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 :-)

@Kindasup1

£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

Yes. For a lot of people reading this thread's budgets, it a bit 'my diamond shoes are too tight' really.

And here’s me getting £7 a week for 4 kids 😂

Crazy doing the sums for £200 a month difference OP gets around £1109
That's 13k a year maintenance

So if OP contributed the same as its 50:50 thats 26k cash on their child ... a year !!

In the UK to get 26k after tax ( cash) , you have to be full time and earning an above average wage , above 30k a year we are talking.

Sorry but this hardly living on the breadline !!!

Yes but then child maintenance isn’t a benefit - it’s what the parent on question would have spent on their child to support them had they stayed together. If the parent is a millionaire why should the child life at a much lower standard? Most CMS cash is ridiculously low. Maybe not in this case but say £7 for four kids!! Clearly then either the RP or the state has to support them while the NRP skips off obligation free.

@TorringtonDean that's false it is not to keep the ex a millionaire in the same way, and it is not money you would have spent if you remained together. That is a pie in the sky amount??!!?? Plus the dad can still treat and pay for child with birthdays and Christmas, And pay his share too. Csa is child maintenance. Not alamony.

@Doyoumind

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.

Nail on the head.. like I said wins every which way.

It’s money for the child and it does depend on the NRP’s income. I see you are assuming the NRP is the dad - well they usually are! So if the dad is wealthy then why shouldn’t the child get a proportional amount? The money certainly isn’t alimony because under then U.K. system it usually isn’t enough to house a child!! I house my own kids through my own labours and their dad pays a paltry sum (certainly not half the cost of food, clothing and housing) very reluctantly with no birthday or Christmas presents sent and no contact with the kids.

It doesn't sound like you're doing badly though, OP, as others have said. The pensions thing was a comment on my own situation. The amount you are worried about losing is close to the total amount I get each month even though I have DC 80% of the time. I used to have DC 100% of nights and pay for all childcare (they weren't school age so it took a huge proportion of my pay) whilst working full time and I received less than the £200 you are worried about losing.

@Pinkyxx

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.

You're welcome. It can be very unfair.
Some dads do the bare minimum. Kids have so many needs as they get older and it costs a lot.

@SandyY2K thank you, it's nice to come across someone with a balanced view on things ( I've been on other threads with you, and you're always very fair).

Agreed some Dads do the bare minimum and it's sad for the children. His attitude on all other aspects of parenting DC is no better than his attitude on supporting her financially. Its probably no surprise their relationship is in tatters and getting her to see him is a massive struggle. These situations are so hard :-(

Sigh

Whatever pinky’s DH earns, it still is unfair.
Universal credit only pays (usually) for the first two children. The idea of this was so that parents wouldn’t have children they can’t afford. I don’t see why this doesn’t apply to child maintenance. Using the government’s own logic, NRPs should factor the costs of their existing children into whether they can afford to have more surely.

@Lisatried

Whatever pinky’s DH earns, it still is unfair. Universal credit only pays (usually) for the first two children. The idea of this was so that parents wouldn’t have children they can’t afford. I don’t see why this doesn’t apply to child maintenance. Using the government’s own logic, NRPs should factor the costs of their existing children into whether they can afford to have more surely.

Uhhhh... what? Surely the decision to have 3+ children wasn't the RPs alone. And I would assume that the decision was made as a couple that they could afford the 3rd child. Why should the nrp then be absolved of that decision

No wait... sorry. I think I misunderstood you #?@Lisatried

Yes NRPs should factor in their existing children. Sadly many don't. Some like my ex even come out with "Well it's not my fault I've got 3 more children to pay for..."
Clearly I got his wife pregnant

@Lisatried universal credit is taking tax payer money to pay for kids... child maintenance has nothing to do with that. And isn't taking from the welfare state. Why should we all pay for children where the parents are currently paying for the ones they have ? That is different circumstances to a NRP who isn't on benefits

Because their father pays child maintenance for their child. Why should another child be reduced as well. You are illogical and bitter