CMS question & new baby

[Rosebella215]

Hi all,
This may go down like a lead balloon, as all CMS questions seem to, but we are really after some helpful advice please.
My partner & I had lived together for 3 years and are expecting this October :) He has a DSD (8) who he pays his ex child maintenance for. This was never done officially through CMS, at the beginning of their split they sat down using the CMS calculator, worked out the rough number of nights he would be having DSD, with his salary etc and the payment roughly came to £435 (which he rounded up to £450), and he has been paying this for 4 years now (no issues).
Since we knew we were expecting, he would like to have this taken into account with CMS as it will help massively with costs etc. Based on the previous figures of how much he has DSD, this puts the amount at around £380 a month (he did actually add up an average figure of how much we have DSD over the past 4 years and it does technically trickle into the next bracket, which again would reduce payments further, but we aren't going to rock the boat too much with this, as would mean payments would be around £150 less).
He approached this with his ex, and shared the CMS calculation of £380, and she has kicked off threatening with legal action.
What are the next steps with this please? Can the CMS be reduced? Does my partner go through the official CMS route now?
Thank you!

Could you be any more judgemental?

Apart from anything else, people often change quite radically after you have children with them. So you can’t actually know. Life doesn’t come with a crystal ball.

Do you go on to threads where people’s husband has left them for the OW and say that thinking very carefully about who you marry isn’t really a thing on MN?

@Pinkyxx so is it OK for a RP to use child maintenance received from ex to budget for new children with a new partner.

Life doesn’t come with a crystal ball.

Unless you're a step mum. Then you know what you're getting into.

@Pinkyxx didn't finish my prior post. I note your comment about economising

So an RP can utilise cm in any way they see fit but a NRP paying less cm isn't ok.

So if a RP chooses more children then children of the first relationship can have less money spent on them but if an NRP lowers the cm that's wrong.

You don't think that's hypocritical?

@Talon01 again, I've made no reference to how an RP would spend any CM. I did not say it was ''OK'' for an RP to use the CMS to fund additional children they choose to have with a new partner nor did I say it 'OK' for the RP to use the funds anyway they see fit.

So if a RP chooses more children then children of the first relationship can have less money spent on them but if an NRP lowers the cm that's wrong.
You don't think that's hypocritical?

Very good point

In separated families the reality is that the other parent is free to make financial decisions that have a detrimental impact on the shared child. This goes both ways yet it seems that NRPs are judged more harshly for it.

Both parents are free to go on to have as many children as they like it this means less funds available for older children. It's life.

@Pinkyxx if an RP looks at the household budget which includes maintenance and decides that they can afford another child then the NRP of the first child is indirectly supplementing that choice. It is just as fair or unfair as CMS taking into account children that the NRP goes on to have.

Same goes if the RP decides to work PT or not work on the basis that her budget works fine with the CM she receives.

She’s making a choice that reduces the money available to provide for her children.

If the NRP does the same, he’s not fulfilling his responsibilities. Even if he’s be happy to take on primary care responsibilities for the children due to his increased availability.

Either parents can - and will - make
choices that impact on the resources available to provide for their children. If you’re separated, you need to recognise that CM may go up or down and that’s just how life is. You no longer get any input into your ex’s life and finances planning.

I wish they'd print this out and hand it to people when they get divorced. DH's ex uses the maintenance as an excuse to work PT hours. She admits this. IMO she is failing her kids by not providing for them and instead relying on a man who works contract by contract due to nature of his work and then having a go at him when the next contract doesn't appear.

@loudlylikealion sure, she could increase her hours to make more money but she should be able to rely ( not solely) on maintenance because the NRP has a duty to provide for his children. In your example the mother has every right to be irritated if maintenance is sporadic or not forthcoming if the father is 'between contracts'. He still needs to provide for his children.

Only if he has an income. between contracts, he does not.

If she’s complaining that he’s not organising his work to he is providing adequately for his children, then he could equally say the same about her.

Exactly. If she is allowed to complain when DH has no income why isn't DH allowed to complain that she has deliberately deprived herself of more hours and in her own words this is because she doesn't need to as she gets maintenance. DH could decide he doesn't need to work as much as she gets paid..

Well even NRPs on benefits pay a small amount of maintenance so he does need to pay towards his children.

I agreed on your second point?

Plus I would like to add this was his work situation when they decided to have the kids so it's not like he's had a massive career change or anything.

He’s not on benefits though. He just has an inconsistent income. So sometimes she gets lots of maintenance. Sometimes she gets less. If he’s not got work for an extended period, she’ll get none.

If he decided to quit work entirely and not claim benefits, she’d get nothing.

How is she failing her children? She and the childrens father are providing enough to raise the children

If the NRP chooses to go part time, then fine but why does the RP then have to find the extra monies and adjust their lifestyle, child care etc to accommodate the choices of the NRP. He wants them more, so he pays less may not be what either the children want or works for the other parent.

