BM expectations?

[Songbird232018]

So BM or some she knows has been on MN as in a text row yesterday she called my partner a useless Disney dad... I got really defensive as in my eyes he's the furthest from it and I'm not blind to his faults by any means!

So decent dad points if you will

• pays CSA every month religiously for 2 kids granted he was paying more and its took a drop this year because he's had less work. Gone from 360 to around 300 last month
• has 3 kids (2 bio one step) EOW, twice for tea, half holidays if not more and more random nights when possible ie Inset days
• pays 1 child's phone bill mum does the other
• all 3 kids get £15 pocket money a month
• when we can we treat the kids to new trainers/Coats etc and we always get the expensive Christmas / bday gift such as PlayStation, laptop, phone etc as they are always told to ask dad and we like treating them.
• always attends parents evening/ sports days/ open days etc
• pulls the kids up on bad behaviour and has no issues being hard when needed (rare!)

• Family life here is harmonious with my and our bio son 3
• we allow sleepovers and parties as we have a bigger house and space for them

Points where I can see issues maybe

• he doesn't really get involved in or enforce homework when they are with us which I've pulled him up on

• he does refuse to half school trips now as we paid for one at £120 only to find out the child didn't go and we didn't get that money back so he has refused to out towards any others ( we always give spending money) the kids would never miss out if they really wanted to go somewhere to be honest As we would sort it if we could.

• similar issue with uniforms he was buying shoes / bags etc but nothing was ever right and she wanted cash rather than him buy the items ( she took everything back ) so he stopped this and only only pays CSA to cover uniforms this is a area he won't budge on at all now and I do agree she gets enough to cover this for 2 children.

I guess I just want others opinions as a lot of my friends have Exs who do nothing and pay nothing yet we always get the worst words from from BMs mouth!

BM is married again with 3 other children with new husband just for info

Can you show me on the gob website where it advised CMS is a minimum?

It doesn’t say that but it is a minimum in that it is all that is legally enforceable (and even then not efficiently, effectively or in a timely manner). If you think £7 a week, or in my case £0, shouldn’t be considered a minimum then you frankly need to give your head a wobble. It is widely accepted CMS rates represent a small portion of what it takes to bring up a child and extras such as school uniform and trips are frequently shared. Obviously there are exceptions but for very average earners, CMS doesn’t touch the sides when it comes to the true cost of bringing up a child.

@Enoughnowstop

Can you show me on the gob website where it advised CMS is a minimum?

It doesn’t say that but it is a minimum in that it is all that is legally enforceable (and even then not efficiently, effectively or in a timely manner). If you think £7 a week, or in my case £0, shouldn’t be considered a minimum then you frankly need to give your head a wobble. It is widely accepted CMS rates represent a small portion of what it takes to bring up a child and extras such as school uniform and trips are frequently shared. Obviously there are exceptions but for very average earners, CMS doesn’t touch the sides when it comes to the true cost of bringing up a child.

That's not always the case. It really depends on individual circumstances. Sometimes it's shite, sometimes it's enough, sometimes it's more than enough.

You missed the bit where I said there are exceptions, then? Just thought you’d put me in my place again, eh?

@Enoughnowstop

You missed the bit where I said there are exceptions, then? Just thought you’d put me in my place again, eh?

No I didn't, the exceptions are exactly WHY you can't call it a minimum. Which is what I have already said.

It is undoubtedly a shit system but declaring it not enough just because £7 a week is not enough is silly.

[quote Youseethethingis]@TrustTheGeneGenie
In fairness, when it comes right down to the piss take levels of £7 per week it would take a proper rotten bastard of a dad to say “that’s all the contributions I need to make so that’s all you’re getting even though I have savings and could still pay more”.
Just as an example.
At the other end of the spectrum, CMS might be £800 per month and considered more than enough on its own, considering the NRP must also adequately house, feed, provide clothes for his child/den.[/quote]
My ex has fixed his finances and managed to get a nil assessment. He's bought the dc a ps4 for Christmas and pre-ordered his own ps5 so clearly has some money from somewhere.
He doesn't adequately feed, clothe or house them. Unless a toddler sized portion of lunch and dinner once in a blue moon counts as adequate.

He is definitely what I would call a bastard. I'd even go so far as to call him a fucking cunt.

@TheFormerPorpentinaScamander
It’s no help to you now but he will pay dearly for this in the end.
Same thing happened to my cousin. Her dad bought her with treats when she was young, left her mum struggling with all the actual costs, then she matured and saw him for what he was. She calls her step dad her dad now.

@LyingDogsLie1

With 4 nights a month, there is also a relative impact on the Mother's earnings power - which if she could increase night lessen the gap.

I agree this would be the case with young children, but not teenagers.

I disagree..

