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!

And death.

It cannot be presumed that the NRP has anything in their estate to leave.

@Catfordthefifth it is vile vile vile to pay the bare minimum.

The reason that it's a % of net income is so that everyone pays (or should ) the same percentage of their net income.

Some people aren't aware that cms is the bare minimum.

I'm in a strange position that I'm both first wife to my first husband & second wife to my second husband.

Mother & stepmother

I see both sides.

Paying the bare minimum is vile.

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!

But you saying this about women isn't "vile vile vile"?

To actively seek out the bare minimum you have to pay/contrbute towards a child you created and are responsible for so it doesn't impact on your new life is despicable.

To have more children when by doing so you will have to actively seek out a way to pay the minimum amount towards any other children you have is irresponsible at best.

To hide funds from a service designed to help the child/ren in order to pay less just makes you a total bastard.

Its the reccomended amount it's nowhere referred to as the minimum. Yes, everyone pays the same % that's the point, nobody is disputing that.

How can you say all CMS payments are vile when it could be £7 or £700? You cannot seriously sit there and say oh paying £700 a month for your child is vile (when the RP might not even spend that much). Its ridiculous.

No it's not vile to question both men and women. They're both equally responsible for their children. Or don't you agree?

I've already agreed hiding funds is absolutely not on so let's not pretend I think that's okay, it's been made clear I don't.

@Catfordthefifth But your assumption that women ask for more money so they can pay less is not a sexist comment?
Maybe consider that they are asking for more because they can't afford to raise a child with just an extra £380 a month (in the OP's case) that's £12 per day for 50% of food, bills, clothing, school supplies, activities, medicines, period products (eventually). Oh and it is the morally responsible and decent thing to do.

@ForTheLoveOfSleep the £12 figure only checks out in the case of zero overnight contact with the NRP, which we know from the OP isn't the case here.
Even at EOW and half the holidays contact, I make that out to be £16ish per day for the NRPs share. Add on CB and mum's half and you've got £844 for one child in one home, before you've even bought a pair of socks for the other house, so well over £1000 pcm allocated to one child, even after a small reduction to allow the child's sibling to be provided for.

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.

You do realise all those things aren't free for any NRP who has their child for regular overnights. You're also ignoring that the RP isn't having to pay out maintenance to the NRP and will also be in receipt of any child benefits, nursery hours etc that the child's parents would be entitled to.

Assumption? It wasn't an assumption, it was in comparison to saying men are shit when they pay "minimum" I was simply questioning if the women who pay the minimum are also shit. Apparently not, apparently questioning women is sexist. Noted.

£760 month for one child is not a small amount. I certainly do not spend that on my child.

I don't believe it should cover 50% of bills though. The other parent has their own bills to pay! Maybe a contribution to the bills if the parent has the child more and therefore has higher bills but not half of the total bills.

You've just confirmed what I said really.

A very good point @Yousee

I see where you are coming from but what does it say about our society when we are taking in to account child benefit and as a reason for the NCP to pay less? Madness.
Also the only costs that would reduce when the child wasn't with the custodial parent for (48hours every 12 days and 1/2 holidays) would be food and electricity/gas? The custodial parent still has to maintain (more than likely) a larger property than they would need alone whilst NCP won't need to as the child is there 1-2 nights every 12 days. They still have most of the responsibility for day to day life. Mid week childcare.

I am aware every case is different and complex but my point originally was that ANY NCP who actively hunts the bare minimum they are legally required to pay in order to have more money for themselves when they can clearly afford to pay more than that minimum is an asshole.
Also a NCP who chooses to have more children when they know this will mean they will no longer be able to afford the amount they currently pay toward their child is irresponsible.

Ah my apologies there. I thought you meant the custodial parent (when female) asking for more money. Not NCP who are women.

The custodial parent still has to maintain (more than likely) a larger property than they would need alone whilst NCP won't need to as the child is there 1-2 nights every 12 days

Not really the case because most people rightly want their child to have somewhere to sleep. I know MN loves the idea of dads in bedsits but in reality that's very shit for the child.

