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?

Pay the lower amount. You already have him nearly half the week and pay for half his clothes/etc. If you had him 4 days a week maintenance would come to you.
Don't out the remainder in an account solely for DSS, but split it amongst your 4 children, or use it for family holidays for taking away all 4.

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

the problem with this kind of argument is where does it stop? No job is guarenteed forever...can I not rely on my salary? Surely I am just as likely as my ex to be made redundant? how to I afford to keep a roof over my head if my salary isn't included for consideration when obtaining a mortgage?

Maintenance is about providing for children on an everyday basis - no PWC should have to think 'Oh, the maintenance money is just for luxuries' on that basis.

I think you are right when saying that people should live within their means and be as self reliant as possible. However, the parameters for this are huge and you have no right to judge a PWC as somehow 'financially irresponsible' for deciding that in their situation, the use of child maintenance for what they consider to be every day stuff (even if everyday stuff is livery costs). There are way too many variables.

However, the parameters for this are huge and you have no right to judge a PWC as somehow 'financially irresponsible' for deciding that in their situation, the use of child maintenance for what they consider to be every day stuff (even if everyday stuff is livery costs). There are way too many variables.

i challenge anyone not to judge a parent whose choice to pay for livery results in financial hardship for the family.

Oh, and just so we're not talking at cross-purposes; "financial hardship" to me means being unable to keep the house warm, or the family fed. Having to give up Sky TV, or cancelling a magazine subscription, is not, IMO, hardship.

SAC, I am not sure Daring was talking about not keeping her house warm ! And also not sure where livery has come up, but it's a long thread...

yonic the discussion has meandered!

daring stated that despite being a higher earner than her ex, his lack of maintainance caused her financial hardship. To me, financial hardship is being unable to provide the basics - food, heat, essential clothing.

"livery" came up as I used it as an example of a financial commitment that should, IMO, only be entered into by a higher earning RP if they can afford it without relying on the CM payments to do so.

It is not a luxury for which payment can be easily stopped, so if the CM payment reduces or stops due to an arse of an ex, or change in the ex's circumstances, then the RP is faced with a situation in which they are committed to the livery costs (or are tied into a timeshare, or a long mobile phone contract) at the expense of the household basics - unable to heat the home effectively, or cutting back of nutritious food for the DCs.

Livery is quite a different beast to a long mobile phone contract (which is often cheaper per month).

I see what you are saying... But I don't think it should be any different to the financial planning in a single household ie if you have any ability to save and you perceive there to be some risk of redundancy in either or both parents' jobs, you save for a rainy day!

yonic which takes us neatly back to the OP in which the RP was not only "not saving for a rainy day" but was financially unaware enough not to realise when she was on to a good thing!

If she's over-committed and her household will suffer financial hardship as a result of the OPs DPs choice to reduce payments in line with the CMO assessment, then that is a consequence of her choice. Fortunately, the OPs household will be able to provide the basics for the DC involved, so hopefully, the impact on the DC will be less than the impact on the RP herself.

Maintenance should be a given, not a bonus, that's just daft to say it should only be spent on luxuries in case you lose it.. You could lose any income at any point - get made redundant, get ill for example, there are all sorts of ways an income could reduce. And if you need everything coming in to meet your bills then there is no cutting back to be done. My maintenance would have meant that I didn't have a deficit each month. I would have broken even. It wasn't because of lack of financial planning or that I refused to give up my weekly spa session. It was because xh is a dick who thought, still thinks, that he shouldnt have to support dd.

So the parent who does most of the caring, should make sure they live just on the basics, whilst the feckless parent can live a life of luxury and ignore their responsibilities.

I am in the fortunate position to be able to afford on my own salary, to pay for my DCs. Life is OK, not luxurious but OK. If EX paid properly, would they have a few more luxuries in everyday life - then yes. To him, splashing out on a business class flight once every 3 yrs is more important than contributing to the meds/monitoring that one of our DCS required on a daily basis, which are not covered by the NHS.

By your reckoning SAC, I can afford to bring up our 3 DCs on my own, without recourse to their other parents income and as they are not suffering - this is OK.

so fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

And if you need everything coming in to meet your bills then there is no cutting back to be done

As I highlighted several times in my posts, I am referring to situations like the OP in which the RP is a higher earner.
If a lone RP household has a higher income than many joint income households, rhen they have choices to make about how to spend their money. They are not on the poverty line, struggling to make ends meet. Maintenance gives them more flexibility - they can buy new school uniform, rather than second hand, for instance.

I am not referring to situations like yours daring, as your income must have been very low if meeting your DCs basic needs was putting you in debt.

And I'm highlighting that that is a sweeping generalisation. My household income WAS higher than his household income both when he was single and when he lived with someone. So you are talking about a situation like mine.

"but was financially unaware enough not to realise when she was on to a good thing! "

As far as I can see, the original RP thought there might have been pay rises since the original agreement that had not been reflected in her maintenance.

There's no indication whether that RP is or isn't saving for a rainy day. It also isn't clear if it is the RP or her partner who earns more than the NRP.

daring of course it's a generalisation.

It seems quite clear cut to me, if it is possible for a family to live frugally on a lower income than the salary you brought into your household, then your financial hardship, when your ex stopped paying CM, was a consequence of choices you made which financially committed your household beyond your own income.

I'm not disputing that he's an arse for not paying, but if you can be self sufficient, and not rely on an arse to keep your DCs warm and fed, why wouldn't you? Why not live within your own means, and if your arse of an ex pays, then use that to enhance the DCs life?

"And I'm highlighting that that is a sweeping generalisation. My household income WAS higher than his household income both when he was single and when he lived with someone. So you are talking about a situation like mine."

Agree.

As far as I can see, the original RP thought there might have been pay rises since the original agreement that had not been reflected in her maintenance

I think it had more to do with how much her friends were getting, didn't it? And she went about it by screaming at the OPs DP?

If she'd been financially aware, she'd have realised the amount she had been receiving up until that point was higher than the CSA/CMO assessment, at the very least.

If the roles were reversed, and a RP had been screamed at by her ex about money, she would be advised to use CMO to avoid subjecting herself to more abuse.

Well it isn't as clear cut as you are seeing it. He didn't stop paying maintenance - he didn't even start paying it. And the reason he was able to live on less is down to a) housing costs that were a third of mine b) he wasn't supporting a child, c) he had no childcare costs.

My financial hardship (ie a deficit) was because he wouldn't do his share of supporting our child. At that time what I opted to do was based on what was best for dd. It was absolutely the right thing to do and I stand by it. And I don't think I was wrong for thinking, at that stage, that I would have that extra income.

I think it depends how much over the figure csa gave you you're actually paying and also how the relationship is with her? I totally see what you're saying f he's with you 3 nights a week you're already paying for everthing for those days but I also see what others are saying

As I have said, daring, my definition of "financial hardship" is being unable to keep your children warm, fed and clothed.

It doesn't sound as if you were facing that situation, despite not receiving maintenance, so we are talking at cross purposes.

I'd say getting into debt to support your child is within most people's definition of financial hardship, but I'm going to leave this thread now.