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".

Going back to the will comment someone made.. is it usual for NRP to not make provision in their will for all of their children, and only for their wife and the children they live with? I always thought something would be put in place for all of the children, to ensure they are all looked after. I don't know what though..

what will the effect be likely? Aka is his ex going to make contact even more difficult because of that? we shall find out tonight no doubt..

@DownToTheSeaAgain

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.

Limited access is unrelated to maintenance. Hth.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro well obviously Waitrose and horse riding lessons (which I said in my original post should be stopped) are luxuries. If they want to go down the route of pound for pound then they can work out how much 14 x breakfast, lunch, dinner would cost cheaply and take away the two days he has and the two days of hers so then divide the other 3 between them but generally most people go for a rough estimate - which requires understanding on both sides.

It absolutely is ridiculous to assume that she doesn't pay half because she works part time (which is what I said was ridiculous not the working out half the costs 😉)

@TheNameOfTheRoses

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?

I mean it is,if there's other children in the house which there is. One house shouldn't be subsidising another house to the cost the other house can't survive or struggles badly. However if both houses are at risk/struggling the balance needs to be adjusted so they both survive.

Children will see the imbalance in the houses both DC and DSC and draw their own conclusions.

Forgot to add the answer to your initial question. Absolutely I think if your DH needs to cut back, then that's what he'll have to do. We're all going through a rough point at the moment, that doesn't skip him because he's a NRP!

@DownToTheSeaAgain

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.

Of course they should be careful, everyone thinks they should be careful and not just do it for fun.

But most people are saying if they're on the bread line otherwise then it is appropriate to cut back on lavish luxuries for DSC, only you seem to disagree with that, implying you think there should be no limit to the poverty they should be plunged into so nothing has to change for DSC.

@familyissues12345

Going back to the will comment someone made.. is it usual for NRP to not make provision in their will for all of their children, and only for their wife and the children they live with? I always thought something would be put in place for all of the children, to ensure they are all looked after. I don't know what though..

The solicitor advised us that is perfectly fine for it all to go to me until I remarry/die then whatever is left of his estate is split between his children. He has made provision for the children in the form of life insurance, this was also advised.

[quote Lou98]@Getyourarseofffthequattro well obviously Waitrose and horse riding lessons (which I said in my original post should be stopped) are luxuries. If they want to go down the route of pound for pound then they can work out how much 14 x breakfast, lunch, dinner would cost cheaply and take away the two days he has and the two days of hers so then divide the other 3 between them but generally most people go for a rough estimate - which requires understanding on both sides.

It absolutely is ridiculous to assume that she doesn't pay half because she works part time (which is what I said was ridiculous not the working out half the costs 😉) [/quote]
You're assuming they're going to agree on a figure. This is wholly unrealistic. So how do you agree half? You don't. That's why the CMS exists.

I know, I can read and that's what I replied to

@DownToTheSeaAgain

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.

But that's what you are saying as resident children can't afford to be taken horse riding but SC can and this shouldn't be adjusted.

If your coming from a place of be fair to al children surely you see how that thought process is slightly flawed.

If my ex as struggling I would totally be ok with him reducing the maintenance for our DD. Why would I want him to sink ? On principle?

Crackers

@Getyourarseofffthequattro hence why I said that requires understanding on both sides 🙄

I agree about the CMS - as I said in my original post. I already said OPs Husband should go down to the required amount (as long as it is a fair share).

But I do think it's ridiculous assuming because the ex is part time she can't possibly be paying half and he must be paying more - especially when the OP has multiple times said she is financially very stable

@idontwanna the thing is if the dcs WERE living with the OP and their dad, they might experience all that just because as a family, they will be struggling more with money. Like everyone else.

So yes they would be seeing the primary clothes and the cheaper shampoo and but that should be explained to them just like it would if they were living with their dad’s.

I think the issue here is that it’s not possible for the DP to shield his dcs from the fact that things are harder financially. They will feel it whether they will live him or their mum. Whether the dad reduces stuff at his home or the CM.
It is an overall reduction of the standard of living that we will all feel.

Now I know some posters say they will cut in everything else for themselves before cutting down on stuff for theirs dcs. I get that. I’m sure posters can also get that not everyone is able to do that because they don’t have that sort if leeway and the parents already spend very little on themselves anyway.

[quote Lou98]@Getyourarseofffthequattro hence why I said that requires understanding on both sides 🙄

I agree about the CMS - as I said in my original post. I already said OPs Husband should go down to the required amount (as long as it is a fair share).

