Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

CMS question & new baby

267 replies

Rosebella215 · 16/08/2022 13:42

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!

OP posts:
Pinkyxx · 26/08/2022 07:31

It’s an interesting hypothesis to suggest there’s a correlation.

Personally, I made the reduction work. I knew it was on me to make up the difference. The only thing that irked me at the time was that he could more than afford to pay more than he did before the reduction for the new child. He reduced it because he could.

What I couldn’t solve for were the non-financial aspects which @lookluv lists. Within 6 months it was all unrecognisable, years later.. well there’s almost nothing left either in terms of contact or relationship.

Cactuslove · 26/08/2022 07:34

Pinkyxx · 26/08/2022 07:31

It’s an interesting hypothesis to suggest there’s a correlation.

Personally, I made the reduction work. I knew it was on me to make up the difference. The only thing that irked me at the time was that he could more than afford to pay more than he did before the reduction for the new child. He reduced it because he could.

What I couldn’t solve for were the non-financial aspects which @lookluv lists. Within 6 months it was all unrecognisable, years later.. well there’s almost nothing left either in terms of contact or relationship.

That's so sad. And it's even sadder that it's predictable (as in @lookluv s post). Sorry you've had to be mum and dad.

Casper10 · 26/08/2022 07:35

Ithinkthatisenoughnowthanks · 26/08/2022 00:50

If you want to pretend the primary carer doesn't get support in a lot of cases that's up to you I suppose

you quite clearly stated that the resident parent gets government top ups - some do, some don’t.

you also quite clearly state that some resident parents get to stay in the family home, whilst omitting that in the majority of cases, there is a cost to the resident parent if that is the case.

so no, it’s not pretending the primary cared doesn’t get support. Plenty of primary carers get no additional support. Or are you suggesting the primary caters can’t possibly be high earners or people of independent means?

Resident parents do get support. Obviously not all but are you seriously saying the majority of primary carers are such high earners they aren't receiving support?

Yes there's a cost but you're trying to move the conversation away from the point I was making, this idea of minimum contribution. Its a nonsense and I'm just pulling it up.

Casper10 · 26/08/2022 07:38

Any comment on the 12% point? Thought not

Cactuslove · 26/08/2022 07:40

Casper10 · 25/08/2022 13:26

@beachcitygirl

A few things.

  1. You can have men in the same position, let's say every other weekend time with the kids, paying very different sums of money. One can be paying 900, another 600 and the third 300. All based on their salary level. Are they all paying the bare minimum?
  1. It's a lot more than 12% of net salary in some cases.
  1. The state provides additional financial support for the primary carer(usually mother) through tax credits etc.
  1. Sometimes the primary carer the will be living in the old family home. The other parent stuck in some inadequate rental for years or with family etc as the capital from the old marriage is tied up for the sake of the kids.

You sound incredibly entitled

I'm living in the old family home. I pay the mortgage. I've decorated the entire house. I'm replacing the bathroom and kitchen. He lived here for 1 whole year. When I sell it or buy him out his profit will be crazy. He cheated on me when I was pregnant and I will be setting him up for life with the profit he makes. I will be buying him out ASAP because until then I'm relying on his credit rating to get a mortgage which is a stressful process every 2 years. His ations have had consequences. I'd hardly say the life I'm living is that of the entitled Hmm

lookluv · 26/08/2022 09:41

Primary care giver here - not a benefit in sight and not a rise in maintenance in 10 yrs!

Steptoeandson · 26/08/2022 09:48

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ

Steptoeandson · 26/08/2022 09:49

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 10:04

lookluv · 26/08/2022 09:41

Primary care giver here - not a benefit in sight and not a rise in maintenance in 10 yrs!

Is that through CMS? I think they only recalculate it if there's a change of 25% which seems a lot!

Catfordthefifth · 26/08/2022 10:24

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 10:04

Is that through CMS? I think they only recalculate it if there's a change of 25% which seems a lot!

Show quote history

They recalculate every year, regardless. They base it on your p60. They only recalculate more often than that if you ask them, and only if it's 25% more or less.

