CMS - Am I being greedy

[essieestherson]

I have been split from my ex for over 3 years, we have 3 dc who live with me and stay at his (at most) 1 night a week.

When we were together he was very abusive and slept with prostitutes, hence why we're divorced..

He has never paid the full amount of CMS due, always saying he can't afford it and then turning up in a new car, expensive new watch etc.. Every year I get an annual review from the CMS and I ask him to pay more, then he will bully and threaten me with going to the courts for 50-50 custody, or say he'll quit his job etc. So I always settle with whatever figure he suggests as I can't handle the stress of it all.

I have just had this years annual review which states that he has had another pay rise (now earning £85,000pa) and should now be paying me over £1200 a month, he currently pays £580. He has offered to up it to £680 but says anymore will bankrupt him. He has sent many abusive messages and refuses to talk anymore about it.

Yet he turned up to pick the kids up last week in a brand new Tesla...

My parents think I should just accept the £680 he is offering to stop all the nasty texts and threats etc.

Im just not sure what to do.. I work 3 days a week, but don't earn much and every month I am short of money. The kids have many clubs etc they would love to join but can't because I don't have enough money.

I know that £680 is a lot of money and way more then many get from CMS.. so I'm not sure if I should just let him get away with paying less, or fight further and ask for CMS to take the money straight out of his pay?

Another side note is that he is very unpredictable which worries me.. if I try and take the money straight out of his account he will probably do something drastic, quit his job etc - so we will struggle further.

I am just not sure what to do.

@essieestherson please, please, please don’t back down. Your children are entitled to the support from their father. I have just had to request collect and pay from the cms after years of bowing down to abusive behaviour from my daughters dad. Ignore the pp’s that suggest you’re being unfair etc. I will hold your hand if you hold mine!

Time to stand up to him. Do it for the children.

@essieestherson you poor thing. You needed a Rottweiler lawyer.

Hand it over to CMS and let them deal with everything.
You’ve got proof of his abuse your DC do not want to see him due to his abuse, he wouldn’t get 50:50.

£680 is a lot more money than many others would get.
Do you want him to give you enough so you never have to work again?
Why would you want to be so reliant on his money? It'd make me feel uncomfortable personally.

@Theworldishard

£680 is a lot more money than many others would get. Do you want him to give you enough so you never have to work again? Why would you want to be so reliant on his money? It'd make me feel uncomfortable personally.

Don't be an idiot. It's not a race to the bottom. This man isn't paying the minimum amount from his considerable salary that his children are entitled to by law. Why should his own kids have less to live on than they are entitled to?

OP quite clearly isn't after a gravy train and has already been bullied out of her fair share of the marital assets.

OP please don't listen to deadbeat dad apologists like this. Take the good advice on this thread, approach CMS and ask them to arrange a direct pay arrangement for you.

@frazzledasarock thank you for your lovely comment!

Like you, it used to amuse me no end that XH had to pay an extra 20% because of his stubbornness

@ChequerBoard deadbeat dad apologists! Love that. And please @essieestherson don’t listen to them. You potentially have another 15 years of this.

[quote AnInspectorBores]@frazzledasarock thank you for your lovely comment!

Like you, it used to amuse me no end that XH had to pay an extra 20% because of his stubbornness [/quote]
But ultimately that's money that could be spent on the kids.

@Roblox01 yes (ex however would not have spent that money on our children).

Had he simply paid the CM when we had the direct pay arrangement he’d have kept the 20% (not spent it on our DC), but he chose to not pay, then would pay a fiver here and there. I did tell CMS that if he carried on the next time he missed a payment I would request it went to collect and pay… and here we are. 🤷🏻‍♀️

He keeps telling CMS my DC are now out of education. 🙄

But ultimately that's money that could be spent on the kids.

Not if he won't pay up without the CMS intervention.

@Roblox01 if the RP is using collect and pay because the NRP won't pay the legal minimum and doesn't it stuff for the DC, how would the additional 20% they are charged ever get spent on the DC

So you clearly have a case with CMS as you get an annual review each year. You need to log onto the CMS self service portal and report under payments and the start relevant date. Then CMS will contact your ex and tell him he must bring his account up-to-date within the next 14 days otherwise a deductions from earnings will be imposed…it’s correct that it can take 6/8 weeks for payments to come through as they rely on the employer to take deductions and send to CMS but from then on it should be regular unless he leaves his job/ goes sick/ takes unpaid leave or leaves his job, all outside CMS control. You are entitled to this money in full…just need to brace yourself for the initial set-up period.
It is still a risk but most people earning that amount of money do not Chuck their job in easily…best of luck.👌👏

@Theworldishard

The world must indeed be hard when you have such an utterly daft understanding of issues.

