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 :-)

I just did a calculation for someone who earns c. £40k a year and pays maintenance for 2 kids they barely see (less than 52 nights a year). The difference between the full amount and the reduction for living with 2 other kids is £50.

It must be a big sum of maintenance to start with if the percentage reduction is £200

@FishyFriday

I just did a calculation for someone who earns c. £40k a year and pays maintenance for 2 kids they barely see (less than 52 nights a year). The difference between the full amount and the reduction for living with 2 other kids is £50.

It must be a big sum of maintenance to start with if the percentage reduction is £200

Does that make it any more fair? We all know that cms on a £40k salary, like on most salaries, is pretty pitiful, far below what it really costs to raise a child, so it's not a good benchmark.

It's also pretty horrible for a man on a high income to be raising one child - and a stepchild - in relative luxury, while paying the CMS minimum for his other child (especially when his ex partner in many cases would have at some point been an sahm or very part time due to his 'big job' so usually doesn't have anywhere near the same type of pay).

I didn’t say it was fair (although a deduction for the child that is his would be, not the stepchild). Just that £200 is an unusually large reduction because it’s a percentage of a large sum of maintenance. For most people the about 13% reduction will be much less than that.

That is because most maintenance payments are really low in this country. Just to be clear.

I don't get CMS today.... I'm looking to claim it so was trying to work out what he'd be liable to pay. By reduction I mean reduction vs what he'd pay if the step child / new child weren't considered.

He earns considerably more than £40K...

That calculation seems inaccurate £200 reduction from what he would pay if the step child wasn't considered...

He has a child with him 100% I know from my own calculation it doesn't reduce that much.
What ur ex's partner earns and her ex is irrelevant. They may be high earners but that's for their family. It's like comparing your neighbours earnings. It doesn't mean you should ride their coat tails.

I didnt think cms dealt with high earners anyway.

It is ridiculous op. The country has such low standards and expectations for fathers.

When I dumped the private arrangements and opted for CMS the child maintenance nearly doubled. Even with his gf's child deduction.

It was very illuminating.

Also, the CMS dealt with all the shitty attitudes, conversations and phone calls, so I got a break from it.

@Kindasup1 The £200 reduction considers both children ( their child & the step child) living there whereas only one is his & the other spends 50% of the time with his own Father. His partner / he ex's income is only relevant in so far as they are responsible for financially supporting their child and therefore ought to be the responsible parties for that child, not my ex. I'm simply saying that my ex's partner isn't considered financially responsible for my child(rightly so imo) then my ex shouldn't be considered responsible for hers.

@RachelRavenRothHe earns less than the £3000 a week gross income limit for CMS so still falls in their remit. Anyone earning > £156K falls outside of CMS.

@HarrietHardy Our private agreement did not consider the step child even though they were already cohabiting at the time of making it. They had not yet had their mutual child... I hadn't compared what he pays under this private agreement to the CMS calculation until now nor had I realized that other children would be considered. It's been an eye opening experience.

I accept that my payment would be reduced for these 2 children, but I can't help but feel it's completely wrong to allow step children to reduce the payment due to the RP when the step child has their own parents to support them. Step children & any new children living with an NRP Father win every which way. My DC is the step child of his new partner but still loses. No consideration is given to the constraints on my earnings from being the sole carer 95% of the time (again ex's choice). The impact on my career isn't a choice I made rather the result of his affair and our subsequent divorce which left me pretty much solely responsible for raising our DC. I've had to turn down promotions as they require me to travel.. which is impossible when you are alone with a child.. my ex on the other hand can travel freely as his wife is there..

The whole system is inherently sexist. We all know the vast majority of RPs are mothers who aren’t going to desert their kids yet the sums paid to support them by NRPs are a pittance. The system is geared up for a man to leave his kids and start again with any number of new kids and step kids while his first family live in penury.

Never rely on a hand-out from these losers. If they pay that’s a bonus. I’m so glad I always kept my own career going so I can support my kids. There’s no way the CMS cash would even start to scratch the surface of the real costs! Who can live like that?

If you were a SAHM the only consolation may be that if you get divorced you may have a generous settlement. As a WOHM I had to pay my loser ex to go away. The system stinks!

If its a £200 reduction for his step kids and his own child the amount your entitled to must be a sizable amount as he is a "high earner" you haven't disclosed how much that amount actually is ,only that it's short £200. However, if csa say he should be giving you let's say £500-700 a month is that not a sufficient for your child's expenses ?

I've just done some figures even on a salary for 100,000 it doesn't decrease by £200 and you'd get around £700 a month. That is a salary for some people ( part time) it's what your entitled I'd just go through csa , I think getting annoyed that your partner is contributing £150 when you get around £700 per month is crazy.

It's one of the things the government has developed a standard rule for and means some are advantaged ab and others disadvantaged.

A bit like child benefit. 2 partners earning £49k each receive it. 2 partner on £51k and the other on £12k don't get it. It's unfair, but rather than look at individual circumstances, they can't be bothered investing time and resources into it.

Whilst your Exs SC has a contributing father, he could have married a woman who doesn't have a dad alive or contributing that lived there 100% of the time.

You could have set ups where the new partner has more than one child, with different fathers, some contributing and others not.

They (Government) don't want to delve into all the different possibilities, so the blanket rule applies.

Also how do you know what amount is provided for the step child and what maintenance is paid. Do you have access to payslips and p60's ?? Surly this is all speculation that this step child is getting three adult high earners support... unless you are their bank account ? You will always get the lions share of the maintenance the calculator shows that. I don't understand the fixation on what everyone else has

@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.