But I do think it's ridiculous assuming because the ex is part time she can't possibly be paying half and he must be paying more - especially when the OP has multiple times said she is financially very stable [/quote]
Ah forget it. You can be financially stable and not actually contributing very much to your children, ie if your rich bf does it for you. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that the op and husband shouldn't suffer whilst they pay her money she doesn't need on some kind of bizarre principle.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro a lot of posters on here think that though. To them paying just what CMS requires is unacceptable and all that counts. Activities,fun stuff,clothes,school trips etc being paid for suddenly is irrelevant and if he was a decent dad he would pay ALL the money as maintenance, maybe with some extra on top too. The main reason given is that mum doesn't "see" that money if it goes straight to the club/school/child.

[quote ldontWanna]@Getyourarseofffthequattro a lot of posters on here think that though. To them paying just what CMS requires is unacceptable and all that counts. Activities,fun stuff,clothes,school trips etc being paid for suddenly is irrelevant and if he was a decent dad he would pay ALL the money as maintenance, maybe with some extra on top too. The main reason given is that mum doesn't "see" that money if it goes straight to the club/school/child.[/quote]
See that is bizarre to me. A normal mother would just be pleased her kids were benefitting. I would be anyway!

Sorry, but you do come over as the driving force behind this rather than your DH. I would have thought how much maintenance is paid is between him and his ex-wife. Let's imagine he based his original amount on half the original household costs of raising his children (includes housing, heating, water rates, council tax, insurance, bills etc as well as clothing food, trips, activities haircuts, presents, etc). Now his ex has had an inheritance, which is essentially a contribution from her (deceased) family towards her housing and helps her with half of those costs. If that enables her not to work many hours outside the home, that is up to her.

It seems unreasonable of you to try and take advantage of her inheritance by encouraging your DH to cut maintenance.

You may also be using horse-riding as a red herring here. Once maintenance has been agreed between the parents, as long as the basic needs of the DC are cared for, it doesn't matter if she spends it on horse-riding, x-box credits, swimming, petrol driving them to activities or reeds for playing the oboe. It is up to her and her children. Everyone has their own priorities. 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.

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?

@Getyourarseofffthequattro the OP hasn't said she isn't though - so you were judging her purely on "she can't possibly be" without knowing.
I already said he should reduce if not his fair sure

[quote TheNameOfTheRoses]@idontwanna the thing is if the dcs WERE living with the OP and their dad, they might experience all that just because as a family, they will be struggling more with money. Like everyone else.

So yes they would be seeing the primary clothes and the cheaper shampoo and but that should be explained to them just like it would if they were living with their dad’s.

I think the issue here is that it’s not possible for the DP to shield his dcs from the fact that things are harder financially. They will feel it whether they will live him or their mum. Whether the dad reduces stuff at his home or the CM.
It is an overall reduction of the standard of living that we will all feel.

Now I know some posters say they will cut in everything else for themselves before cutting down on stuff for theirs dcs. I get that. I’m sure posters can also get that not everyone is able to do that because they don’t have that sort if leeway and the parents already spend very little on themselves anyway.[/quote]
I'm replying to a poster that insists that cutting maintenance could cause emotional damage , but doesn't understand or see how that would apply to the fact that they are suffering cuts at dad's house. So I explained it and it's based on real life scenarios and feelings. No idea if she sees the possibility now.

As an aside I had friends that as teenagers were insistent that their parents had money,they just didn't want to give them more. They didn't,dad was on disability,mum had a minimum wage job, but the kids only focused on what their parents had and what them, themselves didn't. Kids are a tricky bunch.

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, but you do come over as the driving force behind this rather than your DH. I would have thought how much maintenance is paid is between him and his ex-wife. Let's imagine he based his original amount on half the original household costs of raising his children (includes housing, heating, water rates, council tax, insurance, bills etc as well as clothing food, trips, activities haircuts, presents, etc). Now his ex has had an inheritance, which is essentially a contribution from her (deceased) family towards her housing and helps her with half of those costs. If that enables her not to work many hours outside the home, that is up to her.

It seems unreasonable of you to try and take advantage of her inheritance by encouraging your DH to cut maintenance.

