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

[quote Gotajobthrunepotism]@Neveragain85 why should all the onus be on the mother.[/quote]
You can't control another person.

The OP can only control and rely on herself.

My definition of a luxury in this case would be quite narrowly defined. Child maintenance rarely covers basics like food, shelter, and very basic clothing. Luxury would be anything discretionary like having more than the absolute minimum number of uniform pieces required, taking swimming lessons, getting to have a hobby, have the pound to donate for uniform free days, maybe being able to afford the occasional treat. I think of it in terms of an economist, anything above subsistence is a luxury. It is the rare parent who will add another child to a household if they can’t provide basic subsistence, but stretching the optional things, even if they are paltry, is a choice. That is the problem with reducing maintenance for new children. Since it rarely even covers subsistence.

@RedWingBoots. But again, why does society allow all the onus to be on the woman? Why aren’t we arresting the wages of men who are not paying the required child maintenance?

I have no skin in the game btw. I don’t recieve CMS nor have a partner who pays it

I’ve been on all sides of this, the mother slated for asking for the CMS rate (despite offering joint residence) the mother not receiving any maintenance at all and the mother of new children in a marriage where maintenance is being paid to support our previous children. With the exception of the sometimes bad administration if your getting the CSA calculated rate of their actual salary then your getting a fairly calculated chunk. If your the parent with care you’ve got that extra responsibility and you and your child deserve that, but don’t forget parents with care with also receive all the usual benefits and childcare paid for on top of that it their income is low. if your getting anything more than the CSA rate then that’s just a bonus, I do think some of the expectations of those receiving maintenance are quite unfair. Divorce and separation is going to have a negative impact on both parents finances and the parent with main care expecting them and their children to be maintained to the same standard as before is totally unrealistic, more that they should be left on a similar level.
It’s also not fair to expect either parent to not move on with their lives and have children with someone else (whilst also prioritising any existing children the same as new children of course!) and it’s not fair that either existing or new children should go without so the other can be maintained at a higher standard. If your receiving any maintenance at all then your actually better off than many families so it’s not like your child is going to be living at subsistence anyway.

Ps. To add, if the OP’s ex is talking about reducing what he pays to below CSA rate then he’s being totally unfair but if he’s paying above that rate I’d just make it clear that if he really needs to drop it to that rate then fair enough but it’s totally unreasonable for him to drop it to below that rate. If he was thinking that would be an option then yes he really should of thought about that before he had further children. Agree he shouldn’t really be raising it as an issue with the children or trying to make her feel guilty by harassing her with constant costs of the new children unless she’s demanding more than CSA rate

[quote Gotajobthrunepotism]@RedWingBoots. But again, why does society allow all the onus to be on the woman? Why aren’t we arresting the wages of men who are not paying the required child maintenance?

I have no skin in the game btw. I don’t recieve CMS nor have a partner who pays it[/quote]
The OP doesn’t say she’s not receiving CM, the whole idea of the CMS and divorce law system is that the onus isn’t just on one parent?

@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.

This

@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.

Don't do this.

He's not going to negotiate and cost of living is irrelevant.

It’s also not fair to expect either parent to not move on with their lives and have children with someone else (whilst also prioritising any existing children the same as new children of course!) and it’s not fair that either existing or new children should go without so the other can be maintained at a higher standard. If your receiving any maintenance at all then your actually better off than many families so it’s not like your child is going to be living at subsistence anyway.
That’s such a piss poor attitude @Autumn42 some men are complete dick head so you should be glad that yours is only a bit of a dick head ?
As I said the calculations should be made before deciding on any further children can you afford the ones you’ve got and if the answer is no without expecting your ex-husband or wife to fill in the gaps that will be left by your drop in contribution then you can’t afford them and you need to not have them. One of the main reasons I stayed with my ex for as long as I did was to make sure he was too old, not interested and had had a vasectomy before we split.

@HunterHearstHelmsley
Totally agree, I’m a mother receiving maintenance myself (and wife of a husband paying maintenance) this approach smacks of totally taking the biscuit and would create significant animosity. He’s made it clear he’s struggling with the additional costs of his new children and will be doing so even more with the rising cost of living, the last thing he’s going to agree to is struggling even more just to maintain a more than sufficient lifestyle for OP and their child. He should be paying out a fair proportion of his income as per CMS calculation, absolutely yes but to ask him to buffer you from the cost of living crisis most people are going through when he’s already struggling is very unfair

Christ. don’t listen to his pathetic sob stories. Tell your DC to put their fingers in their ears when he starts going on ….

What a twat.

Only do things by official channels. Official channels. Mantra. On repeat.