It’s clear that you’re annoyed by this, you refer to your child as ‘child’, and her child as ‘that kid’. But yes, other children are taken into account. Have you put his income into the calculator to check that you’re getting what you’re entitled to? If you married a millionaire, your ex would still have to pay you the same.

@Kindasup1 I'm not really sure I get your points. I've done the calculation several times and it still comes up the same? I hope you don't mind but I don't want to share numbers beyond what I have on a public forum. The CMS amount isn't going to cover all our child's expenses whether reduced for his wife / his 2 kids or not. I understand there will be different points of view on this.. but personally I find it ''crazy'' the amount my ex is liable to pay gets reduced for someone else's kids as that reduction leaves me bearing more expense. IMO it's naïve to think a child's cost is only £500 a month... Pretty sure many single parent (who have no partner) would disagree on that.. Pls also bear in mind I get no benefits, or housing support and don't have the luxury of being able to move to a cheaper area as it would impact the tiny amount of contact ex bothers to have.

@TorringtonDean sadly I fear you're right, totally biased system which just encourages Father's to get a 'new family' and assumes RP mothers ''magically'' have the ability to fund costs themselves, and work and grow their earnings ( unicorn lala land at best...). The court system isn't much better, ex hid the majority of his assets and since I couldn't afford a lawyer well here we are - no settlement, lost the house, and pittance for child support. As you say, best to not rely on them. As DC gets older hopefully it will get easier to say yes to promotions as opposed to 'no' as I've had to these years.. As a point of principle, I can't help but find it abhorrent. There is something very rotten about a society that enables (even justifies..) this..

@Kindasup1

Also how do you know what amount is provided for the step child and what maintenance is paid. Do you have access to payslips and p60's ?? Surly this is all speculation that this step child is getting three adult high earners support... unless you are their bank account ? You will always get the lions share of the maintenance the calculator shows that. I don't understand the fixation on what everyone else has

Ex is required per court order to provide his P60 yet refuses. I don't have the luxury of spending money on lawyers to fight for it. I am not speculating or making assumptions regards the support for the step child, I have this from the horse's mouth. My ex likes to rub in my pitiful the life I provide for DC is.. compared to his wealth, and minimal costs because ex's wife's child is supported by his father.

My point remains that the maintenance my ex is liable to pay for his child should not be reduced owing to children who are supported by their own parents. The Step child has parents supporting them, so why do they need support from my ex?

@SandyY2K

It's one of the things the government has developed a standard rule for and means some are advantaged ab and others disadvantaged.

A bit like child benefit. 2 partners earning £49k each receive it. 2 partner on £51k and the other on £12k don't get it. It's unfair, but rather than look at individual circumstances, they can't be bothered investing time and resources into it.

Whilst your Exs SC has a contributing father, he could have married a woman who doesn't have a dad alive or contributing that lived there 100% of the time.

You could have set ups where the new partner has more than one child, with different fathers, some contributing and others not.

They (Government) don't want to delve into all the different possibilities, so the blanket rule applies.

Thank you @SandyY2K I agree & understand the premise of why it is the way it is, but really appreciate you recognizing the element of unfairness.

[quote 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.[/quote]
If it's reduced by that much he must be paying you quite a lot of money.

The British system is crazy on many aspects. What annoys me is that my dd can't get a full maintenance loan for university because of my dp's income, a man she's never lived with and her father can't be forced to pay her maintenance difference despite a 6 figure salary. Thankfully her grandparents are paying but not everyone has that option and I don't see why I should remain living alone and claiming uc (the alternative!)

@TrustTheGeneGenie ... exactly it must be a massive amount more than what the vast majority of RP get to be honest and sufficient to cover the costs of a child monthly. 200 is minimal to the overall sum that you get from the NRP. This is pure entitlement

The system also excludes money paid into pensions from the amount on which payments are calculated. That means the NRP (usually a man) can pay a large contribution, protecting their future wealth, and the RP is given a small percentage of what's left and is often struggling to put anything more than the minimum into their own pension because they are covering the majority of costs for their DC.

I've been playing around with the calculator and stuck in an NRP who earns £2900 a week. For the difference to be £200, we're looking at maintenance payments around or in excess of £1000 a month. That's £1000 to cover half the costs of the child (because the NRP is responsible for half the costs, in principle, not the entire cost).

Yes, OP there is some inherent unfairness in a reduction for the stepchild (not for the subsequent half sibling to your child though). And your ex does sound like a total dick who could presumably afford to pay more towards his child if he earns nearly £3k a week.

But it is hard to believe that you are unable to manage with only c.£1000 maintenance a month (on top of whatever other income you have). It would, I can imagine, be lovely to have £200 more each month. But the rules are what they are.

It would be better to concentrate on the fact that you are doing the right thing for you child and that child will grow up knowing which parent was there for him/her in all the ways that matter.

£1000 or more and to be honest i put in 130,000k a year and £1000 CSA payment and STILL not enough for £200 reduction.

There are women out here struggling and get by on £200 total maintenance. £1000+ is a big amount of money. He is responsible for paying half and not all. He isn't financially responsible for you and your lifestyle just financially responsible for your son and £1000+ is alot. Its like getting another wage

[quote Kindasup1]@TrustTheGeneGenie ... exactly it must be a massive amount more than what the vast majority of RP get to be honest and sufficient to cover the costs of a child monthly. 200 is minimal to the overall sum that you get from the NRP. This is pure entitlement[/quote]
This is my main issue with this thread. It's getting responses from people imagining normal amounts of maintenance being drastically reduced because of stepchildren. Rather than a reduction in an already large maintenance payment.

Lots of people manage to support whole households on less than the £2000 a month the OP thinks it costs just for her child (doubling the maintenance as an arbitrary figure for both parents' contribution).