Reducing maintenance after new DC

[SeaRoom]

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...

I am not sure I follow to be honest need - we agree it is a favour because of course you don't need to do it. What her dad being our of work has to do with it I am not sure. Your DSD parents are responsible for covering childcare during holidays; if you are your DPs childcare provider fine you cover his 15 days; his ex covers the other.

TheMumsrush - you guess correctly I am not a step mum. Does that prevent me having a view?

No it doesn't, (I knew you would say that ) I just understand more why you post some of the things you do.

And if neither parent is in receipt of child benefit Wakey?

I don't understand? All children are "eligible" for CB - why wouldn't their parent ensure they claim for the benefit of the DC?

If the household income means the CB payment is adjusted for through tax, then that's a different issue - eligibility (not receipt of) CB acts as the gateway to other entitlement as a "parent".

The original point that I disagreed with was that resident parents apparently get a raw deal in this country. Your argument that it's only "joint" parents such as yourself that are disadvantaged seems self defeating as you (as their mother) certainly hold the "power" if you wanted to alter that particular dynamic.

Now eligibility is of course a different thing Wakey. It was just your earlier post referenced receipt only. Hence the question.

The RP parent point wasn't mine; there was no argument from me that joint parents are disadvantaged. I was asking a question. I don't feel either empowered or disadvantaged due to any definition of resident or non-resident parent.

caorunn your whole arguement is flawed. as has been pointed out several times whether the family is split on not bares no relevance in the event of additional children. if the parents were still together then their household income would be split amongst all and previous children may well have to surrender some niceties in order for the family to provide for the additional child. this is exactly the same in a step situation.

Wheres, you've put it much better than I could

mums I am sure it is just a fluke caused by a decent nights sleep as dd has gone back to sleeping through (cheers and jumps for joy)

But the parents are not together so you are comparing apples and pears.

As has been pointed out by many posters other than me.

but it doesn't matter that they aren't together.

and apples and pears are still fruit from a tree so that arguement doesn't really hold water either does it

ah but you have missed caorunn 's point needs by her standards you had no right having kids at all!

It's actually quite refreshing to see an honest post from a LP, who is prepared to admit that (despite the intent and letter of legislation) they believe that DCs with separated parents should be considered and provided for differently from DCs whose parents are together.

The Children's Act and subsequent amendments (including child maintenance laws) all operate on the principle that DCs should not be disproportionately disadvantaged by their parents separation. All the state benefit and financial entitlements are calculated on that basis.

But, it's clear from some posts, that it is this fundamental principle that is disagreed with. Some posters believe that the DCs should be compensated by the parent "at fault" when the relationship breaks down in order to ensure that their lives are not affected, even if that is at the expense of the "at fault" parents ability to live above the poverty line. Debating the validity and fitness of the Children's Act in this regard is probably a little beyond even MN!

We always paid more maintenance than was required and DH gave his ex 100% of the house without question when they divorced so the kids had stability. He had to in effect start from scratch in his late thirties. I admire the way Dh has always been adamant that financially the kids would always be taken care of and has been completely consistent in this.

Anyway, it turns out we were financially conned by my DH's ex! For ages she claimed she couldn't work (wouldn't would be more accurate!) was as poor as a church mouse, etc, etc. turns out it was all a big con. She'd squirrelled away a lot of DHs wages as she used to manage the household finances when they were together (without telling DH) and hid it with her parents. . Suddenly they were going on 3 holidays a year, buying DSD a car, going abroad, etc, etc. we didn't begrudge these things as the kids were benefiting but we were angry that we had been manipulated and lied to.

There is no way on this side of creation we would have sat down with his ex before we had our DS and discussed our finances with her! We will be trying for baby #2 soon and guess what we're not having that discussion with her either!

Trust and respect in making decisions is a two way street which some ExS (regardless of gender) just don't seem to get. Caorunn suggests that future decisions should involve a financial discussion between exs based on a previous standing agreement - does that mean we get to have a say in how she runs her finances? Of course not!

We have not altered the CM payments by one penny since DS came along and won't when hopefully DC2 joins us, but its because we don't need to. If we needed to because we were subbing private schooling as well then we wouldn't hesitate.

searoom you are absolutely right to revisit the financial arrangements based on the change in situation.

