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...

The number were examples for ease we can use percentages if that makes it any easier - the fundamentals are the same.

TheMums - one key difference is that dad's pot isn't contributing to two separate households; one for each of his children.

Need - yip you can get an RP earning more; that doesn't alter the proportionate contribution of the NRP. I am not clear what the adds to the discussion.

Wakey I said away up thread that I understood this was the approach under CSA/CMS that doesn't mean I believe it is fair. Which was where the conversation started. I was asked why I thought thought.

Ok fedup so flip it the other way. if the rp goes on to have other kids should they be discussing that with the nrp? their income would almost certainly go down leaving less for them to contribute towards existing children. does that mean the nrp should make up the difference?

I am amazed some think it is ok for a NRP to reduce payments after a birth of a child. I was a step parent, never considered dropping maintenance for the step children, when my children were born.I saw it is an immovable amount like the mortgage for us to plan around.

Now we are divorced,I rear my children by myself, their father is abroad.
His only contribution is financial it's not huge, but it contributes to everything. I work full time as a teacher and would hugely struggle without it.

If he chooses to have more children, tough, he needs to pay for the ones he already has. Choices have consequences .

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

Actually, I agree with you, and legislation further supports that because CM is not considered in law to be guaranteed income for the RP household.

Child maintenance payments are not included when benefits are assessed, they cannot be used to support a mortgage application and defaults in CM payment cannot be used in justification of missed payments by the RP.

So, a household which is relying on CM payments at a particular level to stay afloat is taking a significant risk. The adjustment for a resident child is not significant - complete loss of CM due to illness, unemployment or death is a far greater risk for the RP household.

A RP who relies so heavily on unguaranteed income that a small proportion lost will "tip them over the edge" isn't necessarily doing the best for their DCs.

Why amazed? CMS amount is a figure calculated to be as fair as possible given the circumstances (I know it isn't always fair in practise but it's the best possible solution in many cases).
If NRP doesn't reduce in line with CMS guidelines then the new child suffers through no fault of his/her own and it's about the children, not the RP or the NRP. Maintenance isn't a set amount until the child is 18 - it is and should be variable to account for life changes.

That said I will hold my hands up and say I'm bitter - my children are disadvantaged by the whole system. exW who doesn't work is financially better off than us with benefits and maintenance than DH is working full time as a higher rate tax payer. Also exW gets "rewarded" financially by withholding overnight contact (she has admitted doing this).

OP I think you are being very fair in the circumstances. That you would keep the maintenance at it's current level if you were still sharing the school fees, but cannot if you are covering the whole fees, seems a perfectly reasonable stance.

Tutt the fact that you chose to 'not take a penny' of support and were happy with that is not a licence to label RPs who do expect their DCs other parent to make a contribution as bitter or greedy. RPs shouldn't be have to be grateful to receive the basic amount of maintenance just because some don't receive any.

A RP who relies so heavily on unguaranteed income that a small proportion lost will "tip them over the edge" isn't necessarily doing the best for their DCs

Wow. That's a sweeping and insulting statement which ignores literally millions of reasons that people (separated, single, divorced, married) dip into overdrafts each month or have debts or just have to work incredibly hard to keep in the black. It's not all about fecklessness and poor financial management. To suggest a RP shouldn't rely on maintenance is, in my opinion, saying none of us should rely on our wages, or tax credits, or child benefit, or a two income family shouldn't rely on always having two incomes because at some point it could all be taken away. It could. Absolutely. But it's reasonable to assume that all things being equal, you will continue to receive income from those sources for the forseeable. If a RP needs maintenance to get by, how on earth are they supposed to save for their futures or the proverbial rainy day?

You are also ignoring the fact that many, many household budgets are very finely balanced and losing even a small amount each month can be problematic. If my ex has more children and my income is reduced by £20 a month, that's the £5 a week my child spends on football and swimming lessons. Should I therefore stop those or make less of a contribution to my pension or not put the £20 a month I was saving into my savings account? How do I make that decision? How many people in 'together' families would say 'sorry, son, you can't go to football anymore because you've got a new sister'? In which case, it's my future that is compromised via my pension because my ex has another child? Or our savings so we can't afford a plumber in an emergency?

You may well be lucky to have some money sloshing around at the end of the month. Way too many people don't have that and it's not because they're not doing their best by their children. Only step parents, eh?

It may be sweeping and insulting, but it's not my statement, it's written into legislative guidance.
And I'm not ignoring anything - I'm merely reinterating the official, legal position from my own perspective - where the property ladder and pension pots are a distance memory - as I have made choices within my budget without relying on my DDs Dad to finance them.

Caorunn, he is coving his house hold and however many children he has. The rp covered their house hold and however any many children she has. Quite simple really

We cut out maintenance when dc was born. Yes ex kicked off, but nothing she could do.

