep of so this other child has three parents contributing towards there upkeep OP has 1.5 parents contributing

[Tashtegotoo]

You could move to NZ! Well, I know you can't really but here my XH's contribution is affected by his new child but not by his girlfriend's two children who live with them. You are only deemed financially responsible for your own children.

[OverTheRubicon]

@Kindasup1

Why is it illogical the children in your exes household cost money just like any other children they are classed as dependents?

Sorry he got a life beyond the one you had with him

But the amount that the new wife's ex is expected to pay won't be reduced, just because a new man has moved in.

So if my ex moves in with girlfriend and her 2 kids, she can continue getting the same (high) maintenance from her wealthy ex, plus my ex will have reduced bills from sharing a house. She keeps her job too. More money all round in their place! Yet he will also be able to greatly reduce the payments he makes to his existing children - meaning I'm left with a big shortfall each month, despite the children still costing exactly the same, and them now having less of their dad's time and attention.

It's BS.

[Kindasup1]

Its the way it is... Once separated your ex can make life choices that affect the amount he pays and because your not together you have no control over it. Similarly if you got a rich new partner ( does happen) you'd be in a better position. Its all swings and roundabouts. But key message is don't think the amount the ex pays is set in stone , its not they have their own lives now

[Theunamedcat]

They have there own lives yes but they still have a financial responsibility to the lives they created

[Pinkyxx]

I am more than happy for my ex to have his own life, this isn't about his life it's about his responsibility towards his child.

What is illogical is his payment to me being less for a child who spends only half his time in his home & is supported by his own father because the calculation disregards the step child's arrangements & the fact they have 2 parents. Makes no sense to me to reduce the paying parents liability based on nights spent with them yet make the assumption is that any step child lives there 100% of the time. Either disregard step children entirely or consider the facts of their situation.

My costs also don't change just because he decides to have another child, yet this reduces the payment even more.

If a reduction is made all children in his home the formula should consider all children's circumstances not just the one being paid for.

[RedGoldAndGreene]

Personally I don't think that living with stepchildren should result in a decrease in maintenance owed. Their parents should pay their costs and your ex getting a deduction means that the stepchildren are basically also getting funded by your ex.
I assume the rules disregard how many nights the stepchildren are there to keep the system simpler and prevent one change in circumstances creating a trickle of changes to other parents receiving maintenance. It would also assume that nobody has private arrangements. My ex and I have a private arrangement so the CMS wouldn't know how many days my kids saw their Dad and I'd rather not have involvement with the CMS if I don't have to.

[OverTheRubicon]

@Kindasup1

Its the way it is... Once separated your ex can make life choices that affect the amount he pays and because your not together you have no control over it. Similarly if you got a rich new partner ( does happen) you'd be in a better position. Its all swings and roundabouts. But key message is don't think the amount the ex pays is set in stone , its not they have their own lives now

But as pps have said, the stepchild that now stays part time with her ex is now assumed to have 3 parents contributing - his own father, who has him 50% of the time (and may well be paying cms also), his mother, who has him 50% of the time, and now his new stepdad (ops ex) is allowed to reduce his own cm payments, on the basis that he too is now responsible for that child.

Meanwhile op's child has gone from 2 parents responsible to effectively 1.5 or similar.

Given that most of the time when people separate, the mother is the lower earner to start with, often has the larger share of residency and that this curtails her ability to earn further, it's sexist in outcome even if not in intent.

If a man(or woman) has a biological or adopted new child or he and his new partner have 100% custody of his stepchild(ren) then I think there's an argument for reduction, even if that's not great for their other children. But not when the child in question has another parent who has either a decent share of nights or pays CMS. They should already be covered.

[Pinkyxx]

@OverTheRubicon you've hit the nail on the head of what's upsetting me here. FWIW - the step kids Dad does pay his ex for the child. They split all expenses equally as my ex gleefully reminds me.. I just don't understand why the step child with 3 contributing parties is deemed to have greater need than my child.

@RedGoldAndGreene that's my point, step kids shouldn't impact my payment. I wouldn't mind if they considered that child's split of time as well but the rules don't. Simpler perhaps BUT discriminants against single Mothers like me with residence who's ex's barely see their kids & consider they can live off fresh air because he's got himself a new partner who happens to have children already.

[RedGoldAndGreene]

Imagine if resident parents could expect increased maintenance payments because they lived with stepchildren Obviously shouldn't happen but that's the equivalent of the stepchildren rule.

[Kindasup1]

The CMS calculation isn't dramatically affected though especially if the stepchild is there 50%. Even for a resident child it doesn't go down very much. I'd do the calculation , put the data in and you get ur result .End of the day if you got a partner your child would have three adults contributing so it's swings and roundabouts.

My word of advice don't be in a position to rely so heavily on that money your ex could lose his job tomorrow and then have nill assessment. Or become a stay at home parent of have more kids ! all things beyond your control only thing you can bank on is yourself.

[Pinkyxx]

@Kindasup1 I did the calculation and it's reduced by more than £200 per month. While we live very frugally so as to not rely on him that's not point. As a matter of principle he should be responsible for his child. That's a lot of money to me and it seems very wrong as one of the children in this equation has materially less support than the others. My child isn't less important than his partner's kids from her prior marriage so step kids should either be considered by the same yard stick as my child or not at all. Step parents income doesn't count (rightly so imo) so nor should their kids.

[WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo]

Its a joke isn't it!

[FishyFriday]

The reduction for other children should be much less than £200 a month. It's usually about £10 or £15 a child. Not a huge amount.

[RedGoldAndGreene]

200 quid is loads. Yanbu
I assumed not much meant something like £20

[Pinkyxx]

He earns a lot so the % reduction on his gross income works out at a fair amount. There's also a reduction because of shared care because DC spends ~ 50 nights with him. All in all it make a big difference.... bearing in mind he, his wife and her ex are all big earners they live a life of luxury by comparison. £200 makes a big difference to me. I've had no one to help with childcare while working, no one to cover illness, or holidays. It's impacted my career and earnings..