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?

if a NRP pays the minimum CSA and no more, no extra for their children then I agree, it shouldn't be reduced if they have more children. That's nothing to do with this case though?

HermioneWeasley

Could it be that some of the cost is spread out over the children?

The better relations are between his parents, the better life is for dss. Yes, his mother was wrong to kick off and upset the apple cart when actually things were pretty fine. But she has back-pedalled furiously apologised and hopefully learnt something here. A few days of fear that your DH will take csa suggestions and use that will have her regretting her actions and maybe thinking more before she next wants to go off on one.

If your DH continues to pay what he's always paid, then he will be doing the right thing for his son in spite of how the boy's mother has behaved. He will play no part in making things uneasy for his son. Although it's her fault, he needs to feel (and so does his son) that he continues to prioritise his son over putting his ex in her place. She's already done that. To herself. For the sake of harmony he should continue to be the fantastic dad he's always been.

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.

fedup - did you read the OP? A mistake would be "I'm struggling to make ends meet on the money you transfer for the DCs, can we talk about it as I think you could be paying more?".

Exploding, comparing her income to others she knows and screaming at her DCs dad is not a mistake.

It is unreasonable behaviour, unacceptable in society, and if a man did it to a woman, he would be described as abusive. How can the atmosphere and relationship between ex's deteriorate more than when one is abusing the other?

Furthermore, if a woman posted here that her exH had exploded and screamed at her over money, she would be advised to seek supervised contact for the DCs to keep them safe.

But, when a mother does it, not only is it ok, it is expected that the victim will disregard the CMO system put in place to protect them, and continue to engage directly with their abuser about the very issue that led to the abuse in the first place.

Surely if the child is well cared for, the mother and father can both provide effectively for their child, it's in his best interest to have a little set aside for when he is older? Not in the kids best interest to hand over more than a realistic amount Then have nothing to fall back on regents he is older? Having children isn't just about providing the best toys and treats now, it's about securing a future for them too.

3cheeky that's exactly what I mean.

DH's XP decided for herself that she didn't want the private agreement anymore, and seemed to believe a compulsory CSA order would increase the amount paid, and it didn't, it reduced it and now she's not happy.
She asked for this, not us- I don't think she realised they would take so many things into account (other children, the time DSS is with us).
When she said she was involving the CSA, DH wasn't worried as we knew we were paying a good amount, when he is with us for almost half the week anyway and for reasons I put in my 1st post.

I think in this situation I would put the difference into a bank account for ds so dh is still spending what was agreed but ex isn't directly getting as much. It's a bit spiteful but dss wouldn't lose out that way.

Child maintenance is reduced of the NRP has additional children living in his household - and that will have happened in this case. The logic is that the parent's money is having to stretch further, just like it does in a together family when they have more children. I think on balance that is a fair approach when money is tight, though it rarely seems fair to the RP who got no say in the decision to have more children and will generally feel that the commitments to her children should come first.

Mumsnet classic - mum says jump, and everyone not the mum has to ask 'how high?'

You have the child for nearly half the week as well.

it rarely seems fair to the RP who got no say in the decision to have more children and will generally feel that the commitments to her children should come first.

And yet when she thought it was going her way she was happy to ball the OP's husband out and reduce the amount the other children were able to access. Pretty selfish behaviour to be honest.

Does the mother supply the clothes and shoes, not the school stuff, everyday stuff. If so could you use the left over money to kit him out for that stuff at your house. So if there's lugging clothes around there doesn't need to be anymore. I don't really think your bu. Seeing as he is with you three days a week.
Could you have a think of what extra expenses she as that you don't to make the CSA amount covers that.
So any childcare, dinner money, clubs ect.

To the posters who are calling the ex greedy and grabby. Wtf? If I thought my ex was lying to me about income I would do it too. Not for me but to make sure my child is getting what they are due.
I think most parents would do that. She is a dick to scream and shout though.

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?

Any 'evidence of wealth' in the PWC's home/situation is neither here or there. They are not, legally or morally, obliged to pay any maintenance to the NRP. Furthermore, I could be a millionaire in my own right with plenty of luxuries but that wouldn't negate my ex's responsibility - financial - to support his children to at least CSA/CMS levels. I am not personally a 'poverty ridden struggling mother Angel' but I don't see why my ex shouldn't have to support his children just because I am able?

'evidence of wealth' (or apparent 'evidence') in the NRP's case could indicate that he/she has had a pay rise/promotion/come into money in some way that would be included in a legal maintenance calculation (it could also indicate a lot of other stuff...). The PWC therefore needs to weigh up the situation - how many years have passed since the agreement was made (in this case 10 years which is not insignificant), the field the NRP works in and the likelihood of having climbed the payscale (not all professions have payscales, some jobs are fixed salary-wise etc.) and whether or not promotion has been obtained - and decide whether going to the CSA/CMS is an option.

