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!

There is no practical solution really.

What we see happen time and time again on this board is that the younger child’s mother takes responsibility for having to provide disproportionately for her child (and even the other children because she’s paying half, or more, of the expenses for a house with more rooms than she needs and so on).

But somehow the older children’s mother is a poor victim for having responsibility to provide financially for her children too. And a solution that shares the care more equitably is unacceptable because it ‘doesn’t work for her’.

Ultimately, when you separate one of the things you’re doing is agreeing that you have to provide financially for your own life. CM can go some way (or beyond - in cases where someone is receiving nearly £1k a month to cover having the children 20% more time than the NRP, which does happen) to helping with the differential costs. But you both have to house the children (usually a fixed cost regardless of contact pattern). And provide for them when they’re with you. Unless a father really does not see his children, CM is a long way from the only financial contribution he’s making towards his children.

So both parents need to take some responsibility. The divorce settlement may attempt to address issues related to reduced earning potentials etc. Bu

"But somehow the older children’s mother is a poor victim for having responsibility to provide financially for her children too" -where teh hell has anyone said that.

Likewise the mother of the younger children needs to have a discussion with her partner if she feels he is ripping her off by expecting her to contribute to a 3 bed house versus a 2 bed house etc- that has nothing to do with the RP. It is how they sort out their finances and has nothing to do with an EX .

Sudo - you obviosuly see the SM as the victim that her new DP has to spend any monies on his older children. Thankfully not all SMs have the same views as you

So in summary:

An RP who wants their ex-DP to bear 50% of the financial responsibility for their joint child or even not reduce the 12% CMS for new kids are ''seeking to control their ex-DP''. The RP should bear whatever % of the joint child's cost is deemed appropriate and / or necessary or she is failing her responsibilities towards her biological children. It's totally fine for the RP to bear all the cost if that works best for the NRP father.

Some step mums feel it's unreasonable they are expected contribute more than 50% of the cost towards their household/joint children especially if that household cost is higher than she would need to accommodate her own biological children and / or she has to fund costs linked to children who are not hers. The mother of those children should ''step up'' and support her kids (even if that means this mother pays well over 50% of the cost).

In other words both Mum's want the same thing, the father to bear 50% of the financial responsibility... Is it me or could both women's issues be solved if men took financial responsibility for their own choices?

Sudo - you obviosuly see the SM as the victim that her new DP has to spend any monies on his older children. Thankfully not all SMs have the same views as you

No. I don’t. i have a problem the expectation that she should have to subsidise this by taking on a greater proportion of the costs in her household, because the money going to the the SC’s other household must be rung fenced forevermore. Not with the fact that her husband will, necessarily, have financial responsibilities for all his children.

My DS has a stepmother. If she has a baby with my ex, of course the maintenance he pays for our DS should decrease. She shouldn’t have to contribute more to their household so that he can keep paying me the same amount of money. DS massively benefits from her in his life. And her financial contributions mean that my ex’s income after maintenance goes further for providing for DS during his contact with his dad. That’s a very positive thing.

One of the things I think is ridiculous is the calculation of ‘50% of the cost of the children’ is viewed in such a way that the cost to the RP is taken as the same as the costs of the children. But it’s not.

The NRP still has to house them. That’s generally a more or less fixed cost regardless whether he has them 2/14 nights or 50% of the time. The RP isn’t comparatively disadvantaged there. Indeed, because of the way divorce settlements are often agreed, she may be somewhat advantaged in that she got a greater share of the assets weighted more heavily towards housing her.

Both parents also bear the costs of the children during contact. The RP may be screwed over there if she’s the one providing the clothes and shoes snd paying for haircuts etc. But, she may not be. It depends on how they choose to work that out (and/or what each parent is willing to provide - some men are arseholes who will not buy their children clothes or shoes).

If CM is about more fairly spreading the costs of the children, then it’s about the difference in the costs for the two parents. It should start from the assumption that they both already have child related costs because they’re each funding a household for the children. In which case, 12 or 16% of income doesn’t look quite a stingy as people seem to want to pretend it is. Far more of his income is going towards his children than that. It’s just that 12/16% of it is also going to the RP’s household so that the costs are more evenly shared.

This is the problem. There is no magic formula.

An NRP (assume the man) pays so much maintenance and then has to rehouse, see his kids and provide for them in his new home. Whether or not that is with a new partner. The reality is a lot of men will struggle to do this as a separation or divorce leaves them struggling.

We have a system that assumes an NRP has the kids once a week and should pay CM accordingly. It then can often become a game trying to get more contact time as it can often come down to maintenance.

A system which rewards an approach which involves shared parenting (doesn't have to be 50/50) and Co operation would be far more preferable than what we currently have. But it would take a massive overhaul and rethink and there's too much investment in the status quo unfortunately.

The RP may be screwed over there if she’s the one providing the clothes and shoes snd paying for haircuts etc. But, she may not be. It depends on how they choose to work that out

my ex chose to not pay one penny towards his children in either maintenance or school uniform, haircuts, shoes, school dinners, trips or anything else. He never even takes them on holiday. I didn’t get any choice in that. The children didn’t either.

