Child maintenance and a new baby advice

[Mum2oneds]

So dp pays for SC the amount set via child maintenance, he pays directly standing order each month. I know I gets about £10 a month reduced as I have DS under the same roof which he classes as supporting.
My question is is the rate different if it's a new child who is biology his.? Or just the £10 a month reduced.
If it is going to be considerably less and we feel this is unfair on what his ex will get for SC then we hope to do our own arrangements with her maybe meet halfway. Ie if the money is going from 200pcm to say 150 we'll see if she would like to meet at 175maybe... Altho she does like to do it by the book even if it cuts her nose to spite her face.

Doing it by the book means that money is as regular as it can be and can therefore be relied upon. There are many people who would give anything for this, even if it means less money long term because regular and reliable is better than irregular and unreliable. Sod all. To do with cutting off noses to spite faces.

You can ask. She can say no. Are you still with the CSA, out of interest?

No the new child maintenance service. He would never ever miss a payment it don't Come out of wages he just pays her what they said.
Belive me it is a cut nose to spite face with her. When they first split he offered 350 plus childcare fees. And she said no ill get more thro the books. She got less than half..

i am sure your DHs children will be fine with having their maintenance cut. All your DH will need to explain is that because daddy is having a new baby they have to learn to eat a bit less, not grow out of their clothes so fast and not expect Father Christmas or the tooth fairy to be as generous as they once were. They are children, they will understand.

viques - and did mummy explain that they'd be able to eat more and have newer clothes if she hadn't rejected his more generous original offer and insisted on doing it by the book?

You could just not inform them of the new payment and keep it as it is.
I think it's awful they take step children into account.

Out of interest Oswin why do you think it's awful they take step-children into account?
If my ex actually paid maintenance and then remarried a woman with children, I don't think it's right that those children would be worse off than any further biological children he had with the woman! That's ridiculous.

FWIW, I think some women are entirely deluded about how much maintenance CMS deems an acceptable amount. I know plenty of women who turned down very good offers from ex-husbands assuming they'd get more through CMS.

I would want to do it by the book though because you know it's written down and will be enforced. A casual agreement by a ex can be stopped or changed without any notice if he decides to and you then have to start the process of child maintance which can take time.

Is a stepmother financially responsible for her stepchildren? Nope. But they get to cut money off for his children for her children. It's ridiculous.
If the nrp is gonna be classed as responsible for his partners children then surely his partner should be responsible for his children.

I think it's awful they take step kids into account as well.

Those children have one parent living with them and getting tax credits etc, the other parent paying support then yet another person getting a reduction in maintenance in order to support them too.

How do you know they only have one parent living with them and are claiming tax credits?! They could have remarried too, and be financially better off for it.

Having 3 people pay for one set of children while another set of children lose out is unfair regardless of tax credits, remarriage or anything else, a nrp shouldn't pay less because they have step children living with them imo.

Hypothetical situation here.
Jim and Laura have 2 children. They divorce, children live with Laura. Jim pays Laura 20% of his 20k income in maintenance.
Laura marries Dave, who has no DC of his own and earns 60k.
Jim marries Lucy who has 2 DC. Lucy's entitlement to tax credits reduces because she's married to Jim, however they struggle to make ends meet because of the amount of maintenance Jim pays to Laura.

Is this ok? Should a re-married man not contribute to the cost of raising his step-kids then? If they live together as a family?! And should Laura expect the same level of maintenance knowing she doesn't need it and Jims step children are suffering because of it?

Just to give you an idea of my perspective, in that situation, I am Laura. However my ex pays no maintenance and isn't remarried.

When DH and I met, he knew that me and the kids came as a package. And that meant if we lived together and eventually married, he would share the financial responsibility of raising them with me. That was never up for discussion. If my ex was a decent person and actually paid maintenance, then met and married another woman with children, I would expect him to do the same, and knowing, as I do, that their household income was significantly less than ours, I wouldn't expect the same level of maintenance as I would if he was single.

I also agree that step children shouldn't be calculated into the maintenance. It's the NRP responsibility to pay for his biological children it is his choice if he seeks a relationship with someone who has existing children and should he contribute financially that should be seperate to maintence. As for the new child you don't need to inform cm unless it is to make the adjustment which your dp clearly did prior by stating that your DS living with you both. Just leave the payments as they are. My ex had a baby and was going to alter cm to accommodate it until I broke it down and explained how much he actually contributes per day which is approx 5 pounds 35 pounds a week, he didn't alter it for the sake of saving 10-20 quid.

Just because the CMS would reduce the payment, doesn't mean you need to? Technically his children can have their maintenance reduced twice? Once because he has a step child living with him, and secondly because he goes on to have another child. Yet your income isn't taken into account when calculating what he should pay, (whether you have kids or not) even though he now splits his living costs with you instead of covering them alone.

My ex pays me the same now that he is married and living with someone else, as he did when he was single and living alone. I don't expect his wife to pay for my son. But likewise, when he has another hold with her, I don't expect him to pay me any less towards our sons upkeep.

Not a personal dig at you OP, but I think it's shameful that CMS is reduced when more children are born to new partners. How can NRPs afford to have more kids, if that means they can't afford to continue to support the ones they have to the same degree?? Baffling.

He only has less tha ten pound a month reduced for my son.. Their choice not his. Same as when my ex had dependants living here I received less. I didn't bat an eyelid.
My question was is that we are due a baby after Xmas so wondered how it would affect things that's all. X

and the reason he notified them about my son is because they asked. Once he'd given his address etc. They seemed to already know. Iyswim, as he said do u need step sons details they said no we have them...
He honestly has no issue in paying whatever, and has always paid on time. Nevermissed anything and we also supply everything here for his child as the child's mother doesn't even send the child with even so much as clean underwear for t he night or a set of pj's.

Your dh shouldn't have more children if he then intends to spend less on the children her already has.

How can NRPs afford to have more kids, if that means they can't afford to continue to support the ones they have to the same degree?? Baffling.

But isn't that what happens in nuclear families anyway? ie the eldest ones might end up with a little less due to a new sibling?

Should a re-married man not contribute to the cost of raising his step-kids then?

He can, after he has paid maintenance to his children. He wouldn't expect a reduction for any other bill and the new family finances would be calculated around what each partner can afford after debts, bills etc are paid. He wouldn't seek to pay less car tax or less for his credit card bill, yet his children should get less financial contribution because he decided to live with someone who has kids?

Nope, I don't think it's fair at all.

• he not her

Genuine question as I have no experience of this subject

When did I say he intends to spend less. I meant can he offer her more if cms say a lower figure? Who are you to say that? We are very comfortable he works a very good job and always pays with no quibble,
offered her loads but she refused when they first split..
In no way is he expecting a reduced figure in the fact he wants it reduced. It's more a worry they will. And the paperwork states he must notify of changes to household. Just the same as when he had a rise of 16k the first thing he did was notified them.

If he pays direct then he can pay as much as he likes, the car amount is a minimum not a maximum if you get me.

On the Pj's note, she doesn't have to send anything. You will get another reduction for time spent with you. Thats because you are expecting to fully provide anything on that time.