I wouldn't leave my child to come home to an empty house after school just because I'm at work.. Whilst needs change with age, I can't understand the view that a 13 year or even 16 year old is all of a sudden self sufficient. Putting a child in ''childcare'' at that age is really tough..

In addition, a Mother who has not grown her career (if she even had one) for years to be available to children is at an indisputable disadvantage in the work place, from a skills perspective etc. If a mother did not work, she's most likely only going to pull a minimal income, relying on tax credits / social housing etc (again if even available). Many DF have contact on only weekends, meaning they are free to peruse and progress their career. The reality is one parent being the primary carer does impact their earnings.

I personally feel every child and family is different, and children's preferences on where to spend contact naturally evolves with time. No one approach works or is better than the other. Contact time should be what works for the children and independent of financials.

Despite the CMS considering nights, there's very little logic or real correlation between nights spent at NRP and the actual financial needs of each party.

@Youseethethingis oh they are well aware what a waste of space be is. They are 16 and 14 so have heard the lies directly out of his mouth "sorry I can't see you at the moment. You know we aren't allowed because of lockdown"
They know money is tight here, and we don't have many treats. But they also know I'm doing the best I can, and I put them first always.

I wouldn't leave my child to come home to an empty house after school just because I'm at work.. Whilst needs change with age, I can't understand the view that a 13 year or even 16 year old is all of a sudden self sufficient. Putting a child in ''childcare'' at that age is really tough..

If you’re able not to work on the basis that your 13 and 16 year old can’t be home by themselves for a couple of hours after school you’re incredibly privileged.

I’d suggest if there was a demand for care at that age, childcare would be available. The fact it isn’t reflects the lack of demand.

Lovely if you want to be available to your teens, but certainly not realistic for most families. Lone or otherwise.

@LyingDogsLie1

Just to clarify: I work full time, always have and maintain I wouldn't leave my child alone after school until I get back from work - it wouldn't necessarily be just a couple hours in my case. Bear in mind not everyone has a 9-5 job with the comfort of fixed / predictable hours...

He clearly doesn't consider him his child. He's his step child. He considers him his step child and treats him as such. What's wrong with that?
How many SFs do you know who continue to have such involvement in their SCs' life when they only care for them as a SC especially at that age?

Can you show me on the gob website where it advised CMS is a minimum?
Your question is wierd? So if a father wants to contribute £400 a month but CMS says that he only has to pay £350, then it would be wrong if him to pay £400 because CMS said it should be less?

How many SFs do you know who continue to have such involvement in their SCs' life when they only care for them as a SC especially at that age?

my dp still has a relationship with his grown up ex step child... i don't think many ex step mums do but i think a lot of ex step dads do tbh. My mums ex step dad still has a relationship with her, and with me. We do xmas / birthday presents, see eachother a few times a year etc.

Your question is wierd? So if a father wants to contribute £400 a month but CMS says that he only has to pay £350, then it would be wrong if him to pay £400 because CMS said it should be less?

nope, absolutely not wrong. As long as you're paying CMS you can pay whatever you want on top of that. What i'm saying is CMS tell you to pay that amount. They do not tell you to pay that amount as a minimum, but add extras on top, or pay more if you can stop buying christmas presents to fund it. They dont call it a minimum, because its not, is the amount they think you should pay.

my dp still has a relationship with his grown up ex step child...
But how many would rather reduce maintenance for their children to pay luxuries to a ex step child?

As long as you're paying CMS you can pay whatever you want on top of that. What i'm saying is CMS tell you to pay that amount. They do not tell you to pay that amount as a minimum, but add extras on top, or pay more if you can stop buying christmas presents to fund it. They dont call it a minimum, because its not, is the amount they think you should pay
You are debating amongst yourself! If you're told to pay x, but you opt to pay x+y, then of course X is the minimum. Minimum in that you can't pay any less than that amount but you can pay more if you wish, which OP's partner could do but is happy to to have reduced it because he doesn't have to pay what he was paying before any longer.

But how many would rather reduce maintenance for their children to pay luxuries to a ex step child?

that is not what he has done though is it? you have just created that in your head

You are debating amongst yourself! If you're told to pay x, but you opt to pay x+y, then of course X is the minimum. Minimum in that you can't pay any less than that amount but you can pay more if you wish, which OP's partner could do but is happy to to have reduced it because he doesn't have to pay what he was paying before any longer

no, the CMS tell you how much to pay. You pay that, if you want to pay more, fine, if you don't fine. They don't tell you that you need to provide extras. It is the amount they recommend you pay - they do not call it a minimum.

Honestly i think most people who go through CMS just pay what CMS tells them to pay whether it goes up or down. I don't think what he has done is that bad, just... normal.

