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!

Of course the mom is angry. It might be legal to reduce maintenance because he chose to have another child, but that doesn’t mean it’s ok morally.

Since maintenance is set at such a low rate to begin with, it should be a fixed bill. That the law doesn’t reflect that doesn’t mean It isn’t true. He has the choice to do better.

I have a whole host of insurances in place to try and ensure something happening to me will have minimal impact on my children, their home and their activities. Why is the same not expected of my ex?

Well an obvious answer to this is that not everyone has this much money. Many people have children when they are not this financially secure - where changes of circumstances would be fairly likely to impact on their family. That remains the same after separation.

Do you want to explain how it's a "low rate" considering its different for every individual?

The "low rate" my DH pays is a massive amount more than we spend on our joint child!

To the poster who said DMs shouldn't rely on maintenance not about OPs husband.

But she's not saying it's okay, she's saying it's reality. You cannot realistically rely on anyone but yourself to fund your children as a resident parent.

For me, for example, I'm pretty assured should we split that dh would pay for his child (because I've seen him do that for his other child, for the entire time I've known him) but I STILL wouldn't take it into calculation for essentials ie being able to pay my mortgage or childcare fees because although he may not turn into a giant arsehole if we split, he might become disabled, die, be made redundant or whatever else.

You can expect them to make the CMS minimum mandated amount which in some cases might as well be nothing. Nothing more.

Morally should the RP be obliged to work full time hours? No then why should the NRP have any obligation above theirs?

Yup exactly. Always have a back up plan
And life insurance if possible.

NRP also needs a plan incase they become RP if RP legs it or dies

❤

Indeed! I could really get annoyed about what dss mum spends her maintenance on (not her child!) But it is what it is. Dh cannot control her shit choices and she cannot control whether he has more children!

Yep!

I've already told DH his plan better not be "loosebutton" will pay for it

It stands to reason that if you are no longer at the table discussing the conception of further children or career changes or dropping hours due to health problems or whatever, then you are also not able to influence how much money is going to be available and should therefore try to avoid building a zero sum budget around an amount which might change drastically next month without you ever having been part of the decision making process.
That's not the same as saying the NRP has no financial obligations to the child. It's just advising not to build your house on sand.

Ha! It did happen to us. Dss lived with us for a couple of years when his excellent mummy kicked him out. Literally just turned up at our house with his stuff, no warning. It was actually easier, to be fair. I very much adopted the parent role which previously I hadn't but actually it worked for him. Financially, we were better off because his mother wasn't demanding cash every second day as she usually did. However he moved back in with her for various (shitty, financial and exploitative) reasons and we are back to paying £££ for her to take herself off on holiday whilst DSS practically lives with his girlfriend and her parents! But it is what it is. DH is doing the right thing legally albeit morally I think a bit ambiguous but there you go. You can't win them all!

I would ensure all payments are via cms if she is being difficult. Then payments will be the right amount and no one can argue. If you have them for extra nights I would also declare this.

My husband has two children, when we had our own his payments only went down by £16. So I would double check your calculations are accurate.

This is true, but responsible couples don't decide to have another child unless they can afford to provide adequately for the one they already have as well as the new child. This joint decision-making process doesn't generally happen between divorced parents, and a resident parent can suddenly be told that they can no longer provide adequately for their child, because the NRP is prioritising having children with a new partner.

This is true, but responsible couples don't decide to have another child unless they can afford to provide adequately for the one they already have as well as the new child. This joint decision-making process doesn't generally happen between divorced parents, and a resident parent can suddenly be told that they can no longer provide adequately for their child, because the NRP is prioritising having children with a new partner.

Many responsible couples DO choose to have more children when it will mean some degree of sacrifices for the older one. The idea that lowering maintenance/the amount of money spent on one child means you can't "adequately provide" for them is a conclusion that is being jumped to, and it's also pretty subjective as many openly admit they view any degree of change to the accustomed lifestyle of the older child as evidence that they aren't being adequately provided for.

Yes, of course parents decide to have another child and alter their lifestyle a bit, sacrifice luxuries etc - but that isn't the scenario I was responding to. Another poster said it was difficult to offer an opinion without knowing exactly what the reduction would mean for the resident parent and child - whether it was cutting back on ballet lessons etc, or having to choose between heating and eating. It's quite possible for a resident parent to be plunged into the latter situation without much prior warning, because divorced couples don't generally collaborate as sensibly as married ones, and if a man chooses to prioritise a new family at the expense of his existing child, there isn't anything the resident parent can do about it.

Does it really cost the mum £760 a month to feed the child 5 nights a week? I doubt it.

My thoughts exactly. I know must also cover clothes and the provision of a home but I’m surprised anyone would think this amount was the ‘bare minimum’.

If he's still paying CMS he is providing adequately, no?