Child Maintenance - is it ever OK to reduce it?

[FloralsForSpring]

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".

I'm surprised at a lot of the responses here.

Cot of living has went up which I'm sure you couldn't predict when you and your husband conceived your children. So that's a silly comment, telling you that you shouldn't have had more children.

Luxuries have to be cut as a result of necessities costing more now. That means extra curricular activities, holidays, expensive clothes etc. Many of our children are affected by this, so why does a child with separated parents get shielded from it?

I think your husband just needs to say that he can no longer afford to pay the current maintenance amount due to the increase in living expenses, and tell his ex the new proposed amount. There is absolutely nothing she can do about it if he is already paying over the CMS minimum amount. She may try to guilt him into paying more, but that's her issue.

There is absolutely no way that she can expect her child's life to somehow be unaffected by this cost of living crisis.

@FloralsForSpring

This is true, but they do a lot of extra curricular stuff which mum could cut back on if it's getting too much.

Wow. Maybe you should cut back on your own extra curriculars before getting salty about the mum providing them for her children.

@FloralsForSpring

This is true, but they do a lot of extra curricular stuff which mum could cut back on if it's getting too much.

With cost of living skyrocketing your DSC will not be the only ones with music/dance/karate/football on the chopping block!

[quote ToiletPoster]@DownToTheSeaAgain
To continue to pay full maintenance in a situation of general cost-cutting would mean a disproportionate decrease in the living standard of resident children. A fair situation would be cuts distributed evenly.[/quote]
I agree with this.
And I’d argue the same in reverse if, for example, the DH got a much better paying job. The DSC should benefit from the increase in disposable income just like the children from the current relationship, so maintenance should go up even if already at more than the CMS level.

What about his resident child? Or don't they count?

Of course they count but OP can control the expenditure within her house, and not anybody else’s.

Ultimately, this man has X number of children, albeit from two different relationships, and he needs to house and contribute towards both sets of children.

The OP’s household isn’t destitute. According to her first post they’re looking at having to “cut back a bit”, it’s just shocking to me that they’re starting with child maintenance which should be one of the very, very last things to consider.

@FloralsForSpring Your post made me guffaw out loud. Jesus Christ, how would you think this is in anyway an unreasonable proposition? The cost of living is soaring for all, your DH pays generously and she works part-time and lives rent free? Absolute no brainer. As a Mum who works 48 hrs per week, pays rent and has never received a penny from my ex (various addictions/mh issues), I think she’s lucky to be in the position she is in and should nobly accept your explanation.

just in case people missed this important piece of information: OP’s partner is voluntarily OVER PAYING maintenance, she is not asking for him to pay less than the law dictates

@FloralsForSpring
I think that if you're giving her a decent amount of notice, and going midway between current payments and cms rates, that's as fair a step-down as can be, without knowing figures etc.

As parents we all have to make choices and decisions about what to spend our money on. For example, our school is wanting it's third sponsorship form completed since September on top of wanting £25 for a school trip that parents could source for about £8 etc and I have had to say to my child that I cannot justify tuckshop money against that backdrop. Your scenario is no different.

What I will say is that I would have framed the reduction as also to address the rising costs of fuel used for the double journeys that your oh is making. If receiving via cms, the costs would get a reduction in the level of incomes used to set the levels to account for trips costing £10.

Ultimately, child maintenance should never be so relied upon by the receiving parent as its so easily withdrawn and reduced with little to no notice. Not ideal, but true and I've seen many women primarily who have been screwed by such situations.

@VodselForDinner

What about his resident child? Or don't they count?

Of course they count but OP can control the expenditure within her house, and not anybody else’s.

Ultimately, this man has X number of children, albeit from two different relationships, and he needs to house and contribute towards both sets of children.

The OP’s household isn’t destitute. According to her first post they’re looking at having to “cut back a bit”, it’s just shocking to me that they’re starting with child maintenance which should be one of the very, very last things to consider.

Right, so you think they should make cut backs that only affect the resident child. I see.

I feel for the resident child in this scenario more than the step children who's biggest issue is the brand of shampoo they use.

If he reduces his maintenance, note reduces not stops, he's still contributing to all children.

If he continues paying for the DSC, and contributes less to the household he actually lives in, one child will suffer disproportionately more.

Is that okay with you?

Weirdly, I don't agree that's fair.

And I’d argue the same in reverse if, for example, the DH got a much better paying job. The DSC should benefit from the increase in disposable income just like the children from the current relationship, so maintenance should go up even if already at more than the CMS level absolutely, and they have done, every time he gets a pay rise he sends more mum's way.

it’s just shocking to me that they’re starting with child maintenance which should be one of the very, very last things to consider.

We aren't starting with it.

