Maintenance? DH is in the right, I think?

[Whereyourtreasureis]

My DH has always paid a consistent and good sum for his DS, my DSS, since they broke up, 10yrs ago. This has always been done on a Voluntary Basis. They agreed a lot of years ago, rather than getting the CSA involved, he has always paid a decent and regular amount for DsS, plus going halves on his school uniforms, trips and new clothes when needed.
DSS is with us overnight 3 times a week, and his younger brother and sisters (my DCs with DH) love their brother being here.
What has happened is, DSS's mother exploded this Summer, saying she doesn't think it's enough. She said screamed that other mothers she knows have far more than she does, and she is going to have it done through the CSA.
Well the CSA looked at the situation, and it turns out that DH has to pay quite a lot less than he was.
Now his XP has started messaging, saying she was wrong to involve other people, she's sorry, can we forget it- and just get back to the more beneficial for her previous plan they had in place.
He's said No, and took her at her word that they will use Child Support now, as that's what she wanted.
Are we wrong? She tried to get more and realised she was entitled to less. And now we're meant to say "it doesn't matter".
Are we wrong for taking her at her word, and saying This is what you wanted?

i would make sure his standard of living was the same at both houses. it seems like that it is lower at your house, as you have been giving quite a lot. you can put some of it by for all the children to have the same opportunities for school trips or clubs or music lessons.

scooby it's quite possible for a single mum to earn more than a two-income household - why does it have to be the exW partner who is earning more?

Even if both spouses in a marriage were earning a similar amount when they were together, if the NRP is made redundant/experiences health problems or similar after a split, then it's quite possible for the "single mother" to be the more financially secure of the two. The media (and some MNers) like to portray all single mums as struggling to keep a roof over their head, when closer examination reveals that they may well have a higher income than many nuclear families.

In those situations, it's inevitable that CM paid by the NRH will enhance the RH quality of life, while at the same time, reducing the NRH ability to provide the basics.

There is no right or wrong, you - your OH - need to decide what is the impact of this and what is point of his standing to her. Does he wants to punish her?

My view would be that depending on the relationship of the child with his mother/father, his level of maturity etc..., it might be the right thing to do, or the very wrong thing. Is there a risk that mum start telling son that he now can't have this or that because dad doesn't want to pay any longer what he used to and it is not her fault. Even if dad explains to son the reason for it, will son see it as that his dad is right, or will he sees his dad willing to punish him just to punish his mum too.

I think sometimes you have to be the bigger person rather than clinging on to the 'well we are doing what we are supposed to'. I'm a mother who gets not a penny in maintenance from my kids's dad. They see him every week-end and I pay for their transport to go and see him. At times, he wasn't working, but he has now been working for months, so could very much make demands of payment that I am ENTITLED to. The reality is that I can support the children without him, and the tension that dealing with maintenance causes is such that I don't want to impose this on the children. The fact is that they are most happy with how things are now. They don't fully comprehend the notion of 'dad should contribute towards our costs', they see a mum who can afford things (even though that's through hard work) and a dad who is struggling financially to pay his debts and put food on the table. They love us both and my challenging him would only leave them feeling that I am being greedy and trying to punish him.

Of course they would be wrong and they will realise this one day, probably when they have children of their own! In the meantime, my priority is their emotional stability and if it means that I have less at the end of the month for treats and he gets away with his responsibilities, so be it.

Yes there is a right and wrong. It is wrong to pay less for your children just to punish your ex.

Anyone who wants to pay less for their children regardless of the ins and outs is always wrong.

I can't believe there are still idiots out there who don't know how to check what the CSA rate is before kicking off about a private agreement that is suddenly deemed not enough

because there are people in relationships that don't have a clue what their partner earns?

because 10 years is a long time and things change - promotions, pay rises etc.?

because the 'evidence' of wealth can be easily visible such as new cars, a new kitchen seen from the front door during drop off/pick up and it's easy to assume this must mean there is more money coming in?

because people change their jobs, get themselves new careers etc and payscales are not published for every possible eventuality?

The idea that it is 'greedy' or 'grabbing' to use the CSA makes me so angry. Gingerbread statistics suggest only 38% of PWC receive maintenance....that means the rest of us who need to use the CSA are just greedy bitches?

She made a mistake. Punish her, by all means, but expect the general atmosphere and relationship with the ex to deteriorate over time, to the detriment of the well-being of the children concerned.

Celery he ex is well off
Op I think it's a good compromise to save the difference directly for him

Stan even if that money is saved for the child? And there is no chance less money will push the other parent into poverty?

Personally, saving the money in a saving account is even more of a slap in the face. It says 'he he, I can afford to give that money, but I am not giving to you to pay towards our son, I am saving it so I can give it to him one day and come across as wonder dad'.

