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".

@DownToTheSeaAgain

On the assumption that the money goes to the DC not the EXW I still think it is wrong to cut it because invariably it is the DC that will suffer. They don't get to live with their DF (your DC do) and this is really important. When my DF left I would have given up anything to have him back in the family. Obviously this is not possible but it does feel that this thread is all about the 'lazy' EXW who is mortgage free and has a rich boyfriend and not much about the DC who don't get to see their dad much. It may be the 'fault' of the EXW that this doesn't happen but it is absolutely not their fault.

How would having more money or their father and his family struggling financially improve or change in any way the fact that they don't live with him?

In the scenario that your step DC have to stop riding because you and your DH have decided to cut maintenance isn't it likely that they are going to ask why.

Highly likely EXW will say 'your DF doesn't pay for it any more'. You may say to them 'your DM should pay for it' Either way the DC may then see themselves as being less loved. That's not kind.

@aSofaNearYou

It's not throwing money at it. It is not taking money away

Which is not more important than keeping the household with the other DC afloat. Needs being covered needs to be prioritized above the vague hope that paying for lots of luxuries will make up for the DSCs parents being split.

And it isn't right for the youngest to have no luxuries while they have several either, that's looking at things from only one very specific perspective.

My point is that it may not be financially 'fair' to maintain the same level of maintenance but it is emotionally so. If your absent parent pays for things that you do and that then stops it is natural (if incorrect) to equate that with love.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

In the scenario that your step DC have to stop riding because you and your DH have decided to cut maintenance isn't it likely that they are going to ask why.

Highly likely EXW will say 'your DF doesn't pay for it any more'. You may say to them 'your DM should pay for it' Either way the DC may then see themselves as being less loved. That's not kind.

Or just do what any normal parent would do and tell them money is tight and they've had to cut back, rather than trying to one up each other and hurting DC in the process.

we live we our own child, if expenses need to be cut we try and avoid cutting our DD's activities but at the end of the day we will not be eating baked beans every day or shivering in 10C house to keep up extra curricular activities, her needs are more important than my needs but her wants are not more important than mine and DH's needs
if costs have to be cut they have to be cut, if your income drops at child in the home would have to adjust to an income drop so it logically follows that maintenance may need to drop if you are paying more than minimum
it is not right that OP's child goes without simple cheap activities to fund extra expensive activities for another child

As hes paying more than the minimum id say its fine

she seems to be getting on ok and the dc arent starving

My point is that it may not be financially 'fair' to maintain the same level of maintenance but it is emotionally so. If your absent parent pays for things that you do and that then stops it is natural (if incorrect) to equate that with love.

Not in all situations, it isn't. If it means another household with DC in it struggling to get by or with 0 luxuries while they still have several then no ir is not emotionally or financially fair, no matter how much you tell yourself it is.

Children with seperated parents need to be taught not to equate money with love like all children do, not encouraged to do so. What a bizarre logic, and very detrimental to them long term.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

In the scenario that your step DC have to stop riding because you and your DH have decided to cut maintenance isn't it likely that they are going to ask why.

Highly likely EXW will say 'your DF doesn't pay for it any more'. You may say to them 'your DM should pay for it' Either way the DC may then see themselves as being less loved. That's not kind.

We're not going to say that because we are adults. DH will just explain that just like shampoogate and primark we have had to make cut backs and that include the amount he gives their mum. For all we know she can afford the riding lessons and whatever else.

my DD would not equate not getting £10 for cinema because we can't afford it with lack of love, you need to be open and say we can't do this as often or maybe you can go to cinema but there's not enough cash for popcorn too etc

Thank you @aSofaNearYou. I would be devastated if my child thought me spending less on them when circumstances changed meant I loved them less.

Honestly it is naive to say that children do not associate love with things. Adults do it so why shouldn't kids?

And yes of course separated parents shouldn't blame the other for problems and faults but a quick read of Mumsnet will show that many do.

I am sure there are good practical reasons for reducing maintenance but it doesn't mean that there aren't potential emotional implications. DC from separated families have already got to cope with the fact that their parents are not together. Don't make it harder.

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

Maybe OP doesn't do any? And it's not mum providing them if dad's maintenance is paying for them.

Horse riding lessons aren't a necessity. I'm sure with this cost of living crisis there are many many children having to cut back on luxuries like expensive hobbies.

It's not fantastic no but it's the times and it's not a necessity.

If you haven't got the money, you haven't got the money. If she wants more, she can get off her arse and work for it like everyone else has to.

I actually agree if the children are old enough then just be open with them. Explain the situation, unfortunately at the moment we cannot afford X Y or Z. People don't give children enough credit, they may surprise you.

There are plenty of things my parents couldn't afford growing up. It was what it was.

I'm not a step parent, OP, but it sounds very reasonable to me. You're having to make cutbacks in all areas. This would affect the SDC if they lived with you, so there's no reason why they should be shielded from that just because they live with their mum.

The only caveat I would add is that I wouldn't expect the SDC to be disproportionately affected by any cutbacks, ie for all of your savings to come from child maintenance while your own household doesn't feel the pinch at all. However, it's clear from your posts that that's not what is happening, so what you're proposing sounds fine to me.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

Honestly it is naive to say that children do not associate love with things. Adults do it so why shouldn't kids?

And yes of course separated parents shouldn't blame the other for problems and faults but a quick read of Mumsnet will show that many do.

I am sure there are good practical reasons for reducing maintenance but it doesn't mean that there aren't potential emotional implications. DC from separated families have already got to cope with the fact that their parents are not together. Don't make it harder.

You're taking the worst case scenario about how people MIGHT act, and pandering to it rather than tackling it.