@Bringsexyback

It’s also not fair to expect either parent to not move on with their lives and have children with someone else (whilst also prioritising any existing children the same as new children of course!) and it’s not fair that either existing or new children should go without so the other can be maintained at a higher standard. If your receiving any maintenance at all then your actually better off than many families so it’s not like your child is going to be living at subsistence anyway. That’s such a piss poor attitude *@Autumn42* some men are complete dick head so you should be glad that yours is only a bit of a dick head ? As I said the calculations should be made before deciding on any further children can you afford the ones you’ve got and if the answer is no without expecting your ex-husband or wife to fill in the gaps that will be left by your drop in contribution then you can’t afford them and you need to not have them. One of the main reasons I stayed with my ex for as long as I did was to make sure he was too old, not interested and had had a vasectomy before we split.

The CMS calculated maintenance doesn’t drop that significantly with new children so that isn’t what happens. If your getting the CMS rate then the ex isn’t being at all being a dick financially, automatically expecting more than that is unfair.

As has been said repeatedly the CSM calculation is the bare friggin minimum, you don’t get a medal for providing that.
Yet again people shortchanging their children and women piling in to try and justify it pathetic @Autumn42

@Bringsexyback

As has been said repeatedly the CSM calculation is the bare friggin minimum, you don’t get a medal for providing that. Yet again people shortchanging their children and women piling in to try and justify it pathetic *@Autumn42*

It's not the bare minimum though Is it for some people yes it's totally shit but for a high earner it can be a lot of money. Saying it's the bare minimum makes it sound like it's the same tiny amount for everyone, which isn't the case.

@Bringsexyback

As has been said repeatedly the CSM calculation is the bare friggin minimum, you don’t get a medal for providing that. Yet again people shortchanging their children and women piling in to try and justify it pathetic *@Autumn42*

The CSM rate is a proportion of their income, if they are a low earner they what kind of destitution would you expect them to be living in? The PWC is entitled to benefits if low income so they are not going to be living in destitution are they. If they are a high earner then the amount is quite sufficient. My ex could afford fancy holidays and we couldn’t but he pays the CSM rate and that’s fair enough, I don’t expect him to maintain our lifestyle, just give a fair contribution of his salary so our dc gets to have the upbringing we can jointly afford. As I said before the CSM calculation takes only a very minimal account of additional children so it’s not really an issue

Imagine if all the resident parents decided that they were only going to allocate 20% of their income towards the children 🙄
Yes mummy gets 60 grand a year and a mere 12 of it can go towards feeding, clothing, housing, entertaining you and your two siblings. Social services would be involved.

But living with a child ft and not living with them ft isn't remotely comparable.

@Bringsexyback

Imagine if all the resident parents decided that they were only going to allocate 20% of their income towards the children 🙄 Yes mummy gets 60 grand a year and a mere 12 of it can go towards feeding, clothing, housing, entertaining you and your two siblings. Social services would be involved.

Erm.. no they wouldn’t unless you were actually neglecting them. 12k would more than provide the food, clothes and larger house needed for 2 school age children in a nice but not expensive part of the country. Don’t forget too often the other parent is also having to buy a larger house and spend money on food, clothes and travelling for the time their children spend with them. I’ve been on receiving end of harassment for simply asking for the CSM rate but some of the attitudes on here from the PWC are also ridiculous

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

But living with a child ft and not living with them ft isn't remotely comparable.

No it isn’t because one person gets to pay the minimum and the other person has to handover 100% of their income to meet the children’s needs. It’s just a totally different mentality the resident parent will pay for everything for the children and then if there’s anything left over for themselves consider themselves lucky the non-resident parent pays their percentage and then spends the rest as they please, must be lovely.

@Autumn42 The 20% number is for three school-aged children so yeah 12 grand might potentially cover two, wouldn’t cover three, and that’s the CMS calculations.

My only point is is that you don’t get a medal for providing the legal minimum to your children. The only losers in the entire situation are the kids and that’s nothing to be proud of.

No it isn’t because one person gets to pay the minimum and the other person has to handover 100% of their income to meet the children’s needs
Not necessarily

It’s just a totally different mentality the resident parent will pay for everything for the children and then if there’s anything left over for themselves consider themselves lucky the non-resident parent pays their percentage and then spends the rest as they please, must be lovely.

Ahahahahaha. Yeah, I'm sure that must be lovely but that's not the reality for a lot of people.

Dp for example paid what CMS said, plus the mortgage, plus everything else ie uniforms trips etc for years. He rented a room at his friends house because that's all he could afford. He did all the overtime he could. There was nothing left over. He eventually got the mortgage sorted and walked away with barely anything.

The thing is as the nrp you're expected to pay cms but also have a house big enough for contact (when often you're the one who had to leave the family home) and obviously provide on your time as well. It all adds up.

Maybe your ex is a total arsehole, I dunno, but a lot aren't.

I 100% agree with you

@Getyourarseofffthequattro I think you’ll find it’s your situation that’s in the minority

@whatstheteamarie - I like this idea! Definitely think you should say that

[quote Bringsexyback]@Getyourarseofffthequattro I think you’ll find it’s your situation that’s in the minority[/quote]
No, I don't think it is, at all.