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...

By this logic though, nobody (except the super-rich) should ever have more than one child. Any subsequent children will always impact on the pot of money brought into a household, leaving the first-born with less.

My SD has gained immeasurably, far more than financially from having sisters. The loss of £50 from her mother's household income a month is nothing compared to what she has now in her fathers house. When he was single she had to sleep on the floor in his mums house, he was miserable…couldn't afford his own place because of the CSA. Now she can come here, and has a real second family.

It's not all about the money. If we honestly had thought the ex couldn't survive/house/feed her kids then we might have thought differently. But she isn't.

Micah that's that's just your partner being neglectful to his daughter. She did not need to sleep on the floor..
Actually look at the CSA calculators they take barely anything! It is a bare minimum. I think your dp is spinning you some.
No it's not all about finances but where she actually lives day to day should be partly paid for by her father. Just because she has a place to visit a few times a month and see half siblings has no bearing on the fact that that her dads should be paying for his child.

Wow. Didn't mean to open a can of worms. But lots of interesting debate here.

As for my post being made up, it's absolutely not but there is not much I can do to change someone's mind on that. I'm certainly not after sympathy. Just interested in experiences and views, and grateful for the ones which have been given.

Oh for goodness sake. Where else was she supposed to sleep? Two bed flat, dh and his dd on the living room floor. (Gp in one room, disabled son in the other).

And it's not a few times a month. She's here fri after school to Sunday evening. More in school holidays.

Dh does everything he can. He would have had custody if his ex had allowed it.

Please do not call him neglectful when you don't know the full circumstances. It's not always the rp who is left in the shit.

I repeat. He does pay. More than csa. The amount he was paying we could not afford, so we cut it down. He'd have had to cut it down eventually anyway to afford his own place, car etc.

What's the opinion then if you can afford a child, but one of you loses your job and it puts you in financial straits? Do you let your new baby suffer because you can't cut cm? Should you have thought of that? Under what circumstance is it ok for a man to have a second family then?

The point of the csa having such sweeping rules, that aren't ideal, is that you absolutely can't cater to each individual circumstance. Rp either deal with the csa, or go back to the days when each individual had to take their own case up.

Don't judge until you've walked a mile in someone's shoes. Not every nrp is neglectful and shirking responsibilities. Some people do the best they can.

Actually look at the CSA calculators they take barely anything! It is a bare minimum

I always get confused when I see that comment - because if it is so little, how come there's so much outrage when it drops by a small percentage due to a change in NRP circumstances?

The value of CM depends on how much the NRP is earning, andis entirely subjective - some of the figures mentioned in this thread as CM payments to a RP are higher than our whole household income. DHs ex receives a proportion of that, alongside her own income which has always been significantly higher than DHs, and the state payments she is entitled to as RP.

Yep but then OP has given us a half story with snippets designed to get us on her side, she is a higher rate tax payer, no clue of amount of contact etc etc etc. Ignore the school fee issues, she is playing her audience very well.

CSA percentages etc etc.

My EX earns £85K pa - he pays £120 pcm for his two DCs - one with major medical issues. For the medical issues half of that goes on buying what we need to make life more bearable for him. So yep £60pcm goes a fuck of along way - not.

He expects, nay demands I pay half towards their joint birthday presents, xmas presents etc, in fact he take his share out of the maintenance for that month. He can not come and see DCS because , petrol short this month etc

Do I resent that his alleged contribution to his own DCS goes down because she has 3 DCS that he now supports - yes I damn well do. Her Ex pays maintenance every month for them - how do I know because she and her EX were family friends and have seen the bank statements for this.H is kids get less money spent on them than her kids do, yet the professions of undying love etc to his DCS on the phone - have a hollow ring, when they sat at home and he took her kids on holiday to the Caribbean -if you can not afford to take all 5 kids then, do not take any of them or are her kids more of a priority for your money.

Lets put it like this on the insignificant amount of contact he has when eldest DC is 18 in 11 yrs time - do you seriously think 60x12x11/13 - £7920 or £9630 - has come anywhere near the cost of bringing a child up over the past decade.