The possibility that the children will equate money with love absolutely does not mean that they should grow up never hearing the word no when it comes to money in case they think they aren't loved, that is an extremely slippery slope that will likely ruin their adult lives. They need to be taught the realities of money and that sometimes people have to budget and can't afford things, just like all other children.

And yes, lots of parents do blame each other, but again, not a reason to pander to that.

Yes we are aware there could be emotional implications but they do not take priority over genuine practical concerns, they are just reasons to talk to and reassure your children. Are you honestly, hand on heart saying that it is better for OPs household to fail to afford necessities, and for the younger child to never get to do anything enjoyable at all, so that the older children can maintain exactly what they have always done, even if that involves multiple luxuries? It's such an incredibly blinkered, one sided way of looking at things if so.

[quote Lou98]@Getyourarseofffthequattro how is it clear he's giving them more than she is?
It sounds like the OP and her Husband have more outgoings, it's ridiculous to assume that purely because she works part time

For all you know the difference in the wage that they earn is what he pays for his mortgage. The fact is you have no idea, neither do the rest of us on here. Working part time doesn't mean she's not paying half the costs of her kids, especially considering she has them 12 days out of 14.

As I said above, only the OP and her Husband know what they pay and if they're paying more than their fair share, they should absolutely reduce it but if they're only paying their half then even if they can legally reduce it I think it's morally a shitty thing to do. [/quote]
If you add in the 7.5 weeks they have the children in the school hokduays this actually works out at 2 days per week. So more of a 2:5 split.

Is it not also immoral for the op's family children to be so disadvantaged for the benefit of the the child from the first relationship?

Now don't get me wrong, I usually believe that a second family shouldn't have children if they cannot then maintain the status quo of the first born. But atm we really do have a perfect storm of circumstances so very different kettle of fish.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

In the scenario that your step DC have to stop riding because you and your DH have decided to cut maintenance isn't it likely that they are going to ask why.

Highly likely EXW will say 'your DF doesn't pay for it any more'. You may say to them 'your DM should pay for it' Either way the DC may then see themselves as being less loved. That's not kind.

So what do they say to their joint dc when they ask why their siblings get horse riding lessons but they don't get to do anything and haven't had any treats in six months?

@DownToTheSeaAgain

Honestly it is naive to say that children do not associate love with things. Adults do it so why shouldn't kids?

And yes of course separated parents shouldn't blame the other for problems and faults but a quick read of Mumsnet will show that many do.

I am sure there are good practical reasons for reducing maintenance but it doesn't mean that there aren't potential emotional implications. DC from separated families have already got to cope with the fact that their parents are not together. Don't make it harder.

Your parents being together is not the be all and fucking end all, nor does money make up for it.

To think that is appropriate is revolting and frankly very stupid.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

Honestly it is naive to say that children do not associate love with things. Adults do it so why shouldn't kids?

And yes of course separated parents shouldn't blame the other for problems and faults but a quick read of Mumsnet will show that many do.

I am sure there are good practical reasons for reducing maintenance but it doesn't mean that there aren't potential emotional implications. DC from separated families have already got to cope with the fact that their parents are not together. Don't make it harder.

So where do you draw the line? How much do you sacrifice and struggle? How much should you be willing to pay ? Just in case the kids equates money with love , and not providing means they feel unloved and harms them emotionally?

I mean one of the kids is already moaning the shampoo she has at her dad's house is a cheaper one and that their clothes are now from Primark.Should dad/OP not make any cuts whatever?

@ChoiceMummy if you'd read my comment rather than the reply to a poster you'd have seen that I agree if they can't afford it they should cut back. The point in that post was the that poster was saying the Mum can't possibly be paying half the costs of her kids because she only works part time instead of acknowledging the fact that she doesn't have a mortgage etc as outgoings.

I've said that if they're paying over the amount for maintenance then there's nothing wrong with cutting back on it

@DownToTheSeaAgain

In the scenario that your step DC have to stop riding because you and your DH have decided to cut maintenance isn't it likely that they are going to ask why.

Highly likely EXW will say 'your DF doesn't pay for it any more'. You may say to them 'your DM should pay for it' Either way the DC may then see themselves as being less loved. That's not kind.

But the children that the op have have had to accept equivalence of this already. So is it only their children who should be impacted?

Many families are going to have issues with paying utilities etc. There are going to be a lot of families making curs to save money. This is going to happen in millions of homes. But protect the non resident children's horseriding at all costs?

[quote Lou98]@ChoiceMummy if you'd read my comment rather than the reply to a poster you'd have seen that I agree if they can't afford it they should cut back. The point in that post was the that poster was saying the Mum can't possibly be paying half the costs of her kids because she only works part time instead of acknowledging the fact that she doesn't have a mortgage etc as outgoings.

I've said that if they're paying over the amount for maintenance then there's nothing wrong with cutting back on it [/quote]
I acknowledge the fact she doesn't have a mortgage. But she works 5-10 hours per week. How likely do you think it is she's funding 50% of all her child's costs with that? If you're being totally honest?

@Getyourarseofffthequattro all things being equal most children would rather their parents were together. It's a fact

Money does not equal happiness. That is also a fact.

My point was that by removing something provided by their DF the DC of the first marriage may well suffer emotionally by equating provision of the activity with love. Doesn't mean they should or they will. Just that they might and it could be damaging emotionally. That is all.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro you'll also see the OP said the 5-10 hours after I posted.

The fact still is though, you have no idea what money she has. She inherited her house, she may also have inherited money. She also has a partner that lives with her and I presume is helping with bills so her outgoings could be non existent near enough. You still don't know, neither do I so it's ridiculous to be making her out as not paying for her own kids when you have no clue.

Her income is irrelevant- what is relevant is how much the OP's H pays, as I've said, if he's paying more than half then he absolutely should reduce that, they shouldn't be struggling if he's overpaying but if he isn't then morally that's different.