Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

Reducing maintenance after new DC

131 replies

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 15:46

Hi all

Have NCd for this. I'd really appreciate your views/advice on a delicate issue...

Just wondering if anyone had experience of reducing maintenance to a dsc in line with CSA guidelines once another child is born?

DSD is 10 and DH is NRP. Maintenance is private arrangement but figures based on CSA guidelines. His Ex works full time and earns well (higher rate tax payer). However, she recently stopped paying her share of school fees saying she could not afford them (despite being very keen for DSS to go private and being very clear on the financial commitment before he went to the school).

DH has been very patient and asked if she could contribute anything at all to which he was given a flat 'no'. She then bought a car and took DSS on holiday abroad.

CSA calculator shows DH could cut maintenance by around £250 a month since the arrival of our DD three months ago.

I am not pushing it as I think it's a sensitive issue and don't want DSD to get negative message. DH thinks ex will go totally ballistic, start messing around with contact and the stress she will cause if we reduce the maintenance won't make it worthwhile.

If she was still contributing to school fees I'd probably be much more relaxed about leaving maintenance as it is but we are shouldering a lot of expense and the extra money would make a real difference to us.

Would welcome any thoughts/views please...

OP posts:

Magpiemystery · 29/08/2014 15:55

Personally I would reduce the maintenance. We did when both our dc were born. Yes ss' mother went nuts but, she goes nuts over anything and everything anyway.

£250 a month is a lot, give her some notice and reduce accordingly.

You will get posters saying its not fair on ss but on the basis it will reduce by £250 you are paying a LOT, so there should still be enough to clothe and feed him etc.

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 16:02

Thanks Magpie - really helpful.

It is a large sum - more than we spend a month on a lot of our bills and food for two adults and a baby! Ex is always asking for more (and of course we cannot ask how she spends the maintenance she gets) but we feel confident that DSD won't suffer if we reduce.

Slightly worried that ex would tell DSD that we are 'taking her money for new sister' or similar but we can have a chat of our own with DSD.

OP posts:

sanityseeker75 · 29/08/2014 16:05

I would also reduce it. If you can afford it then give notice and maybe reduce by increments if possible (maybe reduce down £50 a month or something like that).

If you are reducing by £250 then clearly paying a lot so perhaps offer to pay for extras as and when.

Is he paying school fees separately to maintenance?

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 16:16

Yes, the fees are completely separate to maintenance.

Of course we have the choice to take DSD out of private school and this may yet happen if things get too tight but for now DH and I are both happy to make considerable sacrifices to keep her there as she's doing so well. Just feel a but sad/cross that her mother gets to completely opt out of the agreement/responsibility for no apparent reason.

OP posts:

sanityseeker75 · 29/08/2014 16:39

So he is paying more than CSA than standard and school fees and extras?? I would dare anyone to tell you with a clear conscience that a reduction is not perfectly fair and understandable with the change in circumstances.

DSD needs to know that love does not come with a price tag attached and as long as she is shown this with consistency it wont really matter much what anyone else tells her

Caorunn · 29/08/2014 17:29

Reducing the maintenance payment because your DH has chosen to have another child - not fair. (I know that the CSA guidelines allow this but I still don't think it is fair to be honest)

Deducting the additional school fees from the current payment - very fair.

Do you think that your DSD mother has stopped paying her share of the school fees in anticipation of a reduction in the maintenance payment following the birth of you and your DH's new child? As your DH is covering what was her share she is not really lost anything financially has she?

Magpiemystery · 29/08/2014 17:35

Caorunn
How is it not fair to reduce the maintenance? There is only one pie to go round, in a not split family everyone has a bit less when a child is born so why not in a split family? Why should a step child be exempt from normal family economics.

If the ex had another baby the step child would get less.

We're not talking about some poor child who gets £10 a week! The dad pays more than enough and some.

Caorunn · 29/08/2014 17:42

In general terms I don't think it is fair no. The step-child doesn't cost any less for the RP because their father and his new wife/partner have chosen to have another child.

In a 'not split' family there are two adults impacted with a say in the decision; in a split family there are three adults impacted but clearly only two have any input to the decision. if the father can't afford to maintain the same level of payment (i.e no impact on the third adult) then actually he can't afford to have another child.

In the OPs case the ex is however taking the piss and as I said it is, imo, very fair for the additional school fees being paid to be deducted from the current maintenance payment. And I would think that positioning it in this ways with the ex may well help prevent ww3.

TheMumsRush · 29/08/2014 17:58

School fees aside, I think it would be fair to reduce maintenance payments. The dad after all is just dividing up his money among all his children.

Whatever21 · 29/08/2014 18:00

You can be a higher rate tax payer on £37000pa that does not make you loaded.

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 18:15

Many thanks for all the helpful responses and perspectives.

OP posts:

SoonToBeSix · 29/08/2014 18:17

I don't think it is fair to reduce payments once another child is born. Men ( or women) should not start second families at the expense of children they already have. This is not the same as a family that all lives together choosing to have another child because only one parent of the child that already exists is making the decision .

Caorunn · 29/08/2014 18:17

He is MumsRush but in the context of him, his ex and their child he has chosen to change the proportions of that split unilaterally. That is not fair, what ever way you look at it.