So far this year eldest DC has grown like a weed, we have gone from size 12 shoes to size 3 in 6 months - £32/2 = 16 x3 - £48/£120 he contributed. School uniform his share £30, pe kit - £20, swimming lessons £18 - EX insists on. 3 months -£120 his share of the essential £116 =£4 to feed, drink, keep him warm etc. Sorry forgot that is £60pcm per child so fuck me he is short by £56 -just on essentials -must tell them they can not eat this month because Daddy has not paid his way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it is 50:50 contact then slightly different, I work like a dog to pay for my children and their and .my needs. His new DP works 5 days per month but wants to fly business class, eat out and drive new cars - well darling work for it, because right now I subsidise you because my weak lily livered ex expects me to pay for his kids so you can live in cloud cuckoo land.

I will work for my kids but not to subsidise their father paying for some lazy skank to sit on her arse and take the monies he should be paying for his DCS.

I am well aware there are two sides to the whole maintenance issue and what gets spent, but when you see the shite some people pull to get out of paying for their kids, then profess undying love for them, exalt in thier achievements but contribute the sum total of shite all to it - it sucks.

Sorry very emotive subject, in my household. EX asked me to meet him at the airport so he could say hi/bye to DCS before he went away on business trip. Only it was not a business trip, Hiding behind the pillar were new DP and her kids and mine were not going - try in any ones world to explain that to the DCs.

Yep but then OP has given us a half story with snippets designed to get us on her side, she is a higher rate tax payer, no clue of amount of contact etc etc etc. Ignore the school fee issues, she is playing her audience very well.

I'm sure the "lazy skank" you refer to your DCs stepmum would say similar about the half story you have painted about your ex and her.

Hiding behind a pillar? Interesting, but slightly unbelievable.

whatever your situation is awful but unfortunately not relevant to this situation. the op has states that of ot wasn't for the school fees issue the maintenance wouldn't be an issue. I have given her some options to propose in order to resolve the situation

wakey - please stop goading and looking good for ways to twist things. whatever states that her exh new dp was a family friend so I am guessing that she was the ow and whatever is still smarting and venting. Dp has certainly referred to his exw new dp as a lot worse as he was the om that ended his marriage. have some compassion

£85K and £120 per month? How?
My DH earns less than half that and pays almost 5 times as much despite reducing for my DC (as I lost all of my tax credits because the state says DH is responsible for my children if we live together).

And so ensues the predictable bunfight.

To get back to the OP, the simplest thing would be to offer the ex a choice - either reduce maintenance or school fees by the csa recommended amount. It is not fair to be paying twice, whatever others on here will try to tell you. Raising a child is two sided. Too often women use their exes to subsidise their high standards of living rather than actually for the upbringing of the child they jointly conceived. I am not saying they all do, or even the majority, but I am saying it happens too often.

Excellent post Lion

Micah, if you're still reading, we have a very similar situation. When DH ex decided to play games with contact and blackmail us we ran up legal bills sorting it out, and we did sort it out and we now have proper contact. All our savings went on these bills as I was on maternity leave.

the savings were meant to help fund our house move so we didnt have children cramped in one room (3 kids). DSS suffered because of this.

we decided that as 1) DH ex kicked him out for her new DH that 2) she had decided to play games with contact/blackmail us because she didnt like the financial settlement and 3) that she herself had remarried and had another child DSS, before remarrying a third time, that we were going to reduce CM.

some say it shouldnt matter who left who but thats not how i view it. The ex decided for herself to embark on marriage number 3 before leaving marriage number 2. she expected DH to pay for it, and the silly sod did for a few years. Life has not been the fairytale she expected, her DH is in/out of work but she chose to remarry him and upon doing so she imo (and the courts) she is to look to him to provide for her and not my DH.

we provide more materially for DSS, his ex gets the CM as per CSA levels adjusted for 2 extra kids. We buy more for DSS like clothes, shoes, school trips etc.

DH feels no responsibility for supporting his ex at all. Her situation is entirely her own making. we do however support DSS.

Also DSS is a lot happier now he has 2 younger siblings, he loves them to bits and he will spend more time with dad now his dad has a new wife/family. there is stability in his dad's life, and a chance to bond more with dads side of the family as new children often bring relatives closer.

if DH had left his ex in the shit, had the affair and left them all destitute I would have huge sympathies with his ex. I would have sympathy even if their marriage broke down of its own accord without the help of an OM, and his ex was reasonable and civil. Although I wouldnt marry man who cheated on and left his ex-wife and kids.