Caorunn- she had an affair, kicked dh out and had changed the locks and moved the other man in that afternoon. She ripped his kids away from him. He went from being a heavily involved, doing everything he could with his kids father, to being used as little more than a weekly babysitter with no say in how his kids were brought up. No house, no car, no personal possessions.

When he met me I wanted kids. He also wanted to be a full time father again, but money was tight. We had kids and cut maintenance. It was that or a 30 year old man spent a lonely life living with his parents waiting around for parenting crumbs, while being expected to pay for it.

It balanced out anyway as ex's new bloke had 2 kids, so when he moved in he cut his maintenance to his ex....

Micah in those circumstances I agree. It was your dh that caused her dc to be without her dad ( and his full income) in the first ace.

Sorry your dh's ex not your dh!

And place not ace!!

micah - the cause of the divorce is not linked to maintenance.

You had kids so you cut maintenance for his other kids. Irresponsible - so he no longer supports his kids - wrong, wrong, wrong.

OP - I almost had some sympathy but then your post re the school fees summed it up. WE do not have all the information on this case

• RP is a higher rate tax payer - that has a huge range and designed on here to get people on your side

• she unilaterally stopped paying school fees - interesting but slightly unbelievable
• your new DC will mean a reduction of £250pcm of maintenence -you do not say how much contact he actually has
• a reduction of that on 52 days pa contact implies an income of over £7000pcm -

-school fees aged 10 - £1100pcm max at this age and then she will be moving on in a years time - is this still going to Private or state.

Am totally against reductions in maintenance because a new child appears - his new DC gets more of the pot spent on them than his elder DC.

I earn more than my EX - but I still expect maintenance for his children, I divide it and put it bank accounts for them for the future. Can I bring up my kids on my own - yes but that is not the issue.
He is responsible for his DCs and has he sees them roughly 12 ONs and 50 x 2-3hrs after school - it is not like, he has to fork out much for them when he has them.

When they are 18, they can put it towards uni fees, car, house - but at £120 pcm for the next 10-12 yrs is is not going to be alot. Mean while he took new DP and her three kids to Barbados - could not afford to take his...........

whatever on what basis are you selecting which aspects of the OPs post to believe?
If you doubt she is being honest about the school fees, what makes you accept other aspects of her post - such as the value of the CM etc?

It seems odd that you've been selective about your scepticism - do you know the OP in RL?

Er, he does support his kids, thanks. He pays a little less than he did. Which is still over the suggested csa amount, btw.

I know it doesn't matter who's fault it was, that's my point. The csa set it's rules regardless of fault, so it is not irresponsible or neglectful to follow them. Like I said, the ex moved in with a new bloke who also had his maintenance cut because he was now living with resident children, so it works both ways.

Dh actually wanted to be the rp- he sought legal advice. But was told unless he could prove she wasn't a fit parent (drink, drugs, abuse), he stood no chance. I think if you are going to say a man shouldn't go on to have more children after a split, we need to move toward a situation where men have equal right to apply for main residency...

it's written into legislative guidance

It is most certainly not written into legislative guidance that a RP who needs to rely on child maintenance from their ex to get by is somehow not doing quite the right thing by their children.

The decision to disregard child maintenance for benefit purposes was an acknowledgement that the 'system' couldn't keep up with all the changes that needed to be made when maintenance wasn't consistently paid. Benefits claims where suspended whilst the new amount was calculated. This left RP, potentially (and actually) without money for weeks on end - unable to put food on the tables or pay rent in a worst case scenario. A particularly clever NRP used to be able to reek havoc with their ex's income by stopping and starting maintenance on an irregularly regular basis (if that makes sense!). Thankfully this is no longer the case.

If we are saying that a RP shouldn't be able to rely on child maintenance then as a society, we are effectively condoning one parent financially dipping out of their children's lives. But as I've always said, there seems to be no shortage of people who think this is acceptable, often for spurious reasons ('she earns more than us', 'he gave her the house', 'she gets all the benefits'), and are more than happy to create additional children with such a person.

I think it's is completely wrong for your partner to do this. You both deciding to have a new child should not negatively impacting on his existing child. It's irrelevant that he's decided to get with someone else and pay for a new child he still has the same responsibilities to his child. The CSA amount is a minimum and is very low. Going by that is not a good idea.

Ok fedup so flip it the other way. if the rp goes on to have other kids should they be discussing that with the nrp? their income would almost certainly go down leaving less for them to contribute towards existing children. does that mean the nrp should make up the difference?

There is no logic to this, is there? at no point have I suggested that the NRP shouldn't be allowed to have additional children. I haven't suggested that it is the NRP's responsibility to discuss his (or indeed, her) decision to have additional children with the ex. I have, however, clearly stated that the decision to have an a child in one household negatively impacts the income of a second household. I have made no value judgement with that, unlike other posters, who suggest that if you can't manage small dip in income, you are not doing right by your children. I wonder how many people could successfully manage a loss of £250 a month to their household budget?