The two are not the same thing and cannot be compared.

Many PWC don't claim additional maintenance, even when it is clear the NRP has had a significant increase in the standard of their living because it's easier not to rock the boat. Or because they are happy with what they get. Or because they recognise that they too are doing OK so an increase isn't necessary. Others believe that they should receive the minimum CSA/CMS amount because that is a legal requirement and will pursue it without considering the wider issues. Others will accept far less than the legal minimum because they are better off or can manage or would prefer not to have the ex controlling them with threats of 'I'll not pay if...' There is significant evidence - both anecdotal if this forum is anything to go by and through more formal research - that many NRP do not want to support their children at all and will do anything they can to avoid paying maintenance. And at the same time, many NRP who go above and beyond. In any of these situations, punishing one party because they didn't behave in the way the other party believes was appropriate ignores the fundamental fact that there are children in the middle.

Be the bigger person.....

Sounds like the ex was being unkind. Don't stoop to her level.

fedup its also not necessarily a reflection on the income of NRP. My DP drops the kids off in a new car, they have a room each in our new house all bought by me. It's no reflection on his income which is exactly the same as it was when they were together (try telling her that)! I suspect many NRP are in a similar situation. When I Met DP he was on the bones of his arse financially paying her way higher than CMS than he should have and also paying off debt SHE got him into. He could barely afford his rent but if he suggested cutting the amount she kicked off. She had no consideration for his situation or living conditions of his children Shen they were with him. it works both ways.

Also the whole reduction if there are more children thing always interests me. If I have children DPs maintenence will most certainly reduce. Still be well above the minimum CMS required but at the moment I enable DP to pay the amount he does. I suspect the OP may have been in a similar position so it right that he DC are taken into account.

I would stick with the CSA payments, as that's what she suggested, but offer to buy more essential items on a case by case basis such as uniform, school trips etc

Could you pay the mother CSA maintenance & give DSS the remaining cash float when he stays 3 nights a week? (savings account)

I'm not sure on the maintenance being reduced when more children are added to the family, if its by CSA rates. I think because the rates are quite low its not very fair. If its a private arrangement paying above the CSA rates then I think adjustments can be made. Not harshly though. I can not have another child because I couldn't afford it and would impact negatively on my dd, so I would hope most people take into account that even though they have had another child there nr Childs expenses don't reduce.
In a together family If another child comes along and moneys tight, treats and luxuries go first, the children still need housing, feeding clothing, school lunches still need paying for and clubs.

I think in this instance, considering you have DSS for nearly half the week anyway, it's very fair to let her eat humble pie and reduce the amount you are paying. What I would continue to do is split the costs of clothing/school uniform/school trips/extracurricular activities, etc. down the middle and perhaps put the difference in the then and now maintenance payments into a savings account for DSS for when he is older?

Technically speaking, she only had DSS one more day/night than you two. So why on earth, excluding all the 'extra' costs that go hand in hand with raising children as mentioned above, should you be paying her so much more simply because she has DSS for a mere one additional day/night? It is just as much her responsibility as the mother to cover half the costs of raising DSS as it is your DH's as his father. You are both covering three out of seven days, so very nearly half, plus splitting additional costs evenly. Exactly how much feckin' more does she feel entitled to for one extra day?! I fail to see how you aren't contributing (more than) fairly with the reduced payment.

For what it's worth OP, her behaviour has been unacceptable. She should have asked to discuss the issue with you both like an adult, instead of having a temper tantrum and acting the way she did.

Cheeky you talk like it would be to spite the mother, or even the system. The child would be the one suffering though.
If I were to win the lottery I would buy ex a house. He's a dickhead but he's her father. I would make sure she could be adequately housed and fed. I wouldn't be buying a mansion! Just making sure her needs were being adequately met.
If your dps ex was doing fine then that's ok but if you won the lottery and she was struggling would you really not help out?

Agree oswin. I would imagine most decent NRP pay well above CMS calculations to ensure they're children are well cared for, therefore reducing this amount amount to a point they can afford another child isn't neglecting the 1st child, it's just being realistic.

Yanbu op. You have the kids almost half the time.pay a share of uniforms, trips etc.....you are quite right to pay the csa rate. Which btw is not a minimum amount. Isn't it 20% of your income? I know people (and read news stories) who struggle to pay the csa rates so I don't know where this misconception came from.
You say she is better off than you too so don't feel bad.if you can afford it and have already been budgeting for it then perhaps put the extra in dss account.
This shouldn't be about getting back at her though.