CMS High Earner question

[Bobo65432]

Hi, my ex is a high earner and earns over the £3k a week that the CMS can calculate on. So he pays the amount they have calculated for that, when pushed and always with moaning.

But the CMS have said they don't do calculations for the earnings over 3k, that I need to go to court for that decision.

Please does anyone have any experience of this? He was horrendous through the courts 2 years ago for our financial settlement and still trys to use money to control 😔

Thanks

You have payments for an income of 3k a week and still want more. Unbelievable.

You have payments for an income of 3k a week and still want more. Unbelievable.

And the father earns more than £3000 a week but only wants to pay the minimum expected...why are you not more bothered by that?

Why? You don't need that much money to raise a child. Why would I be bothered? The money is for the child's needs not to provide an income for life for an ex.

Why are you all so against the resident parent getting what they're meant to?
OP I went to court. It was ok, not exactly fun but worth it once it was over!

Taxpayer1 is always against such payments. Don’t take it personally, OP.

But she is getting what she is meant to.

err, no. CMS only covers up to £3k per week. Beyond that, the RP has to apply to the court for extra. That doesn’t mean extra won’t be deemed due, just that it’s beyond the remit of CMS

Relevant judgement here, OP:
https://www.bortoftbell.com/blog/claiming-child-maintenance/

In the case of Re TW & TM (Minors) [2015] EWHC 3054 (Fam) Mr Justice Mostyn gave the following guidance:
“My decision in GW v RW makes it clear that where a court is considering issues of child maintenance the formula [applied by the CMS] is not, so to speak, written in marble but supplies only a starting point. There may be in a case a very good reason why there should be departure from the starting point of the formula. In my opinion the formula should apply even where the earnings of the father are in excess of the £3000 per week maximum provided for in the Act and the Regulations. If the earnings of the father were very much in excess of that then there would be a good reason to depart from the formula downwards, but if the income of the father is not un-adjacent to the maximum then to my mind, subject to other factors, that of itself is not a good reason to depart from the formula.”

Mostyn J expanded on this guidance to party’s claiming maintenance from high earners in the later case of CB v KB [2019] EWFC 78, giving further clarification on his opinion as to the correct approach:
“I suggest that in every case where the gross annual income of the non-resident parent does not exceed £650,000, the starting point should be the result of the formula ignoring the cap on annual gross income at £156,000. For gross incomes in excess of £650,000 I suggest that the result given by an income of £650,000 should be the starting point with full discretionary freedom to depart from it having regard to the scale of the excess.”

Why? You don't need that much money to raise a child. Why would I be bothered? The money is for the child's needs not to provide an income for life for an ex.

Because with a super-rich parent the child should be able to expect a certain standard of living if the parents were together. Or would you think it was acceptable for the father to travel first class, or used a private plane while mother and child sat in economy? That the father dressed head to toe in designer gear and child in second hand Primark?

By your token no kid needs more than two changes of clothes or toys or books so why buy them.

Do you work Op?

I hope you get what you rightfully deserve for your child OP. Goodluck

You have no idea of her costs ?
Presumably on that salary they had quite a nice life. HIS child shouldn't be made to suffer because they have split up. @Bobo65432 I'd go to court , difficult as it may be.

Child maintenance is to pay the delta costs of a child. Not to provide an income for his ex.

Are you a CMS payer or just bitter about someone else might get?

Yes. Mother has to travel in whatever she can afford with her own effort. Child maintenance is not to equalise the living standards. It is to pay fo the costs of the child when living with the other parent. If she wants to travel first class, she can get a job that provides for it. child can have all luxuries when he is with the father (the one earning the money.

@taxpayer1 stop derailing, The OP is asking about people's experience of court for this process, not opinions on what she is being paid.

Err no. She has to go to court and the judge will decide. 156k is not a millionaire. Probably 60k in pension, 3k on own mortgage, etc. and own costs take a lot of it. The judge will decide on the facts. It is not a done deal and takes a lot of money to go to court.

It is to pay fo the costs of the child when living with the other parent.

Yes - and it's reasonable to expect the child to have a similar standard of living when with the resident parent as when they are with the non-resident parent. Again - flying first class not economy. Wearing Gucci not Primark.

He earns over the limit. Not at the limit.

"Err no. She has to go to court and the judge will decide. "

Yeah, that's what I said. Duh.

That's a form of coercive control really as the DC will end up wanting to stay more at the richer parents place if theres a huge income disparity like that.

I am. I pay for another entitled woman that refuses to work and wants a lifestyle she hasn't earned. My opinion it is all greed. No child needs more than a thousand pounds month.

How can the child suffer with more than 1000 a month. Ridiculous.

Do you have any idea how much childcare is, or school fees Clearly you haven't a clue. What a surprise, a feckless father!

If you looked after your DC 50% of the time there would be no need for child maintenance. But then you don't seem like someone who prioritises themselves over their DC so probably not in their best interests.