He's paying for his kids not subsidising her lifestyle. If she has kids in full time school and after school activities she has more than enough time to work.

For all those saying dad is going to scupper the kids opportunities by stopping the overpayment, why are you not suggesting that mum is scuppering their chances by not working?
What about the child that's going without to fund their siblings opportunities? Surely all should have equal opportunity?

@VodselForDinner

What about his resident child? Or don't they count?

Of course they count but OP can control the expenditure within her house, and not anybody else’s.

Ultimately, this man has X number of children, albeit from two different relationships, and he needs to house and contribute towards both sets of children.

The OP’s household isn’t destitute. According to her first post they’re looking at having to “cut back a bit”, it’s just shocking to me that they’re starting with child maintenance which should be one of the very, very last things to consider.

Why when for many families this is a figure that is in the same brackets as rent or mortgage? Are you really suggesting that if you were paying 20% of your salary you wouldn't try and reduce this down to closer to the 12% level?

They have already said they have reduced the smaller savings such tv packages and downgrading of products. So it's entirely reasonable to look at the child maintenance.

Never ideal. But atm very few people are in an ideal situation.

@VodselForDinner

What about his resident child? Or don't they count?

Of course they count but OP can control the expenditure within her house, and not anybody else’s.

Ultimately, this man has X number of children, albeit from two different relationships, and he needs to house and contribute towards both sets of children.

The OP’s household isn’t destitute. According to her first post they’re looking at having to “cut back a bit”, it’s just shocking to me that they’re starting with child maintenance which should be one of the very, very last things to consider.

They're not starting with it, OP has mentioned other things they're cutting back on. By the sounds of it, the high maintenance will now be comparatively lavish. It's being included, not singled out.

It is a luxury these days for anyone to work part time - I think if she wants a certain lifestyle then she should contribute more.

Her inheritance isn’t relevant. But it sounds like your husband is contributing a significant amount, so this needs to be balanced against what he can afford to contribute towards his other child.

@Viviennemary

Of course it's ok to reduce the amount if it's well above the standard payment. If the ex is awkward he should pay not a penny more than the legal requirement. That's what I would do in those circumstances

Surely this is a terrible way to act as the only ones to suffer are the DCs?

FWIW, I don't think you should cut back Op unless you really can't afford it (as opposed to things just being a bit more difficult for you) - the govt recommended amount is pitiful.

Legally, he only has to pay the CMS minimum so whether she likes it or not, there isn't really anything she can do about it.

Morally, I think it depends what he pays monthly. As you've said, the CMS minimum can be a joke sometimes and definitely not half the cost of raising a child. If what he pays is already more than his fair share for raising two kids then it's absolutely right to cut back when you're struggling. If him cutting back would mean he's paying a lot less than it actually costs for his half of raising a child then I do think it's wrong whether he can legally do it or not. Only you'll know what the case is with that though.

Although I do also think you need to drop the attitude of "well if she wants more money she can work more" - she can work part time and afford it because she doesn't have a mortgage to pay. As above, if your H dropping maintenance means he's paying less than his share then she shouldn't have to make up his shortfall (obviously I agree with stopping horse riding lessons if they can't be afforded but I mean for basics, living costs etc), if he would still be paying his fair share then that's all you need to worry about, not what she earns

How is she paying her fair share if she only works very part time just out of interest?

FWIW, I don't think you should cut back Op unless you really can't afford it (as opposed to things just being a bit more difficult for you) - the govt recommended amount is pitiful. He doesn't pay the govt recommended amount and hadn't said he will.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro she doesn't have a mortgage to pay because she's inherited her house.
Say it costs £200 to raise a child (obviously a lot more but just for figures). He pays £100 a month and so does she. He also has a mortgage to pay so has to work more hours to pay for this whereas she doesn't so she doesn't

Also, if you're on a good wage the government recommended amount isn't "pitiful" at all. I do not spend even half of what dp pays his ex on my own Ds!

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

How is she paying her fair share if she only works very part time just out of interest?

I believe it is a combination Inheritance, lack of mortgage and wealthy new partner.

[quote Lou98]@Getyourarseofffthequattro she doesn't have a mortgage to pay because she's inherited her house.
Say it costs £200 to raise a child (obviously a lot more but just for figures). He pays £100 a month and so does she. He also has a mortgage to pay so has to work more hours to pay for this whereas she doesn't so she doesn't [/quote]
So it's not paying half then is it? It's him contributing more and her contributing barely anything.

If the husband had no mortgage he couldn't contribute less, could he?

Ah, so everyone is contributing to her children except her. Must be nice!

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Also, if you're on a good wage the government recommended amount isn't "pitiful" at all. I do not spend even half of what dp pays his ex on my own Ds!

Indeed!