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?

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.

The ex who screamed at the poster over on the relationships board was described as abusive - why is the ex in this case not considered similarly?

She exploded at the father of her DCs, and it's described as "unacceptable" and a "temper tantrum"? Surely the OPs DSC are at risk, with such a volatile parent?

Surely it us only on MN that someone is described as abusive because they shout at their ex? In the real world exs shout scream snd fight with each other all the time. It's not abusive it's life!

As the ex 's household is 'considerably better off ' than yours , and you have the dscc almost 1/2 of the week, then the amount should have been reduced from the beginning of these arrangements. Do not be guilt tripped by those who are leaving out the full relevant info you have provided op. Let the cc's father make his own decision - he will be able to respect himself more if he stands up to the attempted abuse from his ex. I doubt this is the only example of her taking the mickey.

I don't understand why everyone is getting so het up about this RP/NRP business in this case.

The OP's family has the DSS for three nights a week. If they increased it by two nights per month surely this would be the purest form of shared custody? Equal time spent in each home? And in which case, why should there be a monetary transfer between the households? If OP's household pays for their half of his costs (clothing, school equipment, shoes, extra curricular activities) and his ex pays for hers, then presumably there would be no issue?

It really depends on whether the reduction is due to the fact that you now have 3 DCs and this has affected the calculation - which it will have done quite significantly.

Ex probably did not take that into account - if the amount he was paying before was correct, ignoring your 3DCs then it is hard.

She was stupid not to have checked before she went down this route - again it is a MINIMUM. I can see your DPs point but he was paying it before wiht no issue and to stop makes him look tight and scoring points against his EX and his DC suffers.

Put the extra money in a savings account for dss. Tell his mum this. You can give it to him at 18. You're then still providing the same for dss but not through his mum.

Putting the money in a savings account for someone is not "providing the same" for them, unless the RP is taking that amount and putting it in savings for them already.

If you decide to pay the CSA amount, choose that.

If you decide to save something for your DSS, fine.

But don't pretend they are the same.

yonic. I think it's fairly well established on MN that it is unreasonable for NRP to know "how" the RP spends CM.

"Providing The same" in this context means the same "value", not the same outcomes, surely?

Given that the DCs mums justification for applying for a CMO was the amount that other people she knows receive, rather than her ability to support her DCs when they are with her, the welfare of the DCs doesn't appear to be her paramount concern.

SAC, I wasn't suggesting knowing what the RP did. To take it to extremes - if i put the whole of my CM payment into an account that my DS could access when 18, his outcomes by way of food, clothing, accommodation etc would be significantly worse until then.

That's what I mean.

I actually think the amounts matter too (not that the OP should tell us though).

If the reduction is from £2,000pm to £1,600pm I think most of us would agree the ex with one child could live on that. She will have cb and possibly other benefits too.

If the amount is from £500pm to £400pm we might feel differently. If it is from £200pm to £160pm I think we'd all say she probably needs the £200.

While the amount is a % of the dp's income the amount of that income is important. Obviously it being a % is the only fair way to do it, as it leaves him with enough to fund his own separate life, but if it was the amount at the top, he has quite a lot left and should be able to afford the higher amount.

If 15% of his income is the last of these amounts then they're both fairly hard up and he might be struggling.

I think it's wrong that new partner's children get taken into account and new partner's income does not - as soon as there are other children in the house then other income needs to be considered as well as costs. The system is skewed to suggest that women (who are generally the RP) don't have an income or any money of their own.

Joint children too actually, if the new partner has an income why would that not be taken into account?

I have an income which is not taken into account but I don't have dc so am not causing costs that meant CM is reduced.

Eh, my income has absolutely nothing to do with my DPs ex and thankfully the law recognises it much as that pisses her off!

There is a mismatch of systems which creates conflict between households, I think.

When a NRP moves in with a partner who is a RP, his income is assessed in relation to the support of his unrelated DSC. The RP may lose tax credits and child benefit as a result of her partner moving in.

The money earned by the NRP is spread thinner - hence the CM rules that take into account all the DCs that are supported from that income.

Personally, I would much prefer to see child-related benefits assessed on the means of both the child's parents, regardless of whether they live together or not - but that would be far to complicated!

I agree re mismatch SAC.

MD - You're entitled to your view - I'm entitled to mine.

It seems entirely wrong to me that if I were to have dc with dp then dss's dm's maintenance would be reduced.

Dss doesn't cost dm any less does he? And I have an income so if the costs of a second family are taken into account why isn't the income?

The way it works now is way too blunt.

Those in the middle of it won't be able to see it objectively of course.

"Personally, I would much prefer to see child-related benefits assessed on the means of both the child's parents, regardless of whether they live together or not - but that would be far to complicated!"

Quite. (though I don't think it is that complicated, just an issue that people are unlikely to be honest)

" If the reduction is from £2,000pm to £1,600pm I think most of us would agree the ex with one child could live on that. She will have cb and possibly other benefits too."

She works and is well paid.

Absolutely out that's the idea of these pages is it not?

So you think it's right that my income should be taken into account and I should be forced,by law, to pay for someone else's children?

Just because you think the current rule is unfair bringing in another unfair rule doesn't change that surely?

Minnie, if you earn over the CB limit and live with someone getting CB, their CB is removed (or rather, you pay a tax charge on it) whether or not the kids are yours.

Similar for tax credits and household income.

It's inconsistent is what people are saying.

So the OP says - 'well paid' means different things to different people.

Ok. Was just the assumption she'd have cb that made me comment. She may not.

Let's be honest - we do not know if she went at it all guns blazing or not. WE do not know what the sums are either

She lost because her EX now has 3 other childrens and the current rules say - that means less monies for the other DC. With 3 children that will be a significant drop.

I personally think that is wrong but- hey ho.

OP - whilst I might have had some sympathy with you, some of more recent posts are quite vindictive and celebratory. The only person who suffers here is an innocent DC - glad you feel everything is better for you.

bigfeet We never know whether an OP is genuine or not.

how do you select which bits of an OP to accept as true, while dismissing other aspects because "we don't know"?

In quite sure IO and her DO won't let the child 'suffer' the mother might be a bit pissed off though, hopefully itl teach her not to treat her exH like an ATM

How is it treating him like an atm? Making sure your child is receiving what there due? So by your reasoning any woman who goes the CSA is doing that?