If OP's OH wants to compromise, I think the best offer would be to say to ex that he doesn't want to punish her for her mistake, however, she has to appreciate that he had been paying over what is considered the MINIMUM acceptable payment, as as such, he thinks it is fair that he continues to pay the same, but she doesn't come to him for extras any longer (OP mentioned paying half towards school uniforms etc...)

OP I agree with you. As the child is with you nearly half the week anyway and your dh contributes towards other essentials such as school uniform, it's fine to pay the amount that the csa have ordered.

But swing it's not money for the ex. So how is it punishment to not give it? She has plenty of money.

As the child is with you nearly half the week anyway and your dh contributes towards other essentials such as school uniform, it's fine to pay the amount that the csa have ordered.

I agree with this.

The CSA amount can't count as "bare minimum" when other costs are split in half on top.

It sounds like one is tighter in the home he spends slightly less than half his time in, so this adjustment might make sense.

I wouldn't be putting the money into a savings account for him, though.

That seems like point scoring - we don't need this money and have no use for it, but you still can't have it.

Why? Opv says she is setting up child saving s accounts anyway d

Yes there is a right and wrong. It is wrong to pay less for your children just to punish your ex.

But, but, but - the OP isn't suggesting they spend less on her DSS, only that they transfer less money to to the DCs mum.
Why is it assumed that the DCs mum is best placed to manage the day to day financial responsilbities of the DCs? Frankly, given her incredibly ill-judged decision to apply for a CMO despite receiving a regular CM payment, it would be fair to say she has poor money management skills and therefore the OPs DP is best advised to manage as much of the money available to support his DC himself.

By transferring the legal minimum to her, and managing the rest himself, he maximises the chance of it being spent responsibly.

Opv says she is setting up child saving s accounts anyway

Great, well then the extra money in the household will help with saving for the four children that are part of it.

Saving the exact difference in an account just for the eldest seems more pointed than that. It accepts that this is contested money, and that the household has no use for it, but refuses to continue an arrangement that they deemed fair until recently.

I guess I think it matters whether this is motivated by "oh right, we could pay this new amount and things would be less tight" or "fuck you for involving the CSA, now we are cutting your money to teach you a lesson."

Yes, we already have savings accounts for all 4 DCs.

Someone said upthread, make sure his standard of living was the same at both houses. it seems like that it is lower at your house, as you have been giving quite a lot - there isn't a lower standard of living at our house, I wouldn't say having more money necessarily means you have a better life.

I mentioned in my OP we already pay half of costs for school trips, uniform and clothes as he grows (yes, that includes shoes!) and he is with us for just under half the week.
I like the suggestions of putting the remainder in an account.

fedup 'evidence of wealth? Like the evidence of wealth similar to what we hear on here all the time from NRP? He'll mend any SP on here that suggests the mother has plenty of money? How often do you see 'certain' posters slating SP for pointing out all the luxurys the mother has? Why I'd that different for NRP? Not all RP are poverty ridden struggling mother Angels same as not all NRP are loaded?

My DPs ex sites our new car, new house, weekends away as proof that DP should be giving her more money. She says this wearing her hunter wellies, carrying her MK bag climbing out of her GTI car oh please!

driver - I think the point was that the ex wasn't necessarily being "grabby" or stupid by applying to the CMS. If you don't know exactly how much your ex earns then you can't use the online calculator to check what he should be paying. The calculation in the OP's case would also be quite complex because there are a lot of deductions (for the 3 other children in the house, and for having DSS 3 nights a week), and the OP said it was only about 20% lower than what he had been paying. Clearly the ex misjudged it, or maybe should have asked her ex what he earned and trusted him to tell the truth, but it's not necessarily that easy to work out of the amount is in line with the CMS amount or not.

I never said it was easy to work out? She should have taken his word for it and not been so greedy. Perhaps she will learn a valuable lesson from it. I also said that just because a NRP has a new kitchen in his house doesn't mean he is short changing his ex his children. He has outgoings the same as the RP? NRP don't get free accommodation, bills, food, transport. If he had his children 3/7 he has 1 night short of half care? Why is the mothers expenses more important than the fathers? Like OP said, 1 more night a week and they wouldn't need to give her anything, and why should they?

"She should have taken his word for it and not been so greedy"

Some people lie. Obviously not here, but if every woman who posts on MN about CM took the NRP's word for it that the promotion hadn't come with a pay rise, that he'd lost one of his jobs etc, then there would be a lot of children suffering.

Am I the only one who finds it astounding that the CSA reduces what you have to pay for existing children when you have subsequent ones? The existing ones don't suddenly cost less, and CSA is hardly generous - it's not covering ballet lessons and private tutors which could be cut.

I think it's outrageous - if you can't have more kids without cutting your existing obligations, then you can't afford more kids.

of course some NRP lie and don't provide for their children same as some RP just want more money despite the best efforts of the NRP. In this case, as in my own, it sounds like the latter. Best thing that ever happened to us was her going to the CMS.