Also, a reversion to CSA rates means one child gets the benefit of 15% of their father's income and the other benefits broadly from 85% so not an equitable split either. (Putting school fees aside as you asked and assuming he has one child with his ex and his new partner.) I know that far more than 15% of my earnings are either directly or indirectly for the benefit of my children.

needaholidaynow · 29/08/2014 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sanityseeker75 · 29/08/2014 18:34

But mom has already stopped paying school fees so Dad has already increased payments.

So you could either reduce maintenance in line with additional school fees or leave maintenance the same but explain that dsd needs to leave private education or mom needs to pay her share.

ClashCityRocker · 29/08/2014 18:41

Well, reading between the lines it sounds like if you carry on paying the maintenance at the current level it will be a struggle with the school fees? I may have misunderstood.

So if you can reduce the maintenance and continue paying the school fees, this is likely to massively benefit DSD.

I'm not sure I agree with those saying that he shouldn't reduce the money due to having a 'second family' - which is a godawful phrase in itself, is her half sibling not part of the family then? And what if the ex chooses to have further children? Should she not do this in case her first child has less spent on them?

I'm guessing the school fees are a big chunk each year, so in fact the total amount you pay is well in excess of the CSA guidelines.

If you're confident that DSD won't lose out, I'd go for it. It's a tricky situation and I can see why his ex will be annoyed, but assuming it isn't going to leave them in the lurch, I wouldn't have a moral issue with it. It sounds like she is and will continue to be amply financially provided for.

Caorunn · 29/08/2014 18:43

It does needaholiday and any CSA payment is reduced to reflect the number of overnights. But where there is a maintenance payment and nothing more (as is described by others often on this MN) then actually I don't believe the contributions are equal in terms of finances.

I am sure that all circumstances are different but where the father has a new family with whom he lives then it is, imo, inevitable that 'they' benefit more from his income than a child who isn't resident. For example the RP may maintain a 4 bed house to allow the children a room each the majority of the time; whilst the NRP can opt for a 3-bed and have the children share when they are with him as it is a smaller proportion of the time. Or have them share with a new child when they stay for similar reasons. Or his new partner may not work to look after the new child hence no need for childcare when the step-children are visting; the RP doesn't have that luxury and so may incur childcare costs. All totally valid and understandable of course but in terms of finances not an equitable split.

picnicbasketcase · 29/08/2014 18:51

I don't think the RP should expect the maintenance to stay the same when you're paying all of the school fees. Nothing to do with your new DC.

Georgethesecond · 29/08/2014 18:55

School fees are completely separate from maintenance. The court expects a parent to pay the required amount in addition to the fees - the unspoken assumption round here being " if you're fool enough to pay them that's up to you don't complain to me about it" from the judges. But your DH is proposing to pay the appropriate amount. I strongly agree with the suggestion of a phased reduction to minimise complaints though.

PenisesAreNotPink · 29/08/2014 19:00

I'd stop paying maintenance and just pay the school fees.

Unless you're saying the state options are terrible? If it's a necessity to have the kid in private school then that comes out of maintenance.

Spend it on court fees so she can't faff around with contact.

tiredandsadmum · 29/08/2014 19:23

Caorunn - I totally agree with your thoughts. My ex and his partner make all sorts of decisions, financial and other, that impact my child and ME, yet I get no say in that decision. RPs are very shabbily treated in this country. I would be very irritated at being accused of taking the piss by people who really don't know the full circumstances.

OP - it would be interesting to know if your DH ex gave a reason for her decision and how involved she was in school selection. Was it more a choice of your DH? It can be hard enough as a married couple to agree on these things.

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 19:27

Usually, I think maintenance would be viewed completely separately from something like the school fees and we are trying to be really reasonable. It's just hard because they were a big joint expense which have now become a huge expense for us.

It's an investment in DSD we're happy to make for as long as we can and the maintenance issue would probably not have arisen if the school costs were still being split. So it was never a case of not being able to afford another child but more that the playing field changed when joint payments stopped.

Hope that makes some sense...

OP posts:

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 19:30

ClashCity, you're spot on - the whole of the school fees would be much more manageable if we could reduce maintenance.

If a school fee contribution was forthcoming, we could afford to leave maintenance as it is.

OP posts:

Magpiemystery · 29/08/2014 19:33

Tired
I would counter and say NRP are very poorly treated in this country. Many RP's are vindictive and use the child as a pawn. At least RP's have a level of maintenance prescribed by law and a mechanism by which to enforce it. There is no minimum level of contact prescribed.

You probably make decisions in your life which affect your child, does the NRP have a right to get upset that it has impacted his child.

Caorunn
Your gripe re the NRP saving on childcare, the RP could have a new partner and save on child care too.

Original poster

SeaRoom · 29/08/2014 20:00

Tiredandsad, I can see how that could happen but the opposite was true in this case. DSS's mum pushed for the move to private and chose the shortlist for her and DH to visit. They agreed final choice between them.

I should add that there's no snobbery about private v State education - we are just trying to do the best for DSD and want to avoid the disruption and upset of taking her out of school if we can as she loves it.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6