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!

steptoe - pernicious little postings and unnecessary.

EXs salary went down massively during covid - i work in the nhs so no monetary reduction. I asked if he could afford maintenance during this time - so not some money grubbing EX. Unlike his other EX who insisted on the normal amount.

Pay rises - absolutely he earns a lot more than he did when we split but we have a harmonious co parenting relationship unlike his other one and am not here to rock that boat.

And yes to changes in routine when new babe comes along - less flexibility, all about the new childs needs not the old children, holidays now too expensive to take DCS on, flexibility all one way - the new DC and Mum ( had 2 older DCS) seemed to need more space and time as struggling, car did not fit all DCS so his get dropped all the time on excursions

Liliths love - yes subsidise did mean that the swimming lessons that EX insisted DC had and he paid 50% of but he felt were unnecessary once new DC arrived were subsidised by me -ie, I paid the whole whack not just my 50% because he allegedly could not afford them anymore - but he could afford the whole amount for his new DC at the same age and her DCS!
To namebut a few examples - luckily he has now split from 2nd EX!

So yes I subsidise his lifestyle!

Am not a martyr but dislike the tone that says all nrps get more monies than they need to bring up DCs - got none for a year and then 200pcm for 2. Seriously 100pcm does not cover the50% cost of bringing up his children that he is responsible for. £3.28 per day from him so £6.56 from both of us does not cover the costs.
Eldest inhales £6 of food per day at the moment - 14 yr old spurting teen!

Some of the comments here on costs of a child are just so out of touch with reality

I mean, if money is so tight you need to take £80 from his existing child’s mouth, maybe it wasn’t a good idea.

Once the children exist, they exist, and discussions about the relative merits of their existence are futile. They can't be sent back. They are here and all need to be supported by their father. 🤷‍♀️

This is such a ridiculous way of putting it that it actually illustrates the quality of the argument.

Really what everyone is upset about is that the RP doesn’t have a say in whether NRP has more children or not…it’s a control issue

jesus wept. It is sod all to do with the RP trying to control what the RP does. Simple fact of the matter is that what the NRP does affects the household income of another household with an expectation that that household simply manages and picks up any slack. It’s a pretty shit situation to be in, particularly in the current climate with the cost of living being what it is. The ‘but all families have to adjust when a new child comes along’ is a weak argument, ignoring the fundamental that the household expected to manage the income loss had no say in it and no enjoyment of the family expansion but has to adjust anyway. It’s a shit place to be.

Yes its pretty nasty imo to go on about how a child shouldn't exist.

All households are subject to external influences on their income. That’s just how life is.

If their ex gets promoted, the maintenance an RP gets goes up for reasons entirely related to anything they’ve done. But they’re quite happy to adjust to that obviously. There are as many situations in which they may also have to adjust to it reducing. That’s life.

You could say that about a ex losing his job, dying or suddenly becoming self employed or sick. There are plenty of things that are outside RP parents control that may effect maintenance. None of these things bar the self employed loop hole signify that the non rp is a bad person or a failure in any kind. Just life happens.

That's why you have to as a rp (which I am one) you have protect your income as that's the only thing that is definitely within your control.

When you split up you have no control or moral standing to say whether that other parent goes on to have more kids. Much like sm don't have any moral standing to make parental choices for DSC (unless court ordered and give parental rights or similar unusual circumstances parental death ect).

I'm not saying it isn't sucky but it's one of the downsides of no one having a crystal ball and being able to predict if they will split from the person they create kids with.
It's the gamble, sometimes you lose.

I get on will with my ex and his DP. If they had a kid I would buy them a present tbh. A baby is a special thing iMO.

You’ve said it yourself there ^^ she’s had not input or say, it infers rp would like one ie some control over the situation…should rp be consulted before NRP and new partner have a baby?

no, of course not. No inference at all. Just because you have no input doesn’t infer you would choose to have input or wish to control a situation at all. Life moves on, we are free to do what we think is best for us in any given moment. We certainly don’t need to consult an ex. I’m not sure, however, that it’s reasonable to expect an ex to pick up any financial slack for your life choices. And an additional child is a choice. The impact of maintenance reduction can be very stressful. It would be good to see that acknowledged once in a while rather than just block ‘not your problem’ responses and then wondering why co-parenting relationships breakdown.

sure, I get you can’t rely on maintenance (although I think there is much that can be done to protect income should a life disaster happen) and that shit happens like redundancy, illness, accidents, disability (and again, much can be done to protect income in these circumstances) but shit happening is generally out of a person’s control. Having another baby really isn’t (for the most part, I get accidents happen and yes, I agree, it’s not nice to see children talked about in terms of ‘shouldn’t exist’).

and I say all that as someone with a self employed ex who has never received maintenance. We should be able to rely on it, obviously within certain parameters. We should be able to rely on higher earners trying to protect their income in the event of life events. We should be able to rely on both parents doing their best by their children at all times. Unfortunately, reality seems to be that when new fsmilies are formed, their best interests are promoted above everything else which can be devastating - not only on a financial level - for the children of a first family. Like I say, it needs acknowledging, even if there is no easy way of managing it or improving it.

