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

I believe that is correct - CMS calculations take into account additional children living with NR Parent.

Bloody annoying for you but I don't think you can argue with it, unless he will be paying less than CMS amount.

If he keeps paying late have you considered looking into an attachment of earnings order (assuming he isn't SE)

@Bringsexyback

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

My BIL had a new baby at the end of December, the child is on the CMS claim. It doesn't take years.

Unfortunately unless he's paying less than the CMS amount you can't say or do anything but appeal to any goodwill left. I have heard it said don't have kids if you won't have/earn enough money to live well as a single parent. I think that would mean a strange sort of evolution of the species if it happened.

No…it is bs and totally unfair to the older child who already have had to go through a split. I am in the US and additional children don’t affect the payments.

@Stressedout1009 are you taking the piss because you have a different opinion to me? If so that’s a cunty thing to do.

When an intact family has an additional child, they presumably make sure that the needs of all children will be met and that luxuries may have to be split between the children.

Child maintenance rarely comes close to covering the non-resident parents portion of the child’s needs yet alone luxuries. It doesn’t make sense that the amount should be reduced for additional children.

Child maintenance rarely comes close to covering the non-resident parents portion of the child’s needs yet alone luxuries. It doesn’t make sense that the amount should be reduced for additional children.

Again, this is why figures are needed though to make any solid judgement.

Child maintenance, imo, only "rarely covers the cost of a child" if we're talking about lower earners. It's a percentage of the NRPs wage so a high earning NRP can potentially be paying quite a significant amount even if paying the CMS 'minimum requirement'.

Minimum does have to equal low. It could be a very healthy amount if the NRP earns well which yes could cover some luxuries too.

Probably not the case here but unless OP wants to give actual figures it's impossible to say.

Minimum does not have to equal low*

I think this idea that CMS is 'the minimum' is quite a toxic term. It's something argued by solicitors and I see it on here from time to time.

Two nrp's in the same position, let's say eow with the kids and 2 kids each could be paying very different amounts of cms. One could be paying 400 per month and the other say 800. This will primarily be driven by salary level and possibly by other children whether the nrp's or a new partner.

In this case what's the minimum, the 400 / the 800 or are they both 'the minimum'.?

@whatstheteamarie

Have you considered getting in there early and the next time he mentions the cost of the new baby, say something like:

"well it's a good job you planned your finances when you planned for this baby and know that you can afford him/her, with the prices of everything going up, I certainly couldn't afford another child, nor a drop in CM without it affecting your first DC's lifestyle and I know you wouldn't want that. Talking of which with the cost of living going up, I'm presuming you'll be increasing the CM soon? How much more should I expect each week/month."

Set your stall out early that you're expecting more not less and then he can "negotiate" you "down" to the amount you already receive.

Talk up the costs of raising kids as much as he does, he's right, children ARE expensive and it's HIS job as a parent to pay for ALL the children he creates.

Why would the cost of living going up entitle you to more CM?

It's based on his earnings and cost of living is also going up for him.

MN doesn't generally have a real-world view of CM.

@Blossom64265

When an intact family has an additional child, they presumably make sure that the needs of all children will be met and that luxuries may have to be split between the children.

Child maintenance rarely comes close to covering the non-resident parents portion of the child’s needs yet alone luxuries. It doesn’t make sense that the amount should be reduced for additional children.

Another thing worth noting is that whilst it's often highlighted that the RP doesn't get to decide whether the NRP has more children, it's seldom considered that the NRP doesn't get to decide what the child's luxuries and oft mentioned "lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed" actually are. Quite often the RP will argue through the nose that their ex isn't paying enough, but they want to buy their child endless designer gear and gadgets etc, whilst these are not luxuries the NRP would choose to buy for them.

Of course that could not be the case here and this could be more a case of maintenance that doesn't even cover half of the basic costs of living. But we do not know. Both are possible realities.

And people do need to realise, rather than constantly use it as a reason NRPs can reasonably be called upon to neglect their younger children, that both parents are burdered with lack of choice and control over the other parents actions following a split. That is just life, both sides need to accept it. What needs to be prioritised is all the children having their basics equally covered by their father.

It always makes me laugh that apparently the non-resident parent is being asked to fund the residents parents idea of luxuries and it’s always gadgets and designer clothing 🤣 what about private school that the child attended before the split ? what about holidays ? what about a reasonable standard of living?

In my experience the non-resident parent doesn’t consider any of that to be their responsibility unless it’s happening with them so the residents parents job is to be cook clean and bottle washer, whilst the non-resident parents will do anything fun if there’s anything fun to be done.

@Bringsexyback

It always makes me laugh that apparently the non-resident parent is being asked to fund the residents parents idea of luxuries and it’s always gadgets and designer clothing 🤣 what about private school that the child attended before the split ? what about holidays ? what about a reasonable standard of living? In my experience the non-resident parent doesn’t consider any of that to be their responsibility unless it’s happening with them so the residents parents job is to be cook clean and bottle washer, whilst the non-resident parents will do anything fun if there’s anything fun to be done.

