Child Maintenance reduction (informal agreement)

[Spiritualchic4]

I have been divorced for 10 years. Maintenance was court ordered for 5 years at £1550 per month, my ex earns a 6 figure salary and we have a 70/30 split. Since the agreement has become informal it has continued and I have never asked for more despite many costs increasing. I pay a lot of money out for all dance classes, competitions and shows. Along with associate costume and uniform costs. I cover all clothing costs including uniform and I even purchase clothes at Christmas and for holidays abroad. I cover everything and I’m happy to do that and to continue as is.
my ex has recently got married, was made redundant but has another job. He claims his salary is 20% less however 20% less than the salary he had 10 years ago, he most definitely will have earned more but like I’ve said I’ve never asked for more. he has suggested a 35% reducing which is significant £550 a month so £6600 per year. My stance is if things change your side they have to change my aside and I will no longer cover all dance and clothing costs. He has not suggested CMS which makes me think he is lying about salary as his offer of £1000 and I don’t know what that is based on and could be slightly more than CMS figure. I think I should ask for evidence of salary. I would consider could continuing as is until she’s 18. Anyone had a similar experience? If so, what did you do.

You need to reframe this. It sounds like he has overpaid for over 5 years. So you’re taking 20% from a far higher number than you should be.

unless she does dozens of private ballet lessons a week, it sounds like he has been completely covering her costs on his own for a decade, and probably your costs too. You must know the numbers. Has he?

I do disagree with the posts saying that op should also be contributing 1500 to their dd so it’s 50/50. She does more of the childcare and mental load, so he should be contributing more than 50. Not 💯 + though!

There are frequent MN threads on situations like yours in which the mother is told there's nothing she can do about it, yet on this thread multiple people are trying to call her out by insisting both parents have to pay identical amounts towards the children, despite the fact she has more than twice as much childcare to cover if they're 70/30.

Hes carried on paying the higher rate 5 years past the agreement and is still willing to pay a very good amount for 1 child. You didn’t need to ask him to increase it because it was already a lot of money. Sounds more like you want him to carry on contributing towards your lifestyle to be honest. How old is your child? Does he never buy her anything?

The child can't be a baby though if they've been divorced 10 years. Maybe in early childhood you might have a piint

I thought cs was meant to give the child as close to the lifestyle they would have if their parents were married so nothing to do with 50/50 contribution. The one who earns more tops up the one who doesn't (taking in number of days spent with child also).
Also is cs calculated over the last year's earnings or what you actually earn in the moment?

Have you had teenagers yet?!? They’re harder than babies. Midnight pickups, lifts everywhere. The op likely spends many more hours than the ex doing ‘stuff’ for their child, hours that she therefore can’t be earning, so shouldn’t be paying 50/50 towards the costs, but less.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. I do everything he shows up 4 nights in a fortnight. People need to read. I’m not asking for more or saying it should stay the same, the suggested reduction is huge.

You did say in your OP you might suggest it stays the same until she’s 18, people are reading it.

I agree with this. You are likely to come out with less if you go through CMS. Unless you’re massively underestimating his income.

I would probably say you can’t possibly afford to take that cut but propose a compromise figure.

This topic really divides the room and everyone’s circumstances are different. The CMS is a guide for private arrangements as it says on their website, another amount can be agreed. I’m debating my position. If it has to change it has to change.

Are you saying that a ten or eleven (or even fifteen) year old plays absolutely no role in how career focussed the parent who has them most of the time can be?

You'd work rotating shifts (6am starts or 10pm or nights, weekends) and do 24 hr on-call with a ten year old and just leave them home alone to sort themselves out? You'd travel abroad for work?

A ten year old or young to mid teenager makes no difference to how career focussed a parent can be, nor to their earning power - absolutely no flexibility or turning down overtime/ lucrative shifts/ career enhancing opportunities required in your opinion.