Op I can only echo what others have said. Get his payment made through CMS.
Its not greedy. Its the minimum he should pay.

The only things I would point out, is that he won't pay for any extras, in all liklihood. Not sure if he does now.

And also, now your youngest is 5, I (gently) suggest you start working towards a plan where you work more hours or progress your career. You eldest is 13. In 5 or 6 years, he won't have to pay for that child. It comes round very quickly. And he is unlikely to do so voluntarily.

You need to use this time to secure your own financial position so you don't find yourself struggling again when, in about 13 years, he doesn't have to pay for any of them.

[quote RandomMess]@Roblox01 if the RP is using collect and pay because the NRP won't pay the legal minimum and doesn't it stuff for the DC, how would the additional 20% they are charged ever get spent on the DC [/quote]
Well fair point. I still think 20% is harsh and do wonder where that money goes. But accept in some cases there is no other way.

I don't agree with the legal minimum comment. It sounds entitled. Two people in the same situation can end up paying very different amounts of child maintenance based on their earnings. Are they both paying 'the minimum' or is it in fact the appropriate amount.

I think the system needs a overhaul as being based around nights drives bad behaviours and child arrangements are set accordingly. I think parents that work together on this should be rewarded more than those that don't.

Only the non-co parenting/co-operative parents get charged by the CMS, presumably it goes towards running the CMS. If NRP paid willingly and appropriately then we wouldn't need the CMS?

Children of high earners would have a better standard of living than those that don't unless they are financially abusive/miserly. Why should that change if the parents divorce?

Resident parents have no choice but to financially find their DC provide them a home, warmth, food etc.

I have both paid and received via the CSA/CMS their biggest weakness is self employed persons and not having the power to collect money bar PAYE deductions. Perhaps they should be able to retain passports and driving licenses and eventually prison particular for the wealthy with huge assets that refuse to contribute to the cost of their DC. Not a huge number of cases but they don't have enough power and some owe tens of thousands that just gets written off and meanwhile the state has had to help provide for the DC via benefits which costs the tax payer.

@Roblox01 said "I don't agree with the legal minimum comment. It sounds entitled. Two people in the same situation can end up paying very different amounts of child maintenance based on their earnings. Are they both paying 'the minimum' or is it in fact the appropriate amount."

How is it 'entitled'? Of the course the amounts vary - people have different jobs and earn vastly different amounts. The legal minimum is as a percentage of the NRPs earnings.

That's fair because if the parents were still together, the DC would have benefitted from the specific earning power of the NRP.

As I said earlier, it's not a race to the bottom. Are you seriously suggesting a set figure should be applied for all child maintenance claims? So an investment banker should pay the same as a zero hours contract worker??

Guess who would massively benefit from that? I'll give you a clue, it's not the DC!

@RandomMess

Only the non-co parenting/co-operative parents get charged by the CMS, presumably it goes towards running the CMS. If NRP paid willingly and appropriately then we wouldn't need the CMS?

Children of high earners would have a better standard of living than those that don't unless they are financially abusive/miserly. Why should that change if the parents divorce?

Resident parents have no choice but to financially find their DC provide them a home, warmth, food etc.

I have both paid and received via the CSA/CMS their biggest weakness is self employed persons and not having the power to collect money bar PAYE deductions. Perhaps they should be able to retain passports and driving licenses and eventually prison particular for the wealthy with huge assets that refuse to contribute to the cost of their DC. Not a huge number of cases but they don't have enough power and some owe tens of thousands that just gets written off and meanwhile the state has had to help provide for the DC via benefits which costs the tax payer.

Im not disagreeing with the second paragraph. It also confirms my point that CM is not a 'minimum' amount.

Rp do have to find those things but the state helps separated RP quite generously and CM doesn't really impact that unless there's spousal maintenance in play.

I agree on the self employed point. But on the flip side there is a lot of game playing post separation by some women. It becomes a race to the bottom with the kids as the losers ultimately.

[quote ChequerBoard]@Roblox01 said "I don't agree with the legal minimum comment. It sounds entitled. Two people in the same situation can end up paying very different amounts of child maintenance based on their earnings. Are they both paying 'the minimum' or is it in fact the appropriate amount."