It's based on income, so its fairly obvious that if his income goes down so will his maintenance payment. Weirdly enough, it's not up to you to determine whether he can afford the extra £60 - CMS change payments every single year.

@dontdisturbmenow the eldest child's has a biological dad who pays cms (how much we don't know) but has never had much contact so why would my partner also pay CSA for this child??

He thinks of him as a child and he is treated exactly the same as the others in our eyes (if he needs and asks he gets) however his day to day life costs are down to the people that created him I'm sorry. His mum tired to get OH to pay but when the paperwork was filed and we found out there was already an existing claim then it was a non issue.

I think it's wild you think we should pay CSA For a child that's not biological related when he already receives payment!

Your parter is a Disney dad and the mother is the mother, not biological mother.
One day his children will that too.

I think many people think of Child Maintenance as the minimum payment, because if you do not pay at least that amount you can be jailed.

Courts are not in the business of determining anything more than a minimum standard of living for a child. What parents wants the minimum standard of living for their children?

Men and women should both work to provide far more than the minimum for their children. Sometimes minimum may be all that they can do, but it should never be their goal to do the least amount required.

Why bother to have children if your goal is to do less than your absolute best? Many men and women choose to have more children than they can adequately support, and then expect their children to have a subsistence or slightly above life style. For children, that is not living that is barely existing. Sometimes that cannot be helped ( except when it comes to having more children than you can support, that is just poor decision making), but if you do not live in a third world country there is little excuse.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

I don't get this argument about BM being massively offensive.

Its just a fact - she is a biological parent. I couldn't be arsed getting upset about calling me BM to my son, because that's exactly what i am.

I don't think people deserve the kicking they get for it either, because its widely accepted elsewhere and people dont realise that people are so vile about it on MN.

I totally agree with you.
I am my children's mum, I'm also their biological mum and their birth mum.

I wouldn't mind if it was pointed out nicely and not with such hostility as it often is.

CMS is not a minimum. It is a calculated amount based on your income and number of children from the relationship / marriage. If cordial an ex nrp will probably offer to pay more. If not cordial and the Mum isnt good with money she shouldn't complain when the ex only offers extra when there is a receipt/proof the money is being spent in thr right way.

I pay approx 800 per month CMS and another nrp could pay 400 having the same number of children . As its income based the appropriate amount is income based. Why does my ex partner deserve 800 and another 400? There is no real wrong or right it just is what it is. I could argue I pay a premium due to my salary but I dont I just see it as my contribution as 3/4 of the children live mainly with Mum.

There are also tax credits / universal credit etc and child maintenance deliberately doesn't reduce such benefits.

If the nrp is doing something to fiddle CMS such as go self employed and pay himself a minimum wage then fair enough to criticise, but otherwise the nrp is doing what is expected.

Why does my ex partner deserve 800 and another 400?

CMS is for your children, not your ex. Your child deserves your full support. Or are you suggesting children shouldn’t benefit from the relative wealth of their parents?

I wouldn't mind if it was pointed out nicely and not with such hostility as it often is

It doesn’t need pointing out! Mum and step mum is a perfectly reasonable description and no one gets confused. People are literally arguing that BM is easier to write than DM or mum.

@Enoughnowstop

Why does my ex partner deserve 800 and another 400?

CMS is for your children, not your ex. Your child deserves your full support. Or are you suggesting children shouldn’t benefit from the relative wealth of their parents?

Er no. Thats not what I'm suggesting. Youve taken a small part of my post and removed the wider context.

My point is that the CM is not some form of minimum contribution as is being suggested on this thread. If its what is calculated by the government then repeating myself it's surely the appropriate amount. The 'medium' amount not the maximum or minimum amount.

I realise CM is for the children thanks that's why I pay it along with providing their home that my ex lives in with her cocklodger.

If you realise that CMS is for the child why write ‘why does my ex partner deserve 800?

As someone who has been told by the CMS that my ex - who lives in a 4 bed detached with very expensive cars on the driveway and has a business turn over £millions if his accounts at Companies House are anything to go by, owes precisely £0 in maintenance, do you really expect me to accept that £0 is a median point of child maintenance to expect?

My point is that the CM is not some form of minimum contribution as is being suggested on this thread. If its what is calculated by the government then repeating myself it's surely the appropriate amount. The 'medium' amount not the maximum or minimum amount.
It’s literally the minimum that can be legally enforced, taking into account income, contact levels, other children and the fact the at dad is expected to provide appropriate accommodation etc for the children too.
It doesn’t take very long glancing through old threads here to see that in many cases, the amount payable is a bit of a farce and an insult and in no way relates to the cost of providing the very basics a child needs, never mind any attempts to provide some enjoyment and quality of life above that.

*second wife here, husband pays more than the minimum because he can afford it and wants to provide as best he can for his child