If I were to make a decision to have more children with a new partner, I would do so based on the income that we had at the time and an understanding of how we would, together, manage financially and do the best with what we had. That decision would not have an actual financial impact on my ex's household, would it? I am a financial island and have been since the day the ex walked. It is not his responsibility to make up any shortfall in my income. It is, however, his responsibility to provide financially for the children he has. The two are not the same thing although I think are (conveniently) confused by many.

If we are saying that a RP shouldn't be able to rely on child maintenance then as a society, we are effectively condoning one parent financially dipping out of their children's lives.

No, what we (as a society) are saying is that when a relationship splits, each parent is expected to be capable of assessing for themselves the impact their life decisions will have on their DCs, and that includes the impact a reduction in financial support. And, society says that it is unreasonable for one parent to financially provide for their DCs at a fixed rate, regardless of circumstances.

It's not just benefits that disregard child maintenance. As I said, a RP can't house a DC based on the income they receive through CM - it is disregarded for the purposes of housing affordability assessments. Neither can they rely on the income to pay regular bills - the CSA won't guarantee a payment date even when the CM is being collected by salary deduction.
In fact, opting for salary deduction is one of the most effective ways a NRP has got to disrupt the RP household finances. The CSA is completely unreliable when it comes to paying these on to the RP even when they are collected regularly. There can be 6-8 weeks between payments, and often they are 2/3 months behind. In turn, the RP incurs bank charges (and appealing to the bank to waive them invariably results in legislation being quoted in which CM is defined as unguaranteed). Missed bill payments are not accomodated because maintenance has not been paid.

As a long term recipient of CM, I stand by my position that it is irresponsible for a RP to rely on CM to such an extent that a proportional reduction for a new child in the NRP household would cause the RP household to collapse. I accept that redundancy, long term illness or death may have more of an impact on the child's life, but as they would have been similarly impacted if their parents had not separated, that is not considered to be disadvantaging the child due to the separation.
The legislative intent is not to ensure that the child is never affected by changes to their parents financial situation, the intent is to ensure that they are affected no more than they would have been had their parents stayed together.

here is a huge difference between receiving money late (which with the best will in the world, can happen with any kind of income) and not receiving it all.

You are lucky that your household has some 'sloshing about' money to be able to manage the ebb and flow of maintenance as you describe it. I can assure you that isn't the case for many, many household and that the adults in by far the majority of those households are not irresponsible, financially or otherwise. But it's convenient to ignore the fact that many people, through no fault of their own, struggle to balance the books at the end of every month

OP, I really don't think you'd be unreasonable to reduce maintenance payments given that you are suddenly paying the whole of school fees. I don't think you even need to link it to the fact of another child coming along.

It's been interesting reading the different opinions on this thread about the issue of reducing maintenance payments because of a new child. I think it is a good point that it DOES affect the adult whose payment is being reduced because they are more likely to make sacrifices themselves rather than foist the sacrifices on the child. On the other hand, I don't think a NRP shouldn't be 'allowed' to have another child if s/he would then have to reduce maintenance payments to existing children.

I think there are so many different factors in there: the number of children, the size of payments, the attitudes and reasons behind the decisions to have more children / reduce the payment etc. Really hard to make a generalised statement about what 'should' happen.

If DP and I have a child, I certainly would look upon it as an absolute last resort for him to reduce maintenance payments to his existing child. But he doesn't go through CSA anyway, he and his ex have worked out an appopriate payment between them.

The only reason I think I would want him to reduce it would be if our child was going without advantages that DSS had in abundance, and that if reducing the payment would enable our child to do. Like if we couldn't afford for our child to do any extra curricular activities, but DSS was doing three or four, and by taking a percentage off the payment we could afford for our child to do something. But it's so hypothetical, I really do think it depends on each individual case. And obviously much more complicated when the money is actually being relied on for basics and household costs.

You are lucky that your household has some 'sloshing about' money to be able to manage the ebb and flow of maintenance as you describe it.

But it's not "luck", it's about choices to be made. How many RP choose to stay on the property ladder (often in the former marital home) but can only afford to if they struggle to balance the books every month and rely on CM to cover the Council Tax? How many RP believe they are entitled to continue to pay into their pension scheme - but that's only possible because they rely on CM to pay essential household bills?

In comparison, the NRP doesn't have those choices - if they prioritise their pension pot over CM, they can be imprisoned.

Once you separate from a DCs other parent, and become (through choice or default) responsible for the child's financial management, then the risk associated with each income stream has to be assessed.
If you have a reliable, trustworthy ex, in a secure job, who has proved themselves willing to pay regularly regardless of circumstance, and for whom you have life insurance cover, then the risk of losing that income is lower than if your ex works in the public sector (or other vulnerable careers) has never made any secret of his desire to father more DCs, or is at risk of premature death.

It is financially risky to gamble your home/mental health on the latter - but however secure, relying on a set income that is entirely dependent on another to maintain your own stability (financial or emotional) is a risky choice.