Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

Child Maintenance - is it ever OK to reduce it?

276 replies

FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 11:39

So cost of living is going up etc and we've taken a look at our finances. We are going to have to cut back a bit. Is it ever ok for the maintenance payments to the ex to reduce? They are well above the CMS recommended amount (DH's choice) but we all know the CMS amount is not always half the amount of raising a child. It also shouldn't matter what mum earns/pays but she's living rent free in an inheritated property and works what I would call "extremely part-time".

OP posts:
Undertheoldlindentree · 03/04/2022 17:22

"How on earth are they taking advantage of the inheritance? Christ on a bike"

By using the fact that the RP doesn't have mortgage costs as one of the arguments for cutting maintenance.

Getyourarseofffthequattro · 03/04/2022 17:23

@Undertheoldlindentree

"How on earth are they taking advantage of the inheritance? Christ on a bike"

By using the fact that the RP doesn't have mortgage costs as one of the arguments for cutting maintenance.

It's not an argument for cutting maintenance, it's background info.

Keeping your own money isn't taking advantage of someone else's. They're not asking her for money because she doesn't have a mortgage.

Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 17:27

Apologies if I've missed it, but are you working full-time and contributing at least half costs to your own household? If not, is that something you could explore? I am working part time but only just short of full hours to facilitate nursery drop off and pick up. And no I'm not contributing half the costs as only one of the children is mine

OP posts:
ldontWanna · 03/04/2022 17:32

@Undertheoldlindentree

"How on earth are they taking advantage of the inheritance? Christ on a bike"

By using the fact that the RP doesn't have mortgage costs as one of the arguments for cutting maintenance.

That was to preempt all the "but she has mortgage,rent whatever to pay. Poor babies will be homeless and starving,you cruel woman!" Replied. Some of the posts were already going that way.

The amount they pay is unaffordable now regardless of what mum pays on housing. That is the reason for cutting maintenance. The fact that mum has no mortgage probably just helps dad/OP to worry just that little bit less about cutting it. The cut still needs to happen though.

Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 17:35

@Undertheoldlindentree

"How on earth are they taking advantage of the inheritance? Christ on a bike"

By using the fact that the RP doesn't have mortgage costs as one of the arguments for cutting maintenance.

No it was background info to show we are not completely heartless and wanting to reduce maintenance to someone who has a similarly stretched financial circumstance or worse.
OP posts:
Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 17:36

Thank you @ldontWanna yes this was exactly the reason I included it.

OP posts:
nldnmum02 · 03/04/2022 17:37

Cut back. She can get a job.

Undertheoldlindentree · 03/04/2022 17:43

Sorry, I meant half your own household costs (not including the maintenance as that's your DH cost). But doesn't really matter, it feels too intrusive to get into so much detail. Just doesn't seem logical to acknowledge costs are going up for every household in the land but then for so many people think the solution is to reduce the agreed income to one household containing DH's children, so the other household has more more. As well as the financial impact I'd be worried about the emotional impact on the DSC. Anyway, wishing you well, it's a tricky situation to navigate.

Getyourarseofffthequattro · 03/04/2022 17:45

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, I meant half your own household costs (not including the maintenance as that's your DH cost). But doesn't really matter, it feels too intrusive to get into so much detail. Just doesn't seem logical to acknowledge costs are going up for every household in the land but then for so many people think the solution is to reduce the agreed income to one household containing DH's children, so the other household has more more. As well as the financial impact I'd be worried about the emotional impact on the DSC. Anyway, wishing you well, it's a tricky situation to navigate.
another one who thinks only non resident children's feelings get hurt Hmm He will still be paying more than he needs to be. Did you miss that?
aSofaNearYou · 03/04/2022 17:52

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, I meant half your own household costs (not including the maintenance as that's your DH cost). But doesn't really matter, it feels too intrusive to get into so much detail. Just doesn't seem logical to acknowledge costs are going up for every household in the land but then for so many people think the solution is to reduce the agreed income to one household containing DH's children, so the other household has more more. As well as the financial impact I'd be worried about the emotional impact on the DSC. Anyway, wishing you well, it's a tricky situation to navigate.
People say this a lot, but it is logical. Costs going up for most households means money being more stretched and general cutbacks across the board. That includes maintenance.

Obviously unless you aren't experiencing a financial impact.

ldontWanna · 03/04/2022 17:52

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, I meant half your own household costs (not including the maintenance as that's your DH cost). But doesn't really matter, it feels too intrusive to get into so much detail. Just doesn't seem logical to acknowledge costs are going up for every household in the land but then for so many people think the solution is to reduce the agreed income to one household containing DH's children, so the other household has more more. As well as the financial impact I'd be worried about the emotional impact on the DSC. Anyway, wishing you well, it's a tricky situation to navigate.
No. The cuts to one household (where the kids already have more) are so that other household has enough, not more. OP's household is already having cuts ,and having less. By your own logic it's only natural that that extends to the other one(via maintenance ) since they still can't manage.
Lou98 · 03/04/2022 17:56

My DC also do a sport which others would consider expensive, but they get great enjoyment and personal development from it. I probably spend less on eating out, alcohol, pets, holidays and lease cars than other families who would say their DC couldn't afford to do it.