Steptoeandson · 26/08/2022 10:41

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ

Catfordthefifth · 26/08/2022 10:49

I've just double checked and it's 25% which is ridiculous really both ways!

Lilithslove · 26/08/2022 10:52

The next step will be the child coming round less - either due to the RP being pissed off ( completely wrong) or the NRP and the new family - not wanting the DSC round when the baby is new born, they have a cold, no space etc.
Invariably a slippery slope of less monies and engagement in those who feel the need to reduce paying for their former children.

@lookluv you created a fictitious scenario in your head and are using the figments of your imagination as something to berate the OP for. This really is classic SM forum!

They either subsidise the EX and the new family or they disappoint their DC

So the NRP pays maintenance at a level the government has deemed appropriate but this is actually the RP subsidising the NRP. Do you know what the word subsidise means?

Casper10 · 26/08/2022 11:51

Cactuslove · 26/08/2022 07:40

I'm living in the old family home. I pay the mortgage. I've decorated the entire house. I'm replacing the bathroom and kitchen. He lived here for 1 whole year. When I sell it or buy him out his profit will be crazy. He cheated on me when I was pregnant and I will be setting him up for life with the profit he makes. I will be buying him out ASAP because until then I'm relying on his credit rating to get a mortgage which is a stressful process every 2 years. His ations have had consequences. I'd hardly say the life I'm living is that of the entitled Hmm

Show quote history

I didn't called you entitled. I was referring specifically to a poster that described men paying the cm via cms as vile, vile, vile. Not sure if she meant that for those cases where the resident parent goes to cms but it seemed a pretty over zealous statement.

Sorry this happened to you. I got screwed over as well. I'm just saying there's always 2 sides to a situation. In my circumstances I think I've been quite generous considering my ex lives in our old family home with a new partner. I'm quite bemused by the whole notion of minimum contribution. Would be happy to be informed of what the right level of contribution is and whether that would allow me with enough to house myself, house the kids when they are here and have some quality of life.

Your setting him up for life but you are also relying on his credit rating for the mortgage. Hmmm sorry but that doesn't add up.

SpaceshiptoMars · 26/08/2022 12:21

"I'm living in the old family home. I pay the mortgage. I've decorated the entire house. I'm replacing the bathroom and kitchen. He lived here for 1 whole year. When I sell it or buy him out his profit will be crazy. He cheated on me when I was pregnant and I will be setting him up for life with the profit he makes. I will be buying him out ASAP because until then I'm relying on his credit rating to get a mortgage which is a stressful process every 2 years. His ations have had consequences. I'd hardly say the life I'm living is that of the entitled Hmm"

@Cactuslove

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but wonder if you've had adequate legal advice on your position with the house and his profit etc. It seems unlikely to me that if you are divorced and paying all the mortgage and bills, that he will profit from the years after he was paying towards the house? (Apart from on his initial equity). Anyway, if that is the case, it is desperately unfair, and I can see why you have strong feelings on the subject.

As soon as a couple with children split, the stage is set for endless dissatisfaction, to put it mildly. It is not possible to quickly restore all involved back to the standard of living they had before. Judging by the step-parenting board, a common male strategy is to find a high-earning 2nd wife and let her take the financial strain.

Pinkyxx · 26/08/2022 13:10

lookluv · 26/08/2022 09:41

Primary care giver here - not a benefit in sight and not a rise in maintenance in 10 yrs!

Count me too! no benefits and no rise... didn't get the marital home either!

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 13:22

Catfordthefifth · 26/08/2022 10:24

They recalculate every year, regardless. They base it on your p60. They only recalculate more often than that if you ask them, and only if it's 25% more or less.

Show quote history

Ah right thats good thanks!