Sudo - you obviosuly see the SM as the victim that her new DP has to spend any monies on his older children. Thankfully not all SMs have the same views as you

No. I don’t. i have a problem the expectation that she should have to subsidise this by taking on a greater proportion of the costs in her household, because the money going to the the SC’s other household must be rung fenced forevermore. Not with the fact that her husband will, necessarily, have financial responsibilities for all his children.
......................................

Its the ring fencing that's the issue, IMO - in a 'together family' finances and fortunes fluctuate, but this obsession with ring fencing maintenance is really unhelpful. Its unrealistic.

The problem is that you get both extremes filling the forum here. The badly treated Mums and the badly treated SMs. A Mum whose children have been effectively abandoned for a 2nd family will have zero sympathy for second wives, regardless. (Unsurprisingly!). A 2nd wife will have zero sympathy for Mum if Mum got all the assets from the first marriage and is now doing pay per view with her children. (Because DH will be spending all his money on court cases and maintenance and have zero head space for his new family).

The guilty parties don't make an appearance here. Only those forced to deal with their utter unreasonableness. Piling on to those already suffering only increases the sum total of suffering all round.

Hi OP. Sorry not read the whole thread. But yes go through CMS now. They can also look at if he should get a discount for travel costs if he does both journeys.

Great discussion. I wanted to respond to this ^

If you notice the posters from the 'both extremes' on the forum that's because they're forthright, 'loud', repetitive. They're also not always step-parents or parents of children with step-parents or parents at all.

Most of us in the trenches here fall in the middle between those two extremes because we're grown ups. We can understand where the SM or DSC's Mum in our lives come from even if we don't agree. I don't view my DC's SM or my DSD's Mum in rigid, cartoony ways and neither do the women I know IRL in similar positions .

Why would a mother whose children have been effectively abandoned for a 2nd family have zero sympathy for second wives? If the second wife is being awful to the mother's children then sure but I don't think that's what you're saying. My eldest child has definitely played second fiddle to his father's second family but I blame his father for that. I think most women these days are wise enough not to fall into the patriarchal trap of blaming the woman their male partner is with or was with!

I don't know any '2nd wives' who "would have zero sympathy for Mum if Mum got all the assets from the first marriage and is now doing pay per view with her children". If the system says she's entitled to those assets or our partner willingly gave it to her, that's not something we can change so it would be pointless seething resentment. Just because Mum's got assets doesn't mean she doesn't have problems. To use terms like 'pay for view' reduces it to something a bit sneering.

Personally I believe CM ideally shouldn't be reduced if the father has more children. Even though that would apply to me. The eldest child's there first, they should be something fathers have to take into account. Both fathers and mothers really have to think about whether they can financially afford another child. Second families mean people are having more children than they would if they stayed with one partner which is probably not great for the planet (and I'm totally guilty of this myself).

Sorry for the essay!

younger child’s mother takes responsibility for having to provide disproportionately for her child (and even the other children because she’s paying half, or more, of the expenses for a house with more rooms than she needs and so on). - sudo then that is the new families responsibiliy to ensure the provision is equitable. The SM and her DP need to figure that out - not the responsibiity of the RP.

But in many cases the DP is also providing disproportionately for their step children aswell - so probably evens itself out

Of course your partner can go through official channels and pay the bare legal minimum.

How much can he afford, taking into account the new baby and any changes in his income over the past four years? Looking at your budget, what will you be cutting for your stepchild? Hobbies etc. What will your partner’s ex need to cut?

@FabbyO great poat

We shouldn't have to go CM as mother's to force father's to pay for their children from previous partners. These men should just do it and woman sitting back know that man has a child he doesn't pay for disgusting.
My ex pays CM which the amount could be a pay of trainers or school trousers say. It doesn't stretch far.
When CM use to send letters say it's NIL payments knew he gave up work or lied so he didn't need to pay. Now he paying again but how long my DS in last year if he goes on to college he still has to pay which I will encourage my DS to do.
I don't care if he has other children now. Then again as my DS knows unfortunately what the fool is like he don't see him. They have no relationship but he still needs to pay regardless.
Just makes me sick CM has to tell a man how much to pay.

It would be interesting to know what posters think CM should be. How much the non resident parent should pay as say a percentage of income.

I'm not a step Dad but am a separated Dad that pays CM via the CMS (exs choice).

I pay cm on 21% of net income. Mortgage is about 15% of net pay. I'm left with about 27% of net pay when all bills, food shopping, mortgage etc is considered. If I need to get new clothes etc for kids when they are at mine it comes from that 27%.

It's not perfect but it seems reasonable to me in the sense of supporting the kids from the old relationship but also being able to have a quality of life. My only real luxury month on month is cable TV. Really don't understand this idea of cm as the 'bare minimum'.

Completely agree with you. Bare minimum 🙄
But also provide a second safe and clean house for the children to stay at, clothes and food on top of this "bare minimum"