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?

daring If you were suffering financial hardship, and you ex was earning less than you, then he was also suffering financial hardship, presumably to a greater degree than you, and was also liable to pay maintenance?

No, not at all. His outgoings were a massive amount less than mine. And he refused to pay maintenance or support dd in any way.

daring that's my point, though. You could have reduced your outgoings.

I'm not suggesting that your ex was right not to pay maintenance, but, if your income was more than his, then the proportion of your household income that was maintenance (had he been paying) would have been significantly less than in those households where the RP is not working, or is on NMW, for instance.

The loss of that relatively small proportion of your household income could only have resulted in financial hardship if you had made financial commitments that stretched your household budget to the very limit.

Sorry, I just don't understand your post.

SAC, did you miss this?

"And he refused to pay maintenance or support dd in any way."

Given this, Daring was presumably bearing all expenses for her DD. Hardly a surprise that a household with a child has higher outgoings than a household without, is it?

No, I didn't miss it yonic

The point remains that if a RP earns more than a NRP, then CM forms a smaller percentage of the RP household income.

If losing that small percentage causes the RP financial hardship then that suggests that they have over committed financially.

I disagree with you, SAC. You can reductio ad absurdium that - if the RP earns £100 more a month than the NRP, one earns £2k and one earns £2.1k, then of course the lack of £300 (15% of the £2000) to the RP household is a significant percentage of the RP's household budget, especially if the RP is buying all clothes, shoes, uniform etc and the majority of food for the child.

PS I didn't double check the % but the principle should be obvious.

To reiterate, just because an amount is a smaller % of one household income than the other doesn't make it a "small" part of the former household's income.

Fair enough yonic - although tbh I wouldn't describe £100 difference a month as a 'higher income' - I was thinking about situations where the difference in household income was significant.

Sure, but you have to get to quite a difference (Xenia's famous ten times her ex) before it's utterly immaterial,

Even if the lower earner gets £2000 PCM and the higher £4000, 15% of the lower earner's is still over 7.5% of the higher earner's (given the higher will pay a greater proportion of gross income to tax).

8-10% is still not small, to my mind.

I guess it depends on how comfortable you are with financial risk?

Making financial commitments that doesn't leave wriggle room for things like fuel price increases, insurance premium hikes etc is only necessary when household income is very low. If a higher earning RP experiences financial hardship if CM drops/ceases, then that hardship could equally be caused by a change in gas prices or hike in water bill.

Err, the gas bill rarely goes up by £300 per month!

Both parents had the child, both parents need to contribute to its costs according to their income. Given current house and rental prices and that the mean income is £26,500 with the median income a fair bit below this, the majority of NRPs being men and the pay gap favouring men, it will be the exceptional case indeed where the RP earns even twice the NRP. And of course if the NRP is not contributing at all, the NRP will be outlaykng thousands per year in non-optional childcare to facilitate that salary being earned.

I think you are being unrealistic, TBH.

I think child maintenance is not taken into account when applying for a mortgage as not deemed guaranteed income. If you are a paying parent though I think it is taken into account as an outgoing.

yonic. It's just a different perspective, that's all.
Having seen all but one of the adults in my own various blended family arrangements threatened with redundancy and two experiencing unemployment only to secure employment on salaries over 50% lower, Im aware of how little it is 'possible' to live on and how what I thought were essentials turned out to be luxuries.

Sure, and if either the RP or the NRP lost their jobs, changes would need to be made. That doesn't excuse the NRP from paying maintenance.

...at the level associated with their income.

yonic that's unfair as I never said it did.
My point was that the OPs DP is contributing significantly higher than the level associated with his income, to a high-earning RP, and is proposing a reduction.
If that causes the RP financial hardship in this case, then, imo, she has made poor financial choices.

At no time did I say that if the RP is a higher earner that the NRP shouldn't contribute.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I still think it's unfair to claim that someone who loses, say, 8-10% or more of their household income if an NRP stops paying maintenance has made "poor financial decisions" if this involves hardship for them.

Yes, exactly yonic I bore ALL the costs for dd so had more outlay than him. Plus his housing costs were a third of mine. It wasnt down to overstretching myself or bad financial planning. It's the way it was at the time.

I suppose my feeling is that WHEN a RP is a high earner (in the case of the OP, the RP is not eligible for CB, so is considered to be a High Earner) it is perfectly possible to "live" as a family on their own income and still have a moderate standard of living. Plenty of two parent households live on a lot less.
The loss or reduction of CM (for whatever reason) in those circumstances will only lead to financial hardship if the RP has made financial commitments, in order to increase their basic standard of living above that they can afford through their own income.

Put another way, I do think that when it is possible because their own income is high, a RP should "live within their own means" and not rely on CM to pay for the essentials, even if that means a more frugal lifestyle. CM is not, as a poster put up thread, a guaranteed income. Yes, it's very unfair that their lifestyle is less affluent despite their income because their marriage broke down, but I do think it's better for the DCs in the long run.

If the NRP loses their income, for whatever reason, then if the RP is relying on the CM to pay basic bills, then the loss of the CM causes financial hardship in not only the NRHousehold, but the Resident household as well. That causes disruption and discomfort to the child in both households. Far better, surely, that the RP can continue to pay heating bills so the child has at least one warm house? Or can continue to eat hot meals with their RP, even if they're not getting as good nutrition when they're with the NRP because he's unemployed?

And before I get lynched, I am not talking about RP who are earning NMW/very low income and are struggling to make ends meet. I am referring to the situation described by the OP where the RP income is substantial.

Do you mean act as if the CM isn't there at all? So if you get, say, £100 per month, ignore that it's part of your overall budget in case you lose it at some point?

Sort of daring; I mean use it for luxuries than can be given up without financial penalty - save for a holiday, pay for days out, use it for "extras".

Don't make regular financial commitments that dip into the CM, be those phone contracts, TV subscriptions or livery costs. If you can't pay for those without CM, then go without.

Provided the dss is not worse off because his mother has a fair income and standard of living, which you say is better than yours, then yes pay the lower amount.

It's about equalising the DSs' standard of living and yours. If the extra money will help your DC have an equal life then keep the money for your natural children. No one is losing out except for the grasping exW and she deserves it. She's done well so far and needs to learn greed doesn't pay.