Also a NCP who chooses to have more children when they know this will mean they will no longer be able to afford the amount they currently pay toward their child is irresponsible

So basically all people with more than one child? Ok.

No, I did mean that. Women who ask for more maintenance so they can spend less of their money on the child. Are they shit too? Or just men?

As long as they are asking for a fair split then no. But obvioulsy there are people everywhere who take the piss.
All NCPs should pay their fair share of child costs.
All custodial parents should take responsibility for their portion of financial responsibilies. Reguardless of sex.

But as I have said several times now. ANY NCP who actively hunts the bare minimum they are legally required to pay in order to have more money for themselves when they can clearly afford to pay more than that minimum is an asshole.
This is my opinion.
I know every case is different.
I know both NCPs & CPs can be total assholes but what it really boils down to (for me) is that just because a government system tells you you only have to pay that much, when said parent knows they could afford more and have been until now, does not meanit is morally right or decent to pay that smaller suggested amount.

@ForTheLoveOfSleep you're still coming at this from the perspective of the lowest common denominator of NRPs. I personally don't know any NRPs for whom EOW contact is only 48 hours a fortnight. As for "The custodial parent still has to maintain (more than likely) a larger property than they would need alone whilst NCP won't need to as the child is there 1-2 nights every 12 days" - there's currently a thread running where numerous posters are ripping into the OP and her DH because her DSS is sharing a room with his own full sibling, let alone not having their own room full stop. It's funny how people pick and choose whether an NRP's house is considered as DC's equal home depending on whether it suits the RP. Just like "you should treat them like your own" only seems to apply to responsibilities not rights.

Also the only costs that would reduce when the child wasn't with the custodial parent for (48hours every 12 days and 1/2 holidays) would be food and electricity/gas? The custodial parent still has to maintain (more than likely) a larger property than they would need alone whilst NCP won't need to as the child is there 1-2 nights every 12 days. They still have most of the responsibility for day to day life. Mid week childcare.

@ForTheLoveOfSleep NRPs also need to maintain a bigger property because the DSCs need somewhere to sleep! And it isn't a dichotomy between 50/50 and EOW, plenty of NRPs see their children far more than this. And as for childcare, I think in a healthy co-parenting relationship the child's other parent should be the first port of call for childcare.

Yes! Exactly! NCPs/NRPs (whichever you prefer) who actively seek out a way to only pay the bare minimum to their childrens care are the lowest common denominators or NCPs. This is, in fact, what I have been refering to in EVERY post on this thread. I have not once said all NCPs.
Just those bastardy ones.

@Lilithslove Somewhere along the way I seem to have come across like I hate all NRPs it seems. 😬

@ForTheLoveOfSleep I hear you & I see you saying that on every single post. I agree

However there is none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.

@ForTheLoveOfSleep no, I didn't reference CB as a reason for an NRP to pay less, just an example of additional money that the RP has access to which the NRP does not and to demonstrate how much much money is potentially being spent on this one child.
When we only had DSD EOW she still had a bedroom in a house with a mortgage and bills to match. I'd hope most EOW parents don't aspire to hand every penny to their ex and make themselves unable to provide adequately for their child on their time.
Having that bedroom has meant that we have DSD much more now, we have actually had her most of the summer holidays which would not be possible if DH was draining every penny to his ex and all we had for her here was an air bed in the living room.

It is sadly a fact the two houses cost more to run that one. This means that both parents have to make compromises that they would not have had to make had they stayed unless they increase their income.

The only way to avoid this is to not procreate with people who you can't maintain a relationship with, perhaps using the crystal ball that step mum's use to know what they are getting into.

The only way to avoid this is to not procreate with people who you can't maintain a relationship with, perhaps using the crystal ball that step mum's use to know what they are getting into
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

The only way to avoid this is to not procreate with people who you can't maintain a relationship with, perhaps using the crystal ball that step mum's use to know what they are getting into.
👏
They really should hand these out with your NI card at 16.