Either way - the NRP can reduce monies, reduce income/go PT, ( excludes redundancy as not an active choice usually)up work altogether and the RP will have to accept the reduced monies, change in child care that may be offered and re arrange their lives to acommodate the NRP..

For many RPS ( usually women) this is about control of their on going lives after a divorce and in many cases this is an extension of the behaviours that led to the split in the first place. Likewise the often suggested request for receipts of all things spent on the children so the NRP can keep a check on what the monies are spent on.

Lets be honest a significant number of SMs ( not all) but many who post on this forum, see the maintenance payments as monies being taken from the new family and deeply resent it. 12% for one child or 16% for 2 should not put the new family in such financial destitution, when 84% of the income is still available to the new family.
Likewise a signficant number of NRPS, usually fathers resent giving any monies to the EX - forgetting this is about their children.
A significant number of RPs do take the piss aswell.

Either way if you provided the sperm or the egg, then you are responsible for adequately providing financially, emotionally and materially for said resulting offspring be that by a private arrangement or by the CMS standards.

As a recipient of CMS - I have seen no rise in 10 yrs despite numerous pay rises. As a now SM - i stay out of all things to do with CMS - that is between by DP and his EX - nothing to do with me.

Either way if you provided the sperm or the egg, then you are responsible for adequately providing financially, emotionally and materially for said resulting offspring be that by a private arrangement or by the CMS standards.

Quite. The apologists on this thread for men who use spurious reasons to pay as little as possible/ no maintenance at all are really quite depressing.

Either way if you provided the sperm or the egg, then you are responsible for adequately providing financially, emotionally and materially for said resulting offspring be that by a private arrangement or by the CMS standards. that's a bit insulting frankly. There's loads of kids out there with parents who didn't provide the sperm or the egg.

Lets be honest a significant number of SMs ( not all) but many who post on this forum, see the maintenance payments as monies being taken from the new family and deeply resent it. 12% for one child or 16% for 2 should not put the new family in such financial destitution, when 84% of the income is still available to the new family.

TBF, many SM on this forum are providing the roof over the heads of the DSC EOW or 50/50. I've also read statements that they pay pretty much all of the bills except food too. So if they raise queries about CM that is well over the legal requirement, it may be because they feel they are paying for the first family rather than their DP.

@OneForTheRoadThen Sure, the posters husband could get a job with more consistent hours but he should be able to rely (not soley) on the RP maximizing her earning potential because the RP has a duty to provide for her children.

It goes both ways.

@Lilithslove that's exactly what I said?

DH could do this yes, but it would likely pay A LOT less. Which she would moan about too.

He wants them more, so he pays less may not be what either the children want or works for the other parent.

We see all the time on here that CMS is the bare minimum that doesn't come anywhere close to the costs of raising a child, yet if an NRP wants to have their child more it's only to save money? How does that work?

(We're not talking about NRPs who do 50/50 on paper but leave all the school uniforms, trips etc to the RP. That's not 50/50).

How is she failing her children? She and the childrens father are providing enough to raise the children

She’s not providing enough for them financially, is she? Why is it just his job?

I receive maintenance. But I recognise that I’m also responsible for providing for my children financially. At no point in my entire adult life, have I ever been financially dependent on a partner. There’s absolutely no way I’m making myself dependent on an ex-partner whose decisions I cannot even influence by going PT or giving up work because he earns enough that 12% of his take home is fine.

as @SpaceshiptoMars says, many SMs actually keep their husband’s afloat. His contribution to the household is already curtailed by CM (and often having given up most of the marital assets in his divorce). She’s providing 100% of her income to her household (and her assets). He’s providing 86% of his.

Frankly expecting a woman who is probably working FT so your ex can house your children in his contact time to feel sorry for you that your CM is reduced because you and your husband have decided to have a baby is ridiculous. He is allowed to do what he likes and, of course, having more children to financially support will reduce the money he has to support the ones from a previous relationship (they’re not special ‘existing children’ because, at the point if the CMS reduction all his children exist!).

The whatever percent that’s left of his income after CM is being used to fund his household. 100% of the the SM’s income will be doing the same.

It’s not apologising for men for thinking it’s a ridiculous double standard for some RPs to think it’s fine for them to work and earn less but not for their exes to do the same.

@SudocremOnEverything I guess the main difference is that if an NRP reduces the amount they spend on their older child then the RP has to deal with the logistics of factoring that into their budget. Is it fair? Maybe not. Is it fair that the NRP gets to spend less time with their child than the RP? Maybe not.

I have yet to see anyone suggest a practical, real life workable solution to address the fact that regardless of which parent decided what, if money is tight then why should only the younger child bear the full brunt of their parent's need to spread resources between the two siblings? Both children are equally innocent in this situation.