It isn't ALWAYS, but it is often.

Among seperated parents with different approaches there is often one who wants to indulge the children more than the other. Sometimes you get the Disney Dad cliche, and sometimes it is the other way around. It's not that hard to accept that it's a 50/50 chance if it being either way around.

@aSofaNearYou I don’t think it’s anywhere near 50-50 to be honest with you, all of the single parents that I know the children are getting the basics to say the very least just not to say that the NRP Is spoiling the child either usually they’ve got the worst of both worlds because of the split neither parents can afford to maintain anywhere near the lifestyle the child would’ve had had the parents stay together it’s very sad

@Casper001

I think this idea that CMS is 'the minimum' is quite a toxic term. It's something argued by solicitors and I see it on here from time to time.

Two nrp's in the same position, let's say eow with the kids and 2 kids each could be paying very different amounts of cms. One could be paying 400 per month and the other say 800. This will primarily be driven by salary level and possibly by other children whether the nrp's or a new partner.

In this case what's the minimum, the 400 / the 800 or are they both 'the minimum'.?

I think people conflate the fact that it's called "the minimum" because it's the minimum amount required by law taking into account the NRPs earning and other factors, with meaning "low".

CMS is often too low I agree. But simply saying someone pays the minimum legally required CM does not necessarily mean it's a low figure. It's all relative.

what about holidays ?

I know it wasn't your main point but why should the NRP fund holidays for the RP?

I have SC. We take them away, their Mum takes them away. We don't contribute towards her holidays with the kids because we take them with us too!

[quote Bringsexyback]@aSofaNearYou I don’t think it’s anywhere near 50-50 to be honest with you, all of the single parents that I know the children are getting the basics to say the very least just not to say that the NRP Is spoiling the child either usually they’ve got the worst of both worlds because of the split neither parents can afford to maintain anywhere near the lifestyle the child would’ve had had the parents stay together it’s very sad[/quote]
And my personal experience is that of my DP's ex spoiling DSS much more than DP would like when it comes to luxuries. You also see a LOT of similar stories on the step parenting forum.

We all have anecdotal experience. The fact is, between two parents who don't see eye to eye on parenting, there is a 50/50 chance of it being either parent who wants more luxuries for the child than the other.

@PineappleSundays

what about holidays ?

I know it wasn't your main point but why should the NRP fund holidays for the RP?

I have SC. We take them away, their Mum takes them away. We don't contribute towards her holidays with the kids because we take them with us too!

No my main point was that the non-resident parent is delighted to do fun stuff with their child providing they get to go on it and they get to see the fruits of their labour less keen to pay for the child to go on a holiday with the resident parent God for bed there should be a few quid left over that might go to wards that. I would never expect my ex to cover my airfare holiday whatever you wanna call it but it is sad that DS doesn’t get holidays with the non-residential parents and X also begrudges any contribution beyond bread and water.

OP to answer your original question is that you can't stop the reduction.

If he's paying more than CMS, go to the CMS online calculator then check what the percentage reduction for each additional child is and make sure any reduction he suggests isn't larger than that. This should be done in writing.

If he's paying the CMS amount they will calculate this for him, so you do nothing.

When you meet him you should be voicing any concerns you have on ensuring your teenager continues to have a relationship with him, their father, and your teenager also has a relationship with their younger half-siblings.

At the end of the day when you both dead and buried you want your teenager to have a good relationship with their younger siblings.

Remember the financial support aspect lasts 18-21 years but the children's relationship aspect lasts 60 years or more.

He has to pay the statutory amount of CM regardless of his new DCs. If he's doing it then you you can't complain I'm afraid.

The nrp is entitled to do whatever they want with their life: remarry, have more kids, change jobs etc. There's nothing you can do about it. The amount they contribute isn't fixed over your child's life & it may change over time, we all know that. If you need more money then increase your hours or get a new job or apply for a promotion. My ex contributes a small amount & I pay for everything else. I don't moan about it or make him feel guilty because I have pride & I get strength from providing for my children for the most part on my own

Do you not just laugh at him? Whining about the well documented fact that his lifestyle choice is, in fact, hugely expensive? And choosing to go and double it 😂

Honestly. I can’t believe the number of people who just have more children when they can’t even afford the ones they’ve already got

@Neveragain85 why should all the onus be on the mother.

I would say he really shouldn’t be expected to pay more than the CMS calculation, this is what my ex pays and I would say is a fair calculation. It gets reduced very slightly in view of his step children (counted the same as if they had children together) but when one of his step children left home the difference was very minimal so it really should make much difference to the calculation whether he has one or 10 more children. I don’t think it’s fair to expect him not to have children in his new relationship, just as it wouldn’t be fair if you were similarly restricted. If you’d of had further children together you’d no doubt have had to tighten your belts and had less money for your first child like most couples, it’s just the way it is but then they have the benefit of a new sibling. As it is it shouldn’t really make much difference to your child