You may also be using horse-riding as a red herring here. Once maintenance has been agreed between the parents, as long as the basic needs of the DC are cared for, it doesn't matter if she spends it on horse-riding, x-box credits, swimming, petrol driving them to activities or reeds for playing the oboe. It is up to her and her children. Everyone has their own priorities. 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.

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?

Which part of they(either just dad or as family) can't afford it passed you by?

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, but you do come over as the driving force behind this rather than your DH. I would have thought how much maintenance is paid is between him and his ex-wife. Let's imagine he based his original amount on half the original household costs of raising his children (includes housing, heating, water rates, council tax, insurance, bills etc as well as clothing food, trips, activities haircuts, presents, etc). Now his ex has had an inheritance, which is essentially a contribution from her (deceased) family towards her housing and helps her with half of those costs. If that enables her not to work many hours outside the home, that is up to her.

It seems unreasonable of you to try and take advantage of her inheritance by encouraging your DH to cut maintenance.

You may also be using horse-riding as a red herring here. Once maintenance has been agreed between the parents, as long as the basic needs of the DC are cared for, it doesn't matter if she spends it on horse-riding, x-box credits, swimming, petrol driving them to activities or reeds for playing the oboe. It is up to her and her children. Everyone has their own priorities. 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.

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?

No she doesn't, she literally said they came to the conclusion together.

And given that she's mentioned the children's DM chooses not to work full time and that this wouldn't work for her, it's highly unlikely OP is choosing to not work full time unnecessarily.

Very one sided reading of the thread.

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, but you do come over as the driving force behind this rather than your DH. I would have thought how much maintenance is paid is between him and his ex-wife. Let's imagine he based his original amount on half the original household costs of raising his children (includes housing, heating, water rates, council tax, insurance, bills etc as well as clothing food, trips, activities haircuts, presents, etc). Now his ex has had an inheritance, which is essentially a contribution from her (deceased) family towards her housing and helps her with half of those costs. If that enables her not to work many hours outside the home, that is up to her.

It seems unreasonable of you to try and take advantage of her inheritance by encouraging your DH to cut maintenance.

You may also be using horse-riding as a red herring here. Once maintenance has been agreed between the parents, as long as the basic needs of the DC are cared for, it doesn't matter if she spends it on horse-riding, x-box credits, swimming, petrol driving them to activities or reeds for playing the oboe. It is up to her and her children. Everyone has their own priorities. 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.

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?

1. I am not the driving force behind it. It is a joint cost cutting exercise. We have looked at every outgoing and source of income we have.
2. I am the one who posted for advice to work out if it was an OK thing to do in our circumstances or if it was always a massive no.
3. I have not once complained that she has it easy or that her lifestyle is to be judged in anyway. She has lost her parents and I feel nothing but sympathy for that.
4. I am not using horseriding as a red hering. Whatever she does with the money is up to her. I don't care how she uses it. I just care that it is fair for us to reduce it.

@Undertheoldlindentree

Sorry, but you do come over as the driving force behind this rather than your DH. I would have thought how much maintenance is paid is between him and his ex-wife. Let's imagine he based his original amount on half the original household costs of raising his children (includes housing, heating, water rates, council tax, insurance, bills etc as well as clothing food, trips, activities haircuts, presents, etc). Now his ex has had an inheritance, which is essentially a contribution from her (deceased) family towards her housing and helps her with half of those costs. If that enables her not to work many hours outside the home, that is up to her.

It seems unreasonable of you to try and take advantage of her inheritance by encouraging your DH to cut maintenance.

You may also be using horse-riding as a red herring here. Once maintenance has been agreed between the parents, as long as the basic needs of the DC are cared for, it doesn't matter if she spends it on horse-riding, x-box credits, swimming, petrol driving them to activities or reeds for playing the oboe. It is up to her and her children. Everyone has their own priorities. 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.

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?

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

I think you should reduce the payments.

You've obviously made lots of cutbacks elsewhere so why should the payments not be reduced- ESPECIALLY if they are way over the cms guidelines.

I would not pay out over the odds for dsc whilst making my own child/ children go without.

Maybe, but those are the things that jump out at me or seem to be missing as I read through. Everyone has a different perspective and surely the OP is interested in that. If she simply wants affirmation, why post on a discussion forum?

@Undertheoldlindentree

Maybe, but those are the things that jump out at me or seem to be missing as I read through. Everyone has a different perspective and surely the OP is interested in that. If she simply wants affirmation, why post on a discussion forum?

What's your situation? I wonder whether that has any baring on what "jumps out' at you?