How is it 'entitled'? Of the course the amounts vary - people have different jobs and earn vastly different amounts. The legal minimum is as a percentage of the NRPs earnings.

That's fair because if the parents were still together, the DC would have benefitted from the specific earning power of the NRP.

As I said earlier, it's not a race to the bottom. Are you seriously suggesting a set figure should be applied for all child maintenance claims? So an investment banker should pay the same as a zero hours contract worker??

Guess who would massively benefit from that? I'll give you a clue, it's not the DC![/quote]
Im not suggesting everyone pays the same CM and I didn't say that.

CM is not a 'minimum' that's my point.

It's an amount set by CMS. They don't send a payment schedule and say here's your payments, the minimum expected amount is x but you may want to pay y. They just tell you to pay x.

In a reasonably amicable post separation situation the nrp will probably offer more at certain points. In a less amicable situation the nrp will be less willing to do so and shock horror that may be for good reason as the ex can't be trusted.

If the parents were still together yes there would be a higher standard of living for higher earners. But what your saying is the ex owns the RP a standard of living. That is where the entitlement sets in.

Rp do have to find those things but the state helps separated RP quite generously and CM doesn't really impact that unless there's spousal maintenance in play.

Are they generously helped? Funny that, I wasn't. I didn't bother with CMS either because he went self employed. But plenty of RP work and don't get generous support from the state. And I don't know anyone who gets a generous amount from the state in benefits. RP often can't work full time or put alot of time in to progress their career, if the NRP won't do their fair share of childcare

It's an amount set by CMS. They don't send a payment schedule and say here's your payments, the minimum expected amount is x but you may want to pay y. They just tell you to pay x.

That's just picking at wording. CMS is the payment they decide based in your earnings. Its what the nrp has to pay. It doesn't mean they have to opt out of supporting their children further. Either with time or money. That's what people mean by the minimum. I

No one is suggesting the CMS words it this way.

If the parents were still together yes there would be a higher standard of living for higher earners. But what your saying is the ex owns the RP a standard of living. That is where the entitlement sets in.

No, the other parent owes the child a certain standard of living. Do you really think children of high earners shouldn't benefit from that if their parents split? That it's acceptable they live in a family that's struggling, financially when they don't need to?

When often, in cases where the RP is struggling is due to the fact that both parents supported the decision for RP to be a sahp or reduce their earning potential to look after the kids? Or can't work that much because the NRP won't step up and actually care for the kids?

The RPs financial situation is often tied directly to decisions made within the relationship by both people. Why should only the RP (and therefore the kids) suffer because of those joint decisions? And when the nrp won't step up, the rp is often trapped in that situation.

I really don't see that there's large amounts of women, opting to do very little to provide for their kids themselves. But getting generous state handouts and generous CMS. Living their best life. There will be some. But the vast majority are are just trying to care for their kids, earn enough money to pay for everything and give their kids a decent life. Often with little to no practical support.

I really don't think women milking the system and their exs for their own lifestyle is a huge problem here. The much bigger problem is nrp not paying the amount the CMS would say they should AND providing no to little support.

How old are your children? I completely agree you should be getting what your children are entitled to from him. However if you're tight for money why not get a full time job? Unless you have younger children at home that you need to look after.

@Yummymummy2020

I doubt he will quit his job and lose his apparently lovely lifestyle out of spite!!! I’d get it taken from his salary!

I'm not so sure. As a PP said, their partner quit their job to go self employed and then only had to pay £30 a month CMS.

If you're giving such a big chunk of your salary to CMS then you might actually end up better off financially by quitting/ going self employed.

Not saying it's right (at all - it's awful!) but I'm just saying from his point of view it might make financial sense to quit of change jobs if a quarter of his take home pay is going to his ex.

OP I think this is really tricky especially as you say he's a bit unpredictable and you do worry he might just quite his job.

I think you do need to confront him as he is paying so little, but I would start off by using the threat of having it taken from his salary to see if you can negotiate him upwards.

Does he know how much it actually costs you to provide everything for the children? Does he care about them? If so then try to get him to see how much the money would improve their lives. If not, you will just have to threaten as above.

Whether you then follow through with that threat is tricky and only you can decide that.

Hope you get the money you and they need, either way - good luck.

IR35 will make it harder for people to go self employed if they are doing a substantive role. I'd call his bluff OP.