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!

Yes this is ridiculous. People are responsible for paying for their own children not other people's.

Does the NRP get to object to the RP’s life choices which affect the children’s quality of life? Or is it just the NRP that should be making sure they’re not reducing the money going into that household?

I bet nobody will address that question.

DH's ex is allowed to make a lifestyle choice and reduce her working hours yet if DH did it she'd be moaning what about meeee

I bet nobody will address that question

Why? Because it suits your step mum narrative of poor step mums?

If a resident parent decides to have additional children, she will do it, presumably , with the full knowledge of the impact of that additional child on her family's budget. There will be no expectation that the ex somehow makes up any shortfall that an additional child might have on existing children.

There would be no legal means by which maintenance would have to be increased as a result of an additional child (assuming the additional child has a different father). On the other hand, there is legal means by which maintenance is reduced for additional children either lving in or born into the NRP's household.

There are plenty of women who choose not to work FT (or at all). Is it only their exes that have a responsibility to maximise the income going to the children in that household?

If a resident parent decides to have additional children, she will do it, presumably , with the full knowledge of the impact of that additional child on her family's budget. There will be no expectation that the ex somehow makes up any shortfall that an additional child might have on existing children.

There's an inherent expectation here that NRPs are expecting their ex to make up a shortfall, rather than just not spend as much on the older children (as they would if, like you say, they were factoring in the impact of additional children on the family's budget). Yes, sometimes, a RP will be spending very little on the DC and need every penny for essentials, meaning the NRP reducing their contribution means they literally don't have enough to look after them. But often that's not the case, and the RP could just continue to contribute the amount they always have, whilst potentially spending less on luxury extras for their DC due to the NRPs slight reduction in maintenance - as they would very likely do if they were having their own additional child. It's not always money that HAS to be spent.

I just don't get it tbh.

Me and my ex didn't part on good terms, but I wouldn't want him to suffer or live on the breadline to give me maintenance. If a new baby arrives surely its a good thing ? It's not a them vs us situation.

If you create a kid with someone even if they do the worst thing and you hate them - aren't they still your kids parent. Just on a human level surely you don't want them to struggle ?

Why create a child with someone you can't at least be friendly/amicable towards after. (I'm excluding abusive situations from this massive generalisation - as you cannot obviously do the above with abusers ect)

I bet nobody will address that question

The RP will not expect the NRP to make up any financial shortfall arising from their own choices. The RP will need to have determined if they can afford to support another child before having one. The NRP is not impacted financially either way. If the RP goes on to have more children when they can't afford to support them and this impacts their existing children, I'd say the NRP would be well within their rights to call out this selfish behavior.

On the other hand, if the NRP has more children maintenance to the RP for the existing children reduces. Same, bizarrely, if the NRP acquires a partner who has children with another father. The RP simply has to absorb the reduction each and every time. If maintenance was not reduced, it wouldn't be a point of contention. It's not about controlling the NRPs choices, rather not wanting to pay for their choices.

How would NRP like it if maintenance increased every time the RP had another child, or acquired one via a partner? They would scream from the rooftops about how unfair it was, yet it's precisely the same difference.

Are we talking about the elder DC only doing 2 clubs per week instead of 3, and their Christmas budget is now £100 instead of £200 after a younger sibling is born?
Or are we talking about only being able to feed one but not the other so pick your favourite and feed that one?
Surely if a club per week was cut by the RP and it bothered the NRP enough to complain then they would just pay for that club if they were able? That's one thing. Suggesting the younger sibling should not exist so that the elder can keep attending badminton club or whatever would be quite another.
But somehow lots of people seem to find it an acceptable thing to say about the child of the NRP.

@Pinkyxx but maintenance does increase if NRP gets a pay increase, changes jobs for a higher one ect. Any change can cut both ways both higher and lower and it's silly to pretend it doesn't.

When you split up, you give up control and there are many downsides to that, but essentially trying to control someone's ability to reproduce and calling that choice selfish is simply from the RP perspective .

I doubt any DSC would have thought that having a sibling was a selfish act I certainly didn't (but I'm sure others may have a different view). I was thrilled with having a new baby to play with tbh.

There are plenty of women who choose not to work FT (or at all). Is it only their exes that have a responsibility to maximise the income going to the children in that household?

I think it is the responsibility of all parents not to make decisions which impact on the income of either household where it means that income into that household is reduced. Of course, there are exceptions - you can't really plan for illness, disability, redundancy (although you can take our insurances etc.). The issue of some women not working is a bit of a red herring - many women don't work in marriage and continue that in separation and divorce (because they want to, because they can, because they have caring responsiblities, because it takes a while to get back on your feet, because job undertaken pre divorce is incompatible with single parenthood (think shift work and managing childcare)...) and as long as they are not demanding more money from the ex because of their choices (which is what we are arguing about here), then there is nothing to be said or done. And actually, even if they do demand money, a NRP doesn't have any legal obligation to provide anything other than what the CMS would calculate.

