EX (dc dad) is on the verge of asking to pay less CM....because he's having more DC

[BlondiesAllDay]

Hi,

Any day now I suspect. We have a teenager together and we've been separated for almost 10 years. Although I know he's better than a lot of blokes because he does actually pay CM, he always has to be reminded and it's very rarely on time.

Anyway, after being completely adamant he never wanted more dc, he and his dw had a baby a couple of years ago. Very much planned from the sounds of it. I was happy for him, but in the lead up to the birth, was telling me how much he's going to have to fork out on baby stuff 😶 No shit sherlock. Then once his dc is born and attending nursery, I get told exactly how much he has to pay for nursery fees, how much maternity leave his dw gets and how much her income will drop and when. I know exactly why he's telling me this.

Now his dw has just announced a few days ago that she's expecting again. I'm already getting the financial run down and he even tells our dc. They now feel guilty when he spends anything on them! It's ridiculous. I believe that dc shouldn't take money for granted, but they shouldn't feel like a financial burden, especially when it's because their dad is having more dc.

I know he will want a chat soon about reducing CM and I'm absolutely dreading it. I'm a very reasonable person and if they'd genuinely just fallen on hard times, I would (and have) accept late or even smaller payments, but when you've made the decision to grow your family and then you can't afford your existing dc, well I'm not so accepting of that. Our dc won't really go without, but it's not the point. We're all having to tighten our belts right now though, so it will certainly be more noticeable than before.

What would you say in this situation? Has anyone been in this situation?

TIA

Completely agree Pineapple.

I just think it's fair to say he 'can't afford' more children just because it might mean he cannot continue paying CM at his current rate. It definitely depends what he's paying now.

• UNFAIR that should say!

@GlitteryGreen

Completely agree Pineapple.

I just think it's fair to say he 'can't afford' more children just because it might mean he cannot continue paying CM at his current rate. It definitely depends what he's paying now.

Yes. I couldn't have another child now and spend exactly what I spend on our DC still. It doesn't necessarily mean I can't afford another child though. It's about whether what you could afford to spend on all of them would still be adequate or not.

In the same way that I had more disposable income to spend on one child when they were the only one compared to when we had the second. I can still afford both my children, it just needs to go further and that may mean in some way they each have less spent than if they were only children but it certainly doesn't mean they don't get what they need and often want.

@aSofaNearYou

I think how fair this is heavily depends on how much he's paying and what that leaves him with.

Arguments of "him choosing to have more children shouldn't affect his first one's" are illogical and come from an emotive place. All parents have to split their resources between all of their children even if it means less for the eldest, the only reason people don't like to acknowledge this on here is because they don't value the "second children" the way they would if they were their own.

Very much agree with this.

Mumsnet generally holds the new children of an ex in low regard (presumably by association with the ex) and this argument is just emotion

I know it’s not ideal to have your income impacted by someone else’s choices, but unless we know what he’s paying we can’t say if it’s fair or not.

How much is he paying and is it what the CMS says, more or less?

If you have to chase him anyway then I’d get it set up officially through them.

We didn’t decrease what DH pays his ex when we had DD.

Mumsnet generally holds the new children of an ex in low regard (presumably by association with the ex) and this argument is just emotion

I know it’s not ideal to have your income impacted by someone else’s choices, but unless we know what he’s paying we can’t say if it’s fair or not.

Agree, and I also think a part of the issue is that CM is regarded as a guaranteed, set part of the RP's income when the reality is it is, by nature, a changeable figure and is based on the NRP's income, not the RP's.

Loads of things can impact the amount, especially if it's via private arrangement.

I think with the increasing cost of living such as electricity, gas and petrol as well as food costs it would be very easy to tell him you can’t afford a reduction in payments now. I assume he’s not increasing payments with inflation?

you could chat to him less and not listen to his moaning and not give him the opportunity to make it your problem in the first place!

@giggly

I think it’s shit that first family children’s payments are reduced because the father go on to have more children. Second partners/ wives need to accept that the fathers disposable income will always be less that of the CM payment to first children and if that doesn’t work then dont have children with them.

🤣

a) Why are you listening to him? Cut him off short and tell him you're not interested

b) Go through the CMS and get the right amount taken directly off his earnings

I assume he’s not increasing payments with inflation?

I don't get this arguement. He's not an endless pit of money that can just increase in line with inflation all the time. Most people aren't receiving more money right now in line with inflation! I wish we were!

The exH may have more outlay because of the baby but don't feel too sorry for him -he also has a new partner who will have a wage coming in.