When the first child is born, the NRPs net I come is reduced by 15% and then the calculation of 15% of net income for one child is done on the reduced net income.

I.e

£100 per week net pay

With no child at home he would pay £15 per week

With 1 child at home, his income would reduce to £85 so he would pay £12.75 per week.

Believe me the hiding behind the big noticeboard in T5 - they were. Even I had to look twice. EX response - oh I thought they had gone through, so this would not happen..........

£120 pcm - because everytime I say this is not on/ threaten CSA - contact reduces to even less than the pathetic amount he already does give them. This has only been paid for the past year thought - so will not hold my breath on it lasting.

Yes, I will vent be cause 3 years down the line, our kids have seen their father and spent the night with him on 32 occasions - that is pathetic. Every time contact is planned the time gets reduced because of a "crisis", many imaginary - some real.

He has made his priorities quite clear - when I said to him, when you have kids, you make them your priority and quite often you sacrifice your own wants to put them first. His response was they are not my first priority - and he listed in order - her, her 3 dcs, his job to provide for the "family", I need some me time, then his 2 DCs - when you know this is how he sees his kids, at the bottom of the dung heap of his life - I get angry for them.

Wakey - if you knew the full story, it reads like a bad hollywood film. My friends who have helped me( god bless them!) will still say if they had not witnessed it, seen the texts and the upset DCS, they would not believe it. Sometimes I sit and wonder how two people can be so self centred and self absorbed - but not to worry, they are about to have their first DC together - so now he can justify a further maintenance cut and further reduction in contact........!

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?

so...only NRP's should be able to stay on the property ladder following the breakdown of a relationship? People should be forced to spend whatever money they come out of a divorce with then end up with no security in rented accommodation, possibly with eligibility for Housing Benefit? Children should be moved to cheaper areas and move schools in the middle of exams, for example? The thorny issue of negative equity and what to do about it has no influence on staying in the marital home? Ruined credit ratings? Inability to get a new mortgage on one income so end up managing the mortgage they already have? Plus a million and one other possibilities?

And...surely further up the thread you advocated that it is the responsiblity of the RP to manage their own money? Surely it is the responsibility of any adult to manage their finances for the long term? I mean goodness, how dare a RP want to put something in a pension or put some money aside for a rainy day when they have children to consider! What happens when that same RP hits 65 and has no pension to speak of? Are you then going to suggest that they should have managed their money better and made sure that they made provision for themselves?

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

What a ridiculous comment. As I said, 6 years and counting and no sign of imprisonment for my ex. I feel quite sure his pension is very, very secure. Are you suggesting that any RP who dares manage their household income in such a way that they are able to contribute to a pension should somehow have to forgo child maintenance? Or are you suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable to contribute to a pension for the future and not support your children in the here and now? Or is your suggestion that RPs who contribute to a pension clearly do so at the expense of their children? I would argue both parents need to be in a position to manage their long-term financial situation and acknowledge that individual situations can make this difficult for both RP and NRPs. Ultimately, it is up to me, as RP to manage both my children's needs and my own future. My ex only has to worry about himself - he doesn't have to fork out £600 a month in childcare before he goes to work. And no, the Tax Credit and Child Benefit I receive don't even come close to managing that cost. So he's £600 up a month on me just by getting out of bed in the morning. There's nothing 'fair' about that, is there?

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

At no point have I suggested that any RP should rely on a particular income source. I have made it clear that many people, separated or otherwise, don't have the luxury of enough money sloshing around to manage everything they need to manage and that ultimately, even a small reduction in income can be enough to tip a balanced situation over the edge. I have asked for that - and the wider implications of that - to be acknowledged. Way too difficult for step mums, though, isn't it?! Far more fun to poke at RPs and judge everything they do as 'wrong' rather than recognise that really, we all just want the same things for our families.

fedupbutfine you make it sound as though every NRP is comfortably well off, and this certainly isn't the case. We hear lots of stories here about men whose finances are left in tatters after a divorce, also struggling with finding a mortgage deal, or paying rent on a house with enough bedrooms for children who only use them 2/3 nights per fortnight. And then there's the issue of a man who was previously the breadwinner married to a SAHM, who suddenly finds himself with reduced earnings because he's now faced with school drop off/collections when his ex is still a SAHM, making big demands on his pay packet.

