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".

@ldontWanna

In fact, going by *@DownToTheSeaAgain* 's logic dad and OP should cut things including maintenance to ensure that when the children come they are comfortable,happy,having the things they are used to while there in order to prevent the possible emotional damage. The kid might suddenly feel unwelcome and unloved now that she has subpar shampoo.

If the goal is the children's feelings then keeping things as they were at dad's should be the priority . That wouldn't fit the narrative though would it?

You see the that just doesn't follow to me. When with their DF they're living with him in his family so they live as he does. When he's not there he pays for them to do stuff.

It makes sense to me from an emotional pov but maybe you have to be the product of a 'broken home' to get it. Maybe it is not at all rational but then emotions aren't.

I'm a product of a broken home and yet my emotions cannot be bought. How strange!

@aSofaNearYou

The emotional damage of having all their treats cut and struggling for essentials of course? Mummy and daddy being married doesn't put food on the table now does it?

@DownToTheSeaAgain seems very reluctant to actually answer this.

Not at all. Just not sure what I am answering.

My thesis is that DC may equate things provided by their DF with his love. It's possible. When they are with him then they have his love available and the things are irrelevant.

I'm not saying that the change isn't necessary. Obviously I have no idea of anyones true circumstances in this scenario. I would just advocate to continue to support the status quo for DC from the first marriage because of the potential emotional impact.

So fuck the resident DC, if they have to live in poverty that's fine because they are loved. What planet are you on @DownToTheSeaAgain???

*Not at all. Just not sure what I am answering.

My thesis is that DC may equate things provided by their DF with his love. It's possible. When they are with him then they have his love available and the things are irrelevant.

I'm not saying that the change isn't necessary. Obviously I have no idea of anyones true circumstances in this scenario. I would just advocate to continue to support the status quo for DC from the first marriage because of the potential emotional impact*

It's very clear what people are asking. Would you still advocate continuing to support the status quo for DC from first marriage even if it meant essentials could not be paid for in the other household, and/or zero luxuries for the younger child?

I find it difficult not to take offence at the term “Broken home”. Just say “separated parents” and there is no such a thing as a”product of the broken home”. Kids of separated parents do as well or as bad as the kids of parents who are still together.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

So fuck the resident DC, if they have to live in poverty that's fine because they are loved. What planet are you on *@DownToTheSeaAgain*???

Planet 'being loved and supported by two parents goes a long way to resolve many things'

I have no idea if we are talking about having to go to the food bank or just not being able to shop at Waitrose. Either way I would reduce support to the non resident children as a last resort. That is all.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro if £50 was all it was for half a child then yes that's what he should pay, but as above, £50 nowhere near covers that.

I also did explain what should be counted in half.

Except that the OP hasn't once said she isn't providing half for her kids she's just said she works part time, has a wealthy partner so presumes that's why - you just assumed that there was no way she could be paying her fair share working part time which is just ridiculous

@DownToTheSeaAgain that view can be said for any child.

How damaging would it be that OPS DC she has with DH can't afford to go horse riding but DSC talk about how daddy pays for them to go horse riding. That's pretty damage by your logic

I say this as someone who pays and maintains a horse for my DSC (and that's bloody expensive) She knows however that it's privilege and that if costs needed to be cut, it wouldn't just be her who would be effected, it would be all children. As she is part of the "children" of the house.

However I would say that I wouldn't wish any child of mine would equate money to love and if so would be stamping that out sharpish. Could you imagine how that mentality would play out as teenagers.
It's not like it's a joint hobby with OPs DH that would impact quality time.

Op I can tell you have had a roasting. Costs are going up and cuts will be have to be done across there belt. You aren't doing this at the ex wife, your doing it to make sure important things are kept on (heating, lights) opposed to hobbies and a dammed expensive one at that.

Good luck

[quote Lou98]@Getyourarseofffthequattro if £50 was all it was for half a child then yes that's what he should pay, but as above, £50 nowhere near covers that.

I also did explain what should be counted in half.

Except that the OP hasn't once said she isn't providing half for her kids she's just said she works part time, has a wealthy partner so presumes that's why - you just assumed that there was no way she could be paying her fair share working part time which is just ridiculous [/quote]
You didn't really. For instance what if the ex has the heating on 24/7 and demands half, but the dad only has his on 2 hours a day. What if she shops at Waitrose and demands half? Dad shops value Asda range. What if she picks most expensive clothes and demands half? They shop at Primark. How do you decide what is half?

It's not ridiculous at all, it's logical.

@DownToTheSeaAgain but they presumably are loved. Money does not equal love. If you think it does I actually feel incredibly sad for you.

You don't seem to give two shits about the resident DC! Doesn't matter if they're financially "loved" clearly.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

So fuck the resident DC, if they have to live in poverty that's fine because they are loved. What planet are you on *@DownToTheSeaAgain*???

Not only that, but it almost makes a case for always only providing minimum maintenance because if god forbid the NRP ever has to cut back on finances, it'll mean he loves his first kids less

Why not stick to the minimum maintenance then and provide these extra golden love affirming extracurriculars on his time with the kiddos so they know he loves them oh so much?

