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

Drop in income means drop in maintenence- or aibu?

296 replies

goldensquaresofjoy · 10/08/2023 08:42

Name changed recently as I posted on style and beauty and someone might recognise the outfit!

Anyway. DH works contracts- he always has. His pay increases or stays the same with each contract. It lasts about 2-3 years per contract. He increases his maintenence payments in line with the cms calculator each time.

He is struggling to find the next contract- demand has fallen and competition for the roles has increased. So he's started looking into permanent positions. These all seem to come with a lower salary.

He's started applying and gave the ex a heads up that in 3 months he's going to have to look at the maintenance and as he's looking for a permanent position for stability it will probably go down.

All hell has broken loose - she claims maintenance should stay the same even if I have to subsidise it.

For info as I know everyone hates a drip feed. he and I both have well paid jobs. We have one shared DC. We have mortgage. Ex works term time only (not a teacher) and has no mortgage or rental commitments. DSC are all at secondary school.

Aibu to think its ridiculous for her to expect him to keep a career decision made 15+ years ago when they were together and she'll just have to accept the drop on maintenance?

OP posts:
tiggergoesbounce · 10/08/2023 13:42

In the cases i know, the reason the ex is happy for the maintenance not to go through CMS is when they are receiving higher than the CMS amount and the Father is generally good with payments or it is in their benefit to recieve the cash direct.

If he needs to alter the payment as his earnings have dropped, then that's what needs to happen. You are not responsible for keeping their children when one parent is only term time and no wrap around care is required.

As others have said, if she needs more earnings and only works term time (providing he is still paying a good amount), she has bandwidth to work through the holidays. That is the normal general advice on here, it shouldn't change because they are not together anymore.

holabiatches · 10/08/2023 13:48

@Soontobe60
It is OP’s business as what he pays out to the ex affects OPs household income….

whitewinefriday · 10/08/2023 13:52

Morally, the only thing I would say is that I would expect your husband to have a healthy financial buffer in place so that his commitments to his children are not impacted by a short-term drop-off in income. It's very hard on his ex-wife if he has committed to a certain amount and then that changes. I would expect him to have around 6 months of funds for the maintenance to ensure that any short-term issues in his income don't impact on the maintenance he is paying.

@SunnySideDownBriefly morally - perhaps. But in reality (and reality is what we're dealing with here) not many people have 'healthy financial buffers' at the moment, or 6 months of spare funds for various bills.

aSofaNearYou · 10/08/2023 14:00

I do think NRP underestimate how much older dc actually cost once they are hanging out in town at coffee shops and into adult size clothes and shoes and need phones and laptops. I never hear of any NRP giving their teen dc pocket money or having a savings account for them stuff you will probably expect to do for your own child

On the flip side, none of those things besides clothes and shoes are essential, and if you couldn't afford them for your kids you may well choose not to provide them. NRPs may often underestimate how much teens cost, I'm sure that's the case, but equally I think RPs often overstate how many things are non negotiable essentials. They'll say NRPs don't realise how much things cost for kids and then go on to list things like expensive extracurriculars, branded clothes, savings, and lots of trips out with friends. Lots of poorer households could not afford to prioritise those things and sometimes, those poorer households are NRPs.

We don't spend much more than a small fraction of our money specifically on the kids, because we can't afford to.

Neonyellowfish · 10/08/2023 14:08

Of course it should drop!

She can’t have what he doesn’t earn. What you earn isn’t any of her business.

Tell her to do one!

Reugny · 10/08/2023 14:20

Baconisdelicious · 10/08/2023 12:47

In 8 years time there will be no child maintenance payable to the ex-wife. How is she doing to cope then? Kick her young adult DC out?

If she has no children to pay for, she won't need maintenance. And yes, presumably she will expect her adult dc to make a fair contribution to living costs if they continue to live with her. The same as thousands of families up and down the land. Confused

She should be working to maximise her income now and not waiting for that to happen.

The OP's DH could be run over by a bus tomorrow and not have any income at all. How would she manage then?

Point is his income is out of her control.

uneffingbelievable · 10/08/2023 14:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

letsgojo · 10/08/2023 14:31

How will she cope when he doesn't have to pay it anymore when they reach 18?

If I'm honest I would be saying to your husband, keep it the same but don't pay the club or uniform contribution. If it went through CMS they wouldn't make an amount and then say 'oh and half the uniforms too'

RedRosette2023 · 10/08/2023 14:41

In reality when your income drops you have to adjust your outgoings.

On MN you must sustain your support to another household, irrespective of the impact on the rest of that household (second kids don’t count) at any expense.

