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!

@Steptoeandson We have that covered too. But yes there's a whole minefield out there if you aren't savvy

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. no NRP is providing the level CMS deem adequate. Take it up with them if that's the problem. But the RP might have to get a new job if they want to provide the same standard of living. Also the DSC may love having another sibling. You can't put a price on that.

I'm not sure that's entirely the "fault" of the NRP though is it? Its not up to them to fund the child entirely - the other parent should be contributing the same.

Let's remember that the reduction in CMS when you factor in a resident child is a tiny percentage. It doesn't represent the actual cost of a whole extra child at all imo!

Let's remember that the reduction in CMS when you factor in a resident child is a tiny percentage. It doesn't represent the actual cost of a whole extra child at all imo! yes it's not like half the cost of the extra Child

Also the DSC may love having another sibling. You can't put a price on that

easy to say if it’s not you having to find money for new school shoes or an evening meal. Kind of the same shite you get from NRPs who want to see their children but not contribute financially. There’s more to the relationship than money…

Has he increased the amount in 4 yrs at all, in line with any pay rises? It’s £70 a month, is it really worth the aggravation to deduct that amount?

similar to a PP when we had a D.C. and subsequent ones we didn’t reduce the amount as it wasn’t very much. It was increased each year by inflation as that’s what they’d agreed privately.

@Steptoeandson only if you do collect and pay.

You need to get CMS to work out the amount then pay that amount directly to the other parent.

Pay by bank transfer only, give the transaction a title like "CMS [child's name]" and keep all monthly bank statements showing the payment until the child is 19 and leaves secondary education.

That way if the parent disputes the payments you can show that you have paid.

Be aware with CMS when they do their yearly recalculation can do weird things like drop off other children. You need to pay up, complain immediately, and then after the recalculation deduct your over payments.

Life is shit them you die.

Though if you have a sibling - whether full or half - you get on with it is less shit.

CMS have seemed it a sufficient contribution. If people don't like the system they need to take it up with the government.

Exactly the sibling bond can be a great help in life. Parents of lone children sometimes get told they are selfish not to have another child (I think that's a load of rubbish) but if you do follow that logic then OP has in fact done DSC a massive favour and had a sibling for them.

All I'm saying is the joy of a sibling shouldn't be overlooked.

His financial commitment to his dd existed before you conceived therefore reducing payments is immoral imho. Legally things may be different but we all knows cms is a joke compared to the cost of raising a child. Or the answer is to have dsd 50/50

Immoral. Seriously??!

CMS is a percentage of the NRP wage. So not in this case a joke if more than £400 a month with shared care in place, into at least the 2nd bracket as said by OP. This isn't a deadbeat dad he is clearly involved.

I forget - only on Mumsnet is a NRP meant to have no life after a relationship breakdown and be at the beck and call and still only financially support the ex.

So many posts here are absolute jokes.

How can you say it's a joke when it's not one set amount? Yeah £7 a week is a joke £100 a week isn't a joke at all. Do you even understand how CMS works?

@gogohmm would you also think it was immoral if the RP had another child as this would be reducing the time/ money she could spend with her first?

I wonder why it's only NRP who gets judged for having another child.

There’s not much she can do if he elects to go through official channels and start paying the legal bare minimum.

"@gogohmm would you also think it was immoral if the RP had another child as this would be reducing the time/ money she could spend with her first?"

I'm curious and this is a diversion. Apologies. If the RP has more children with a new partner, and they live in the old marital home, what happens to the home when the youngest first family child reaches 18? (Assuming the house wasn't settled on the RP for the divorce settlement).

I'd have thought that in the years/months leading up to the youngest first family child reaching 18 the RP would either have to extend their mortgage or arrange some other means to repay the equity to the NRP, or make arrangements to move to alternative accommodation. I can't see that a court would force an NRP to subsidise the living arrangements of children with no biological connection to the NRP or who had never been "a child of the family" of the NRP.

Child maintenance should be something that can be relied upon, with the exception of unexpected illness or disability.

It absolutely cannot and should not be relied on because it can stop at any moment due to redundancy, illness or a number of other issues. This is the reason my mortgage broker wouldn't take my CMS into account when doing the affordability checks and I understand that.

Yup. Men who go throuhg CMS to ensure they are only paying the "minimum" they have to are great fathers. Fucking hell.

As opposed to mother's who clearly want to spend the minimum hence asking the other parent to pay more? Presumably they're fine though!

A person who does all they can do pay as little as legally possible for a human life they are 50% responsible for creating, caring for and raising but are in reality only doing it 20% of the time. If you don't want to pay split responsibilities 50/50.

Men who go through CMS so they can get away with paying the pittance of absolute mum are utter scum of the earth.
The 'new wives' who support this should be thoroughly ashamed.
Vile vile vile.

OP has a right to a family but same as bringing any new baby into the world you have to be able to afford it & meet your current commitments or cut your cloth to suit.

The law says that a non resident parent should pay 12% of their net income to care for their child.

That’s it, it’s the bare legal minimum.

I wish that I could only spend 12% of what I have in my purse to cover everything my daughter needs. Shoes on her feet, food in her tummy, a roof over her head, covers on her bed, a warm shower, soap powder.

If a resident parent didn’t feed or clothe their child it would rightly be child abuse.

But apparently non/resident fathers can get away with it. And that 12% is only the money they DECLARE to child maintenance service.

It’s too easy to hide with the CMS. Non-resident parents can either run their own business/become self employed and hide any dividends or, work cash in hand so they can keep it all.

Well personally that's what I would do but believe it or not a lot of women don't want to give up 50% of time with their children. And men who ask for 50% are said to only want that so they don't have to pay.

If you're employed your whole wage gets DECLARED to the CMS. They use your p60.

Also, maybe 12% of your income isnt a lot, but it is for some people!

I agree it's out of order when someone is self employed that they can get out of paying but let's not pretend all NRPs do this with their vile vile vile wife's supporting it.

If you've got a problem with CMS amounts you should take it up with the people who set the rate. Its not vile vile vile to pay what you have literally been told to pay.

Also "new wives" ? Its vile vile vile to try and be derogatory to women simply because they happen to be married to someone who was married before. I'm not sure you'd like your "new husband" to be referred to like that.