Yes, god forbid anyone should go on to find happiness else where

wakey I don't think they should be disadvantaged but neither do I think the nrp should be made to live on the poverty line in order to maintain a lifestyle demanded by the rp based on what they had when together.

it is all about making sure the kids don't go without but doing it within your means.

in our case the "at fault" parent is dp's ex. she demanded a certain lifestyle that afforded her a nice big 4 bed detached house, brand new car every 3 years, being a stay home mum even after both kids were long in full time school and plastic surgery to get rid the saggy tummy after having had 2 kids. she told the mediators that she expected dp to continue to provide for her financially synthetic she could maintain her lifestyle. she was told that in law he has no obligation to provide her a lifestyle and that as she chooses not to work then in law she is expected to cut her cloth accordingly.

boomerang that is disgusting!!! is there anyway for your dh to be compensated for her deception?

dp pays over the csa amounts and then pays extras on top. it is now starting to cause us issues financially and we will be looking at reducing to the csa amount or stopping the "extras" she asks for from dp

wheres DP thinks that it would just backfire on the kids so wouldn't be worth it. Plus it was a while ago now so probably not much we could do. We'd have a hard job getting access to bank accounts to prove our case and she knows it. What makes me mad it she and her parents treats DH like something they scrapped off their shoe and the DSC assume its all from mums generosity.

I was really for DH for a long time but We are really happy together so that's the main thing. Best revenge is to live well

At no point have I suggested any of the ex's or their new partners should not move on or have additional children - assuming the ex can afford to maintain all his children - indeed inline with Wakey quote up thread from the relevant legislation that they shouldn't be disproportionately disadvantaged by their parents separation.

[Although I am not sure who is arguing that the children with the separated parents should be treat differently?)

Let's say we have Parent A and Parent B who have Child 1. A & B each contribute £200 per month

Parent B & Parent C have Child 2 who requires the same maintenance as Child 1 so £200 per parent.

But B can't afford £400 per month (£200 for Child 1 and £200 for Child 2) so who should make up the difference Parent A or Parent C to ensure both children receive the same contribution each month?

Child 1 doesn't 'cost' less the day after Child 2 is born; there are no economies of scale.

Or Parent A may not be able to make up the difference win which case Child 1 only get £300 per month now - how should that be explained?

Re: the comments about living on the poverty line we all make decisions and choices which limit what we can and can't do later in life (not just in the context of separation). If you are making a choice which will put you on the poverty line I would suggest it was a bad one.

Take out parent c and say a & b don't split and go on to have another? What's the difference. It's one pot of money from dad

Let's say we have Parent A and Parent B who have Child 1. A & B each contribute £200 per month

Legislation has been written in such a way to prevent the situation you describe. Parents aren't expected to support their DCs equally regardless of circumstance - they are required to support the child proportionally . So a NRP is assessed based on total income and other children for which they are responsible, and a RP is eligible for credits and benefits to support them.

As I said up thread, your posts imply that you disagree with the fundamental principles underlying most family legislation, and that's a whole other debate.

it's one pot of money. it has a finite stretch and regardless of whether parent a and b are together or not does not make a blind bit of difference to the size of that pot. it would need to be proportioned accordingly. that doesn't change just because the additional child is with person c.

their household income would be split amongst all and previous children may well have to surrender some niceties in order for the family to provide for the additional child. this is exactly the same in a step situation

No. It's not the same. A decision which is made between two adults in one household has a direct, negative impact on the income of another household. Where that household is just getting by/managing OK/struggling, that impact can be enormous - not just financially, but on the emotional/mental well-being of the adult(s) who are keeping that fine balance between managing/tipping over the edge. To suggest that it is up to the adult in the household to manage that impact on the children in such a way that they would only experience the reduction in income in the way that they would if they were together and it's just 'you'll have to get used to less now you have a sibling' is, at best, ignoring the difficulties that so many families today face in just getting by. I could manage if you took away £250 of my monthly income but it would disadvantage me long term (see paragraph below) and the worry of that having been left by my ex at 40 years old with three children under 6 and no pension provision other than a successful business and a buy to let property (both disappeared in the divorce) is massive - and living with constant financial worry is very, very draining for all concerned.

It also ignores the fundamental of one parent households (and I suspect many two parent households) of the adult being the one to make up that difference, rather than the child, in terms of savings for a rainy day being reduced, pension contributions being reduced, household maintenance being left until it's absolutely essential (we peed in the dark for the last two winters 'cos I couldn't afford to get someone to fix my bathroom lighting!), wearing shoes till they have holes in them, no holidays etc. etc.

Of course, the other side of the argument is if the £250 isn't retained, it is the other family going through the same stuff.

What's the difference. It's one pot of money from dad

There is a huge difference to a household having access to 100% (where there is no separation) or 75/80/85% of the pot where there household is separated and one parent is paying maintenance, and 15/20/25% of the pot where you are on the receiving end of maintenance. Way more of my income than the 25% of his my ex (doesn't) give in maintenance is spent directly on essential children costs - mainly childcare so I can work. I am a parent who, most likely, would be no worse off on benefits financially and would have the space and time to enjoy her children as well.