Except that the things you're giving up (alcohol, holidays etc) so your DC can do the sport aren't essentials, they're luxuries. The OP is in a situation where they can't afford the cost of living and having to cut back - they're not saying they need to reduce maintenance or stop horse riding lessons so that they can go on holiday so it's not even remotely the same

SeasonFinale · 03/04/2022 18:00

As usual this is a thread where either all the ex wives or currently married people have jumped at the OP for suggesting something totally reasonable.

Coyoacan · 03/04/2022 18:14

Keeping your own money isn't taking advantage of someone else's

Except that you lot are all talking about cutting back to the CMS level. Do people really think that anything over that piddling sum is an overpayment?

I wish my dd had been as cheap to raise as the CMS seems to think they are.

Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 18:15

@Lou98

My DC also do a sport which others would consider expensive, but they get great enjoyment and personal development from it. I probably spend less on eating out, alcohol, pets, holidays and lease cars than other families who would say their DC couldn't afford to do it.

Except that the things you're giving up (alcohol, holidays etc) so your DC can do the sport aren't essentials, they're luxuries. The OP is in a situation where they can't afford the cost of living and having to cut back - they're not saying they need to reduce maintenance or stop horse riding lessons so that they can go on holiday so it's not even remotely the same

We already don't drink, don't have a pet, don't eat out, don't lease a car, and the only holiday we have had in the last 5 years was 1 night away in a b&b last year. We won't be doing that again this year.
OP posts:
Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 18:16

Do people really think that anything over that piddling sum is an overpayment? it is not always a piddling sum. And yes tbh it literally is an overpayment.

OP posts:
Getyourarseofffthequattro · 03/04/2022 18:17

@Coyoacan

Keeping your own money isn't taking advantage of someone else's

Except that you lot are all talking about cutting back to the CMS level. Do people really think that anything over that piddling sum is an overpayment?

I wish my dd had been as cheap to raise as the CMS seems to think they are.

You do realise that it's based on what someone earns? It's hardly a piddling sum from a higher earner is it?

It makes me laugh when people say this because they clearly don't have a fucking clue!

Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 18:18

Oh and for anyone who cares her response is to say fine, but DH can do the driving both ways. So DH is now going to have to talk to her tonight and explain that if that's what he has to do to see his kids fine but he will have to cut maintenance future to cover the petrol.

OP posts:
Getyourarseofffthequattro · 03/04/2022 18:19

@Coyoacan

Keeping your own money isn't taking advantage of someone else's

Except that you lot are all talking about cutting back to the CMS level. Do people really think that anything over that piddling sum is an overpayment?

I wish my dd had been as cheap to raise as the CMS seems to think they are.

My Ds literally doesn't cost me half what dp pays for his son. And he's not even a particularly high earner tbh.
Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 18:19

You do realise that it's based on what someone earns? It's hardly a piddling sum from a higher earner is it? exactly I think some people just assume its £7.50 a week or whatever

OP posts:
RandomMess · 03/04/2022 18:20

She sounds like a charmer.

I would just pay the minimum and then at least you have some flexibility to pay towards "extras" if and when you can afford it.

It sounds like you are in a very tough financial situation.

Original poster
FloralsForSpring · 03/04/2022 18:21

@RandomMess

She sounds like a charmer.

I would just pay the minimum and then at least you have some flexibility to pay towards "extras" if and when you can afford it.

It sounds like you are in a very tough financial situation.

Thing is we're not compared to some people. It's shocking the state some of my friends have got themselves into worrying about this. It's awful.
OP posts:
5howmedamoney · 03/04/2022 18:22

Yes, espacially if you’re already paying more than calculated by CMS.

DP left his job to retrain for a year and start a new career. We were worried about ex’s reaction but she was fine (couldn’t really argue with it). That said, she’s always been very open about her strong financial position and we knew she didn’t rely on the money or DP wouldn’t have done it.

You’re not going to let your own DC become homeless to continue giving someone money that is already perfectly comfortable. People always jump to the defence of the children whose parents are separated without thinking about the children of the new relationship.

AskingforaBaskin · 03/04/2022 18:23

@Coyoacan

Keeping your own money isn't taking advantage of someone else's

Except that you lot are all talking about cutting back to the CMS level. Do people really think that anything over that piddling sum is an overpayment?

I wish my dd had been as cheap to raise as the CMS seems to think they are.

Then I'm sure that both the OPs DH and the mum will be happy to discuss full shared care to ensure both are paying for their shared child equally.
Lou98 · 03/04/2022 18:29

@FloralsForSpring it wasn't me that had said that - I was saying to that poster that what she's given up for her child to play the sport are luxuries and not essentials so it's irrelevant as that isn't the same as your situation at all