What about when RPs have subsequent children. Does that not also reduce the amount that gets spent on the first child. Would it be reasonable for an NRP to call an RP selfish for doing this because of the impact on their child?

Funny how these threads attract lots of posts going on about how unfair it all is on the RP yet they're much less vocal about unfairness on the kind of threads where the NRP is dealing with an RP who blocks/dicks about with contact. Somehow on those threads it's still the NRP's fault for being a deadbeat because they don't just magic up hundreds, often thousands, of pounds to go through the courts on top of paying maintenance and running a house big enough for their DC when they do get to stay, and yet on this thread a reduction of £20 a week for giving a child the benefit of a sibling will allegedly plunge the RP into poverty.

And before anyone says going through court only costs £250 or whatever it is, well yes technically it does, just like a divorce technically costs just £595. Out in the real world it rarely costs the minimum amount possible when there's conflict between the two parties.

no, of course not. No inference at all. Just because you have no input doesn’t infer you would choose to have input or wish to control a situation at all. - exactly this, have no interest in what my EX does with his life but not happy that his choices cost me monies.

Not a martyr a reaosnable human being - no point in asking for more monies when EX was on 20% of previous salary during covid. Basic human kindness and reality - unlike his other EX who insisted on the full over inflated amount he paid her and then wanted more as her salary had dropped.
I objected silently to him still pandering and paying her the same facilitated by me not taking maintenance for my 2. Not bitter as could afford not to but the morals of the alleycat are and always were sit and she proved it once again!

It is not about plunging the RP into poverty - it is the principle that says - this child did not miraculously get cheaper because another DC was born but one parent gets to choose to pay less and the other one gets to suck it up. In this scenario there is a legal precednet if going through CMS.

The one I hate ore is where the EXs new DPs children ( not the EXS) cause the payment to go down even more - that is morally repugnant

So in my case I got to subsidise new child and the EXs step children - that was a complete kick in the metaphorical balls.
My current DP makes no changes for my two to his EX and i would think less of him if he even considered it.

his choices cost me monies.

at least this is honest. It’s about the money you get.

@lookluv ditto I also subsidise ex’s new partners kids… who enjoy 3 people’s income supporting then … my DD has my income plus her father’s ‘contribution’ which has been reduced for multiple kids + those he’s had since. Defies all logic.. my child apparently costs much less?!

The child did not miraculously get cheaper but likewise they don’t in together families either, resources need stretching further whenever a sibling is born. We’re constantly reminded that child maintenance is for the child so any reduction in total resources allocated towards them is going to be spread across the two households because their younger sibling doesn’t miraculously get cheaper when older sibling is back with their mum.

As for the unfairness of a RP having to suck up their ex’s decisions, this viewpoint always assumes that the NRP was the one who ended the relationship. There are quite a few step mums on this board, myself included, whose DPs/DHs were left by their exes (or whose exes had an affair etc). Whenever we point it out it’s always dismissed as unimportant detail. But very pertinent to the question of whether a RP has any right to complain if their ex goes on to start a new family when the choice to live with their existing children full time was taken away from them.

I do have to say though that I strongly agree maintenance should not be reduced if an NRP moves in with someone who already has children.

sudocream - no it is the monies my children get given to me to ensure they are brought up with the things they need.

I don't need or want his monies - his DCS all 3 of them should be treated equally by their father, not as is current where my 2 get one eighth of what he gives the mother of his other child because she does pay per view and psychological abuse which I believe is inherently wrong.

I take the monies because my DCS need to know their DF does contribute to their up bringing and it is not just me providing everything.

EX would have lost his house and starved if I had said no maintenance over the last 2 years, I bought him food, he used my deliveroo account occasionally none of which he would have needed to do if the other EX had accepted her grossly inflated CMS payment was not sustainable.

Who had the affair and who left is irrelevant to the paying of maintenance - so bringing that into it is irrelevant. Not relevant in divorce proceedings and not relevant in to how much CMS the NRP who should pay.

I agree with those saying you shouldn't rely on CMS, you have no control over your ex changing jobs, having more dc, dying and you have no life insurance etc.

That said is a dick move to reduce maintenance if you can afford to keep it the same. My exH reduced maintenance when he moved in with the OW who had DC he was not financially responsible for, who already had two parents for financial support, which I think shouldn't be allowed. When your ex has more dc there's not much you can do about it.

Who had the affair and who left is irrelevant to the paying of maintenance - so bringing that into it is irrelevant. Not relevant in divorce proceedings and not relevant in to how much CMS the NRP who should pay.

I never said it was relevant to how much CMS should be paid, it was in response to the posts saying it was unfair that an RP has no say as to whether their ex decides to give their child a sibling. As soon as a child had a sibling, there will be fewer resources potentially available for that child whether their parents are together or separated.

If you don't understand why your attitude is controlling specifically when discussing adults and their choices then there is no helping you.