@TheBigDilemma

I find it difficult not to take offence at the term “Broken home”. Just say “separated parents” and there is no such a thing as a”product of the broken home”. Kids of separated parents do as well or as bad as the kids of parents who are still together.

www.separateddads.co.uk/psychological-effect-separation-children.html

I don’t think you are wrong at all op. He’s still paying it, he’s just cutting back, same as he is at home.

I wonder what the psychological impact is on second children who essentially end up watching from the sidelines as the first family get money thrown at them and horse riding lessons etc.

That would be a far more interesting read I feel.

Did you receive any taxpayer benefits?

Don't worry, it was before your time and in another country; God forbid that a poor English child should have the benefit of an activity they enjoy.

*Planet 'being loved and supported by two parents goes a long way to resolve many things'

I have no idea if we are talking about having to go to the food bank or just not being able to shop at Waitrose. Either way I would reduce support to the non resident children as a last resort. That is all.*

So are we to take from this, since for some reason you seem incapable of actually answering the question, that you ARE saying luxuries for NRC should be prioritised even if the other household cannot afford to buy basics such as food?

[quote Getyourarseofffthequattro]@DownToTheSeaAgain but they presumably are loved. Money does not equal love. If you think it does I actually feel incredibly sad for you.

You don't seem to give two shits about the resident DC! Doesn't matter if they're financially "loved" clearly.[/quote]
Low and behold the usual cry of what about the DSC but resident children can eat beans and miss out because they have parents that are together so obviously that means those parents have a magic money tree.

@Sideorderofchips

No it's not okay to. If your costs are going up so is theirs

Rational 🙄

It’s fine as long as you are fairly distributing the wealth between both households. And over the legal requirement, obvs.

I’d get some advice for likely costs, and ideally make it a conversation between the two households

@DownToTheSeaAgain of course it does ,so much so there have been threads about it on here in the past .

Here's the thing... kids in general don't really see or have a massive awareness about maintenance money and what it covers. I doubt OP's SC know what dad pays for,what mum pays for, the stuff or activities are just there. I doubt she tells them that daddy pays for riding lessons, but ofc she will if they do stop.

However, they will be very aware that (in their eyes) dad can't even be bothered to buy them the nice shampoo, and then he cancelled the telly package so they can't watch their shows anymore, and then he buys them primark clothes which they'd be mortified to be seen in. They might be aware that finances are difficult at the moment, but that is irrelevant. The focus will be everything that they're missing out on at dad's house,but it was there before. They won't necessarily be aware or acknowledge standards dropping for their father either. After all he's not a growing child,so he might still wear his branded stuff from years ago, still use the same (cheap) shampoo that they have no idea what it costs and so on.

Do you seriously not see the potential for emotional damage there if that's your primary concern? The same rules still apply, even more so as it's time with dad and that's what they'll associate all the losses with.

I actually don’t think the fact she has no mortgage etc… is relevant.

You need to go back to basics there.
Your DP is paying CM and over.
This was a really nice thought because, as you say, CM isn’t enough to raise a child on.
There are many reasons why you might see CM going down. Your DP having another child, changing job with a lower wage etc…. That would reduce the official CM.
I think that struggling to pay for it, because inflation etc…, is only fair.
However, I suspect this will be a bitter pill for the ex.

So two questions for me

• by how much is he planning to reduce what he pays? Is he talking about reducing it by half or by £20?
• what will the effect be likely? Aka is his ex going to make contact even more difficult because of that?

Why not stick to the minimum maintenance then and provide these extra golden love affirming extracurriculars on his time with the kiddos so they know he loves them oh so much?

Then they are called shit dads,Disney dads, the extra curriculars suddenly are irrelevant and they're only doing to make mum feel and look bad,you can't buy love and the kids will wise up to it eventually and refuse any money or contact.

@ldontWanna

Why not stick to the minimum maintenance then and provide these extra golden love affirming extracurriculars on his time with the kiddos so they know he loves them oh so much?

Then they are called shit dads,Disney dads, the extra curriculars suddenly are irrelevant and they're only doing to make mum feel and look bad,you can't buy love and the kids will wise up to it eventually and refuse any money or contact.

I don't think it's "disney" to provide the legal recommended amount plus extras.

If that's Disney wtf should they be doing?

I have no idea if we are talking about having to go to the food bank or just not being able to shop at Waitrose. Either way I would reduce support to the non resident children as a last resort. That is all. so you seriously think if it came to use choosing between going to a food bank and paying over the government mandated maintenance to someone who is financially very stable we should go to the food bank?

Of course I don't think that SecondMarriageDC should starve while FirstMarriageSC eat Caviar. I just think that decreasing support for activities paid for by maintenance should be a last resort. That my view. Doesn't make me evil or stupid or anything else. It's my opinion.

We don't know so many aspects of the OP scenario that it's impossible to say definitively if it is the right thing or not.

I know from experience that having limited access to a DP for whatever reason is very upsetting for children so I would be careful in this scenario.