The CMS is the minimum legal requirement.
The court order you have is now out of date, the private arrangement you had was the court amount continuing. But a private arrangement only works once agreed by both parties. He doesn't agree anymore.

I can't fathom how you are spending £1500 a month, plus your financial contribution plus CB on one child. Those dance classes must be insanely priced.

Well yeah but the point is that he won’t agree to the £1500 continuing and you have no legal means of forcing him to pay it (unless his salary is in fact so high that this would be his liability). How old is the child?

First payment is for 0 kids living with him. Second is with his wife's 2 kids.

He's been overpaying for years so no I wouldn't be challenging this.

Costs increasing doesn't affect it.

Yeah 3 of them all now grown adults thanks. Without any CM for them. Taught them to get themselves places though

In fact the £1500 ten years ago was probably more than my family income in total, never mind for one child

Not every is " career focused" though you know. Millions of people just have normal jobs many of them at minimum wage

For all we know the OP could be a minimum wage earner topped up with benefits

You can also have a “good” highly paid role and have no need to work shifts or travel.

My comment stemmed from the string of posts saying that she should match whatever child support he pays, and the claim that having the child 70% of the time was only relevant to earnings if the child was a baby or very young child.
Her ex had just claimed to have taken a pay cut to £95,000 pa, having previously earned £120,000 pa. Earning that salary without being carer orientated would be unlikely.

The 70/30 split obviously impacts parental earning potential long past the early years.

Well yes. Maybe in the OPs case. But you never know whether she or any other woman had or wanted a " career" in the first place.

You never know whether anyone wanted anything, sure. I was replying to a theme at that stage of the thread that apparently the resident parent is meant to spend exactly the same amount on the child as the less present parent pays in child support. Someone was claiming that having the child 70% of the time was only a reason not to match the ex's earnings if the child was very young. Clearly it is far harder to earn a very high wage if you are in sole charge of a child, even if the child is ten or eleven - it limits lots of things expected in many higher paid jobs. Obviously someone could be paid to be present for the child/ teen, but that's rather the point ...

I think the matching payment by the RP is to demonstrate that unless she is paying half her children’s costs, it’s unreasonable to argue he should be paying £1500 a month plus 50% of any of the children’s outgoings.

if he was paying £200, and the child’s dance lessons cost £300, then it’s reasonable to expect him to chip in for anything over and above the £400 a month for both parents.

o/p can’t really argue that £1500 a month doesn’t cover costs.

plus it’s always a point made here that maintenance should cover half of the children’s costs. So on that basis he is paying way more.

yes being RP will often affect ability to work. Although not always. But in this case the CM is a significant sum and the o/p is unreasonable to expect him to finance her further if she can’t meet his contributions.

I’m sorry to hear that, that must have been difficult.
good news that you lived in a place that ten year olds can get themselves to all their extra curricular etc or parties etc and where it was safe enough for a 15 year old to walk home from their babysitting jobs etc, that must have made life a bit easier for you at least.

just because you had to struggle though, and your kids had to miss out on lots of the nice stuff money can buy, that doesn’t mean the ops dd, whose dad earns £100k+ should also miss out.

I was talking about them getting themselves places as teens. The stuff they did ATC, guides church youth club were all within 15 mins walk . What babysitting jobss are you on about ? .My kids hardly " missed out". What are you assuming they missed out on? They just not brought up to be materialistic . Why do you think I " struggled through" You've bunged quite a few assumptions about me in there And yeah it is a safe place I live.

The kid isn’t going to ‘miss out’ because the mum ‘only’ gets £1000 a month maintenance for 1 child.

It was a reference to your comments throughout the thread that have maintained that the op should match the CM since her dd is not a baby so the fact that she looks after her dd 70% of the time is irrelevant. Which is patently nonsense.

it also referenced your comments that children 10+ (that’s all we know) should be able to get themselves about because your youth club was a 15 min walk away in a safe area. You must surely be aware that for other families, their children need driving places.

your main point seems to be that because you got nothing from the father, no one else should.