Casper10 · 26/08/2022 13:54

SpaceshiptoMars · 26/08/2022 12:21

"I'm living in the old family home. I pay the mortgage. I've decorated the entire house. I'm replacing the bathroom and kitchen. He lived here for 1 whole year. When I sell it or buy him out his profit will be crazy. He cheated on me when I was pregnant and I will be setting him up for life with the profit he makes. I will be buying him out ASAP because until then I'm relying on his credit rating to get a mortgage which is a stressful process every 2 years. His ations have had consequences. I'd hardly say the life I'm living is that of the entitled Hmm"

@Cactuslove

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but wonder if you've had adequate legal advice on your position with the house and his profit etc. It seems unlikely to me that if you are divorced and paying all the mortgage and bills, that he will profit from the years after he was paying towards the house? (Apart from on his initial equity). Anyway, if that is the case, it is desperately unfair, and I can see why you have strong feelings on the subject.

As soon as a couple with children split, the stage is set for endless dissatisfaction, to put it mildly. It is not possible to quickly restore all involved back to the standard of living they had before. Judging by the step-parenting board, a common male strategy is to find a high-earning 2nd wife and let her take the financial strain.

It's because his capital is tied up in the house. Possibly a mesher order.

It's not something I'd entertain but you can understand the logic. If he works so much is lost in cm. If she works none is lost.

The whole system needs an overhaul in my view from the way child access is determined to the way maintenance is paid. You aren't going to get one without the other .

Ithinkthatisenoughnowthanks · 26/08/2022 15:43

Resident parents do get support. Obviously not all but are you seriously saying the majority of primary carers are such high earners they aren't receiving support?

seriously? Did you read what I wrote? It was asserted that RPs receive support. I pointed out that is not always the case. I did not say ‘’resident parents do not receive support’.

It is important, in my opinion, that we recognise more broadly that there is no such thing as ‘single parent’s benefit’ and that there are many women out there who do it all themselves without any kind of top up. There is a ‘poor, young, uneducated, bit stupid, single parent’ thing that goes on in our society. My experience is that single parents, and therefore many resident parents, are anything but.

Flopisfatteningbingforchristmas · 26/08/2022 15:50

Blankscreen · 16/08/2022 17:22

The mum also needs to pay towards bringing her child up.

Assuming the sc stays with the dad and the op then they have to run and heat a house, have a bedroom available, feed and clothe her however many days a week.

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

Eve if the mum is solely responsible for uniform and clubs assuming she is prepared to pay as much towards her child as the dad I think she'll be ok

You do realise that money to is cover everything, childcare, water, gas, electricity, mortgage, rent, clothes, toys, clubs, travel expenses.

Catfordthefifth · 26/08/2022 17:42

Flopisfatteningbingforchristmas · 26/08/2022 15:50

You do realise that money to is cover everything, childcare, water, gas, electricity, mortgage, rent, clothes, toys, clubs, travel expenses.

Show quote history

Its not to cover the full amount of any of those things though is it? Its a %

And the other parent also has rent / mortgage / bills as well... I'm not even sure I agree maintenance should contribute to rent or bills where the other parent has to have the same sized property where the child stays over!

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 17:46

Flopisfatteningbingforchristmas · 26/08/2022 15:50

You do realise that money to is cover everything, childcare, water, gas, electricity, mortgage, rent, clothes, toys, clubs, travel expenses.

Show quote history

It's not to cover everything it's to cover NRPs share of everything for the time they do not have them. So they are already paying 100% for the time they are with them and then it should be about 50% or the costs when they are with their RP. Yes RP has to pay mortgage and rent all the time but so does NRP.

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 17:47

Or basically what @Catfordthefifth Said!

pitchforksandflamethrowers · 26/08/2022 18:26

I think money or what's needed it relative to the child.

Plenty of parents don't pay enough/anything in support of their kids.

Plenty of parents pay more than enough.

It's so complex I don't think CSA is supposed to cover the exact cost of a child. That said I do think we let parents off for not paying to easily in Uk it seems.

Lilithslove · 26/08/2022 18:58

chillipenguin · 26/08/2022 17:46

It's not to cover everything it's to cover NRPs share of everything for the time they do not have them. So they are already paying 100% for the time they are with them and then it should be about 50% or the costs when they are with their RP. Yes RP has to pay mortgage and rent all the time but so does NRP.

Show quote history

Exactly. So if the nrp has them 2 days a week and the rp 5 the difference is 3 days. The maintenance is to cover half of this which is the cost of 1.5ys.