I'm not suggesting the RPs have it easy, not by a long chalk, but plenty of NRPs find themselves with very stretched finances too.

Petal, I would never suggest otherwise. Separation and divorce are difficult things to recover from for all concerned. What I take exception to is the suggestion that any parent is 'not doing their best by their children' by running a tight budget or trying to spread what they have in the best way possible so that every eventuality is covered. Nor is it acceptable to suggest a RP who is better off than the NRP should pick up all child-related costs or indeed, suggest having a pension is some kind of luxury.

It's an interesting discussion as a wider issue, but some of it I don't think is relevant to OP situation.

From the sound of it, there was an agreement in place; fifty fifty split school fees and the maintenance amount. The RP has reneged on that deal and the OP's DH is now paying the difference.

£250 per month equates to 3k a year, which I suspect is well under half of the cost of sending a child to private school for a year, so even with the reduced maintenance, ops DH is still paying more in total than was originally agreed, even before the wrongs or rights of reducing maintenance due to a new baby.

So DSD isn't going to have any less money as a result of the new baby, she gets to continue in private school and RP doesn't have to stump up half the school fees.

At ten, I think your DSD is old enough to understand the figures, if shown to her in a matter of fact way that doesn't involve slagging off her mother, if she shows signs of being upset because dad is paying less - perhaps because her mum is saying to her 'we can't afford xyz because your dads cut maintenance'. Which, you would hope that she wouldn't do no matter how aggrieved she feels with your DP.

I also think that your DH needs to point out to his ex that he will struggle to pay for DSD education if the maintenance stays at this level. It would be a huge shame if DSD had to leave private school as a result of the conversation never being had.

As part of the wider issue, for those who don't think that child maintenance should be reduced on the birth of subsequent children, do the figures involved make a difference? For example, if the reduction in maintenance was say the difference in the DSD going on holidays to Spain rather than Florida and having fewer designer labels, but still having a relatively privileged upbringing?

I must say, it doesn't seem fair that someone loses the right to have children for the sake of fripperies.

Having said that, myself and DH have chosen to not have children and whilst it was not the deciding factor, we did chat about the financial implications for DSS and we felt that we didn't want to reduce maintenance or the amount we put away that's earmarked for him when he's older. However, as I said, if that was the only reason for not wanting any children I don't think that alone would've prevented it, ifykwim.

Have they changed the rules about pensions now? They always used to be taken into account when working out csa assessments

Sorry posted to soon, I'm usually one of the first posters to say a new child shouldn't change the payments (and have never allowed any of my children to be used to reduce payments)ad I'm very much of the opinion that what the csa can enforce is the minimum that should be paid, obviously this is totally my personal opinion and only impacts on my decisions.

But you are already paying more and the ex has increased your costs by reducing hers (school fees) so I don't think it's a unreasonable thing to think about.

Wakey

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.

Just to correct these sweeping statements , which aside from the first point on benefits which has been adequately address by earlier posters, are factually incorrect. There are a number of lenders who will consider CM as an additional income source when assessing affordability for a mortgage. They will apply different criteria when assessing the contribution to affordability but you are wrong to state that is cannot be used.

Further in terms of 'justification' or not for a missed payment each lender will consider the financial circumstances which have led to that missed payment and are required by both BCOB (Banking Code of Business) and the Lending code to consider all elements which have contributed to a customer experiencing financial difficulty. This may of course include the failure of a NRP to make CM payments.

Thought it worthwhile to correct these inaccuracies for any future readers of this thread.

Fascinating discussion. Sorry to cause a further derailment, but a question has occurred to me reading this thread.

How do RPs prepare for/cope with the end of CM? Obviously it has to stop some time. Is it assumed that the DC will be working/paying rent by that point? Especially if it's a fine line between managing and tipping over the edge?

As an aside, I will never understand anyone who doesn't claim child benefit for their DC, as someone up thread mentioned they didn't. Surely you should claim everything you're entitled to, even if it's just to save for your DC's future?

Kinky my uncle still pays cm for his "children" - they are 24 and 22, the eldest is a lawyer, and the younger living independently (away from their crazy mother)...

I guess bigpiglittlepig that's not really CM any more is it? Do you know his reasons?