Dh and I only have one child. I don’t agree subsequent children from a new relationship are less important. Once they are born, their needs are equal to those already existing.

It is, however, grossly unfair parent of the existing child(ren) is severely impacted and can no longer make ends meet as the child(ren) will suffer. Of course CM is not a given. But every parent should want to contribute to the cost of their child if fit to do so.

The same is true for couples, who continue to have children they cannot afford. The difference is they have one another to share the burden and both share the responsibility for creating the situation rather than having it thrust upon them.

Of course we can all one day loose our livelihood for a number of reasons.

I'd be talking to him about the impact it's having on your dc, they shouldn't be feeling guilty if he spends money on them.

I thought that other DC are taken into account when paying maintenance?

It’s not fair on you/your child but it’s life that having more than one child means the money is stretched more.

If he's only now realizing the costs of maternity leave and childcare and baby equipment I'd say it's safe to say that the op has carried the majority of the financial burden to now

@giggly

I think it’s shit that first family children’s payments are reduced because the father go on to have more children. Second partners/ wives need to accept that the fathers disposable income will always be less that of the CM payment to first children and if that doesn’t work then dont have children with them.

If it's the other way round and the woman goes on to have children with a new partner does the ex then get to pay less or get a gautantee that the CMS only gets used on their children

Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind disclosing OP, how much do you get in CMS? This would help to understand whether or not your ex has been irresponsible having more kids.

Yes resources need to go further when you have more children but the issue is that the couple who had the first child and agreed on the standard of living they wanted in deciding whether or not to have more aren’t the couple deciding whether or not to have more now. It’s a really unfortunate situation.

I wonder if he has the same understanding of and ability to breakdown costs for his older child as he does for his younger. And what he would specifically point to as being something that should be cut back to allow for the change in financial circumstances his oldest child will experience due to his decisions.

Should have said - we didn’t decrease financial support for his children when we had ours. What would we have said? Sorry girls no more dancing lessons as the parents you never wanted to split are going on to have more children?

Our resources as a household were more stretched; his childrens’ resources were not.

If he's always late on payments, get the CMS payments taken out of his paycheck. Whatever he winds up paying, you know it'll show up reliably.

The travel is the second batch of children have to parents financially contributing towards their well-being by the sounds of it the first batch only have their mother and is an absolute maximum 17 1/2% from their father.

Definitely go to the CMS and I’m speaking to a work colleague about its exact situation it takes them absolutely ages to at the second baby to the claim his is nearly 3 years old and the CSM still have an added the child to reduce his payment yet

Yes resources need to go further when you have more children but the issue is that the couple who had the first child and agreed on the standard of living they wanted in deciding whether or not to have more aren’t the couple deciding whether or not to have more now.

I don't think this is strictly true or fair because it's not about the standard of living the original couple wanted/had when they were together, it's about the CM. Both parties likely make choices after they split which the other wouldn't necessarily agree with or deem necessary.

In private arrangements CM is usually decided at the point of the split, based on what the paying parent can afford at that time and also often with a lot of emotions at play. That's doesn't mean it can never change, and I think if the NRP starts off paying a lot more than the required level, it's unfair to say they can never change that amount regardless of their circumstances going forward.

But again, it all depends on what's being paid in the first place for me.

@BlondiesAllDay

Thanks for all the replies so far.

@aSofaNearYou, I see where you're coming from, but really it just boils down to responsibility. If I couldn't afford to have more dc, then I just wouldn't. That's the beginning and end of it. He was struggling enough as it was, so he knew if he planned another, our dc would have to go with less.

Morally yes.

Legally no.

And as always happens, the financial burden falls on the primary caregiver to maintain and is the reason why child maintenance should never be reliant upon as it can stop/be reduced at any point with no real recompense or notice. At least in these instances you have warning.

He can drop it if the csa allows him to as he will have another child/having your joint dc more. If the csa says he can’t then he can’t.

@MissTrip82

Should have said - we didn’t decrease financial support for his children when we had ours. What would we have said? Sorry girls no more dancing lessons as the parents you never wanted to split are going on to have more children?

Our resources as a household were more stretched; his childrens’ resources were not.

How stretched? Whatever the prior agreement between the parents (and let's not forget they also agreed not to seperate - it's obtuse to pretend things are not subject to change, finances being a key example), it would never be the right thing for dance lessons for the older kids to be prioritised over food on the table for the younger ones.

Hence why a blanket "maintenance should never change due to having more children" rule is just naive and untenable, and hence why the specifics of the finances in question are of crucial relevance.