People spouting about the “legal minimum” don’t seem to understand that as CMS goes up with income, it also comes down and that if you’re a decent earner it’s not actually a pittance.

Baconisdelicious · 10/08/2023 14:52

She should be working to maximise her income now and not waiting for that to happen

And you know what is right for this woman, an unknown who's situation you have minimal.details of.through a random on the Internet? Lots of people work term time only, inusing nearly half a million teachers. Should they also be working right now to maximise their income?

Baconisdelicious · 10/08/2023 14:54

Your DP has relied on her misfortune to pay the minimum for his DCS and allowed her to have to find work around the kids

Yep. In a nutshell

excelledyourself · 10/08/2023 14:55

letsgojo · 10/08/2023 14:31

How will she cope when he doesn't have to pay it anymore when they reach 18?

If I'm honest I would be saying to your husband, keep it the same but don't pay the club or uniform contribution. If it went through CMS they wouldn't make an amount and then say 'oh and half the uniforms too'

Depends what the DC are doing education wise at 18. He might still have to pay.

aSofaNearYou · 10/08/2023 14:56

RedRosette2023 · 10/08/2023 14:41

In reality when your income drops you have to adjust your outgoings.

On MN you must sustain your support to another household, irrespective of the impact on the rest of that household (second kids don’t count) at any expense.

People spouting about the “legal minimum” don’t seem to understand that as CMS goes up with income, it also comes down and that if you’re a decent earner it’s not actually a pittance.

Yes, this is the thing. People always say "the kids don't cost less because your income has gone down", but the reality is that they may have to. Mortgage/rent may need to be prioritised over whatever phone contracts/expensive clothes and clubs/days out they usually have. This is what would have to happen in a nuclear family and sometimes it will have to happen in a separated family, too.

whitewinefriday · 10/08/2023 15:24

RedRosette2023 · 10/08/2023 14:41

In reality when your income drops you have to adjust your outgoings.

On MN you must sustain your support to another household, irrespective of the impact on the rest of that household (second kids don’t count) at any expense.

People spouting about the “legal minimum” don’t seem to understand that as CMS goes up with income, it also comes down and that if you’re a decent earner it’s not actually a pittance.

Yep!

JJ8765 · 10/08/2023 15:40

OP isn’t a low income family she says both she and her DP have well paid FT jobs. So their joint DC will be living a comfortable-ish lifestyle. I totally agree ex should pay her share but CMS rarely amounts to 50% cost raising dc and where it does it’s because NRP is on the sort of wage where £100 wouldn’t be noticed.

morally the dad should treat all 3 dc equally in my view and give them a similar lifestyle - anything else is going to cause resentment down the line

if dc are planning on getting student loans ex earning more may just mean higher top ups a few years down the line. If ex working FT means dc get minimum loan then is OP and her DH going to pay 50% of shortfall? Maybe the ex should send the DC to live with OP and their dad at 16 so she can avoid the uni costs (and easily claw back £100 a month she will be missing).

LadyBird1973 · 10/08/2023 15:49

@RedRosette2023 it kind of depends on how much the income drops and what the nrp is willing to reduce spending on before cutting child support!

No one thinks the second set of children aren't important too and no one would be advocating giving the second child a bread and water lifestyle, so the first child can have horse riding lessons. But the first set of kids are just as important as the subsequent children and a lot of step parents seem quite happy to reduce the lifestyle of the step children in a way they would never accept for their own.

Honestly, I'm quite sceptical when a step mum says their dh wanted full time residency of the kids or a genuine 50/50 when said dh pays as little as he feels he can get away with.
And I think a lot of step mums wouldn't want that kind of arrangement, even when complaining about the children's mother, who is doing the majority.

aSofaNearYou · 10/08/2023 15:57

LadyBird1973 · 10/08/2023 15:49

@RedRosette2023 it kind of depends on how much the income drops and what the nrp is willing to reduce spending on before cutting child support!

No one thinks the second set of children aren't important too and no one would be advocating giving the second child a bread and water lifestyle, so the first child can have horse riding lessons. But the first set of kids are just as important as the subsequent children and a lot of step parents seem quite happy to reduce the lifestyle of the step children in a way they would never accept for their own.

Honestly, I'm quite sceptical when a step mum says their dh wanted full time residency of the kids or a genuine 50/50 when said dh pays as little as he feels he can get away with.
And I think a lot of step mums wouldn't want that kind of arrangement, even when complaining about the children's mother, who is doing the majority.

The step children are just as important, but the two adults in the household are not just as responsible for them, which is where it gets complicated. So they can only really expect what their dad can give whilst still contributing fairly to his household bills and an equal contribution to his youngest child. Whereas the youngest child will also have whatever their mum can provide.