I am not sure we are talking about maximising income. I am not sure you can say what maximum income might be - I could certainly go for promotion like I did earlier this year but didn't get it. Am I not maximising my income by not reaching my potential - I could look for promotion in another work environment, for example, but I am happy where I am in terms of job satisfaction, distance from home etc. so I am not keen to cast my net wider. I try to improve my income with a couple of side hussles but I guess I could work more than the 60 hours a week I'm already doing? What we are discussing is reducing income when one household is unable to have an input into how that might effect that household and more importantly, the child/children concerned. We're not really judging the rights and wrongs of where a person works and whether or not they are reaching their full career potential.

Child maintenance is to provide a child with the same quality of life they would have had if both parents were together. The first mother is not entitled to have a monopoly on her EX’s fertility. He is entitled to have more children and the child maintenance reflects the quality of life the non resident parent can offer with a subsequent child. The child will be gaining a sibling.

If the non resident could afford more, then that would be calculated providing he/she is not over the thresh hold.

Child maintenance is to provide a child with the same quality of life they would have had if both parents were together.

no. It’s not. It’s impossible to do that in most cases because running two households is more expensive.

it’s to share the financial burden more equitably between the parents.

@pitchforksandflamethrowers while I agree the NRP should be free to reproduce at will and it's nothing to do with the RP if they do, I can't agree that this choice should come at the RP's expense. Have more children if you can afford your existing commitments. And while we are talking about ''controlling the NRP''.... I've been divorced for over a decade and I genuinely can't remember a time I made plans and didn't have to cancel them because of him messing around contact. He can control how I live my life, but I am silly to to not want his reproduction choices reducing his contribution towards his child?

It may help to know between ex and his partner they have a joint household income of over £225,000 a year. Maintenance has not increased in 10 years, despite this not being anywhere near his income when we split ( there are ways to avoid increases if you want to). They are not ''hard up'' - he wears nothing but designer clothes, they enjoy multiple foreign holidays along with frequent childfree ''weekend breaks'' (contact gets cancelled for this, often last minute). He has reduced the time he spends with DD more and more, first citing his very important job, then citing their new children. I bear the full cost of raising our child, do all the parenting, bear the cost of all childcare, do all the school runs and work full time (career growth massively limited through being a lone parent). The reduction of maintenance just feels like the ultimate insult. He hasn't reduced it because he needs the money, he's done it because he CAN.

Any law allows that enables a parent to wash their hands of their own child, and to expect the other parent to pick up the slack, is in my opinion wrong.

@Pinkyxx I don't disagree on many of the points here and your ex (excuse my language) sounds like a bellend.

It's not a perfect system on so many levels and in my opinion to many loop holes.

pinkyx - they seem to be cloning our exs

I feel your pain

I think you make some good points on this thread but to suggest the RP will always and uniformally act in this way is at best fanciful. If the ex pays a fair amount of cm and new partner doesn't earn much are you seriously saying the cm would only be spent on the kids the cm is paid for. The reality is surely the cm would make up part of the household budget.

Maybe it is unfair in someways but the cm has to be assessed on the parent paying. Ultimately how do you split it. Say one children's family get preferential treatment?

Sorry if I’m missing the point, but if a man in a ‘together’ family fathers several children, then it’s accepted that each new arrival means there’s a smaller slice of the pie for everyone, it’s just basic economics. So I don’t understand why that concept should be different when you’ve got a separated family? Why should the contribution to the ‘first family’ children be ring-fenced against any more children/change of circumstances?

This principle also seems to crop up with redundancies//job losses etc - if you’re all together and Dad loses his job, then the whole household has to manage on less. But if there’s an ex-wife/step child involved, there seems to be an expectation that the maintenance payments have to remain the same.

@Talon01 I didn't make reference to how the RP would spend any CM. I said that the RP would not not look to the NRP to make up any shortfall - no law exists to say that an NRP should increase CMS because their former partner has more children, therefore there can be no asking the NRP for anything if an RP elects to have more kids. The responsibility lies with the RP to ensure they can afford more children. The RP however is expected to take responsibility for any shortfall created by NRP having more children and reducing CMS. Couples make joint decisions, and they are entitled to do whatever they deem they can manage so yes families may choose to economize to have more children and that is their right. In in this case the RP is left to fill the gap left by the NRPs choice as it's forced upon them. They have no choice but to take responsibility for their ex partners choices. While I don't believe an RP should have any say in what their ex does, I just can't agree they should bear the financial consequences of these choices. Entirely different if the NRP loses their job etc, unavoidable things not choices.

If you can't afford a bigger house no letting agent will rent it to you, and no mortgage provider will lend you more. I've never understood people having more children only to claim CMS pushes them into poverty.. I can't afford to do lots of things I'd like to (including more children) - why is it different for NRP?

👏🏻🙌🏻

Maybe it is unfair in someways but the cm has to be assessed on the parent paying. Ultimately how do you split it. Say one children's family get preferential treatment?

How does 12% of an income mean the other family suffer. if that 12% is so vital to the NRP family then one would suggest they are living beyond their means.

While arguing their choice to live beyond their means should rightly be at the expense of another household who may well be (in fact is statistically are more likely to be) in even less of position to absorb more expense yet is forced to do so to accommodate the choices of 2 other adults.

The only things you can do are think very carefully about who you decide to have children with in the first place and maximise your income in the event of a split. Everything else is out of your control.

Thinking very carefully about who you have children with really isn't a thing on MN.