MeridianB · 10/08/2023 16:01

tiggergoesbounce · 10/08/2023 13:42

In the cases i know, the reason the ex is happy for the maintenance not to go through CMS is when they are receiving higher than the CMS amount and the Father is generally good with payments or it is in their benefit to recieve the cash direct.

If he needs to alter the payment as his earnings have dropped, then that's what needs to happen. You are not responsible for keeping their children when one parent is only term time and no wrap around care is required.

As others have said, if she needs more earnings and only works term time (providing he is still paying a good amount), she has bandwidth to work through the holidays. That is the normal general advice on here, it shouldn't change because they are not together anymore.

Finally, a sensible post!

Lennybenny · 10/08/2023 16:10

@goldensquaresofjoy God knows why people are ignoring or not reading your posts.

The children are in secondary school.
She works part-time tto.
She has a partner...so shes a cheeky cf.

If his income changes, his cs does too. If the children are in secondary, it would be stopping soon anyway. There is no legal requirement to pay for the children after 18. If dh does, that's up to him and it should only go to them.

She probably hasn't figured out that as a parent with care, the Cs will stop when the children are 18 as will cb and uc etc. She probably wants it to carry on so she doesn't have to work more than tto.

She can work more hours, change her job etc. She just won't because your dh is paying.
She shouldn't have relied on the cs when dh is also paying other stuff for the children.

Any single parent should remember the gravy train stops when the kids are 18...and that's when we have to step up and work more/change jobs.

Original poster
goldensquaresofjoy · 10/08/2023 16:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I haven't said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I was asked if it was the marital home. It isn't, her parents died and she inherited.

Just because I'm not #bekind and pitying her and treating her like a pauper who needs handouts doesn't mean I don't respect what she's done for her kids and hard she must have found it.

She cheated on him. Again not that that makes a difference but it's not like he swanned off and left her to it.

OP posts:
Original poster
goldensquaresofjoy · 10/08/2023 16:15

Lennybenny · 10/08/2023 16:10

@goldensquaresofjoy God knows why people are ignoring or not reading your posts.

The children are in secondary school.
She works part-time tto.
She has a partner...so shes a cheeky cf.

If his income changes, his cs does too. If the children are in secondary, it would be stopping soon anyway. There is no legal requirement to pay for the children after 18. If dh does, that's up to him and it should only go to them.

She probably hasn't figured out that as a parent with care, the Cs will stop when the children are 18 as will cb and uc etc. She probably wants it to carry on so she doesn't have to work more than tto.

She can work more hours, change her job etc. She just won't because your dh is paying.
She shouldn't have relied on the cs when dh is also paying other stuff for the children.

Any single parent should remember the gravy train stops when the kids are 18...and that's when we have to step up and work more/change jobs.

Yes.

To be fair to her she hasn't said she needs the money. She could be fully self sufficient for all we know. All she has said is that she expects maintenance payments to continue as they are as I can make up any shortfall in our household.

OP posts:
Original poster
goldensquaresofjoy · 10/08/2023 16:15

goldensquaresofjoy · 10/08/2023 16:15

Yes.

To be fair to her she hasn't said she needs the money. She could be fully self sufficient for all we know. All she has said is that she expects maintenance payments to continue as they are as I can make up any shortfall in our household.

Show quote history

And then kicked off when I said no I would not be doing that.

OP posts:
LadyBird1973 · 10/08/2023 16:17

That's not quite right though. Parents go have financial obligations to their dc post 18. Some people have it written into their divorce settlement that they will continue CS while the kids are in full time education.
As unfair as it is, what children can borrow for university costs is calculated on parental income. Parents are expected to top up any shortfall.
The kids could theoretically end up borrowing less because mum gets a ft job - will dad be topping up the difference?

RedRosette2023 · 10/08/2023 16:17

aSofaNearYou · 10/08/2023 15:57

The step children are just as important, but the two adults in the household are not just as responsible for them, which is where it gets complicated. So they can only really expect what their dad can give whilst still contributing fairly to his household bills and an equal contribution to his youngest child. Whereas the youngest child will also have whatever their mum can provide.

Show quote history

Yes and I always find it quite ironic that SM is supposed to absorb the shortfall for their joint child and in turn subsidise the step child. But the Mother of the step child isn’t expected to do the same.

SunnyFrost · 10/08/2023 16:17

Second wife (OP) is going to be paying more of expenses for second family when his income drops. Seems odd that posters don’t think his ex should do the same for first family. Especially when she clearly has scope to work more and earn more.

I couldn’t handle being involved in a step family in a million years. So complicated and so much scope for jealousy and resentment on all sides.