Child Maintenance for children 3x with ex wife 2x with ex gf

-taff

Guest101 wrote: »

What's that got to do with supporting your children?

Whether she's single or dating 5 guys, they're your kids

Which he's not trying to deny or avoid, but there will be posters on here saying things like 'get the snip'. 'you're such a bad parent for leaving your kids' etc etc. so I expect he's just making it clear, she left him, not the other way around before it descends into a men=bad, women=good type thread.

Guest101

-taff wrote: »

Which he's not trying to deny or avoid, but there will be posters on here saying things like 'get the snip'. 'you're such a bad parent for leaving your kids' etc etc. so I expect he's just making it clear, she left him, not the other way around before it descends into a men=bad, women=good type thread.

I read it as - she left me do why should I pay more?

To be honest the reasons it ended are irrelevant to the question of amounts. So I don't see why even mention it

cte1111

No need to have a go at the OP, he's asked a reasonable question so that he can pay the right amount of child support for his kids. No suggestion that he was trying to get out of paying.

Freddy's calculations look right to me - the total amount of child support overall should go up, as the OP is now supporting two separate families. Part of his remaining income after paying support to his first family, would have been going to supporting his second family, whilst they were living with him, so the same should apply now.

Guest101

cte1111 wrote: »

No need to have a go at the OP, he's asked a reasonable question so that he can pay the right amount of child support for his kids. No suggestion that he was trying to get out of paying.

Freddy's calculations look right to me - the total amount of child support overall should go up, as the OP is now supporting two separate families. Part of his remaining income after paying support to his first family, would have been going to supporting his second family, whilst they were living with him, so the same should apply now.

I fairly sure that's not how it works. The amount he pays for his first children actually goes down once he has more children.

Why don't we just wait for the OP to explain what they meant

DUTR

howmuchcaniget wrote: »

does anyone know for definite as both ways I can understand but it isn't my fault my EX GF went off with someone else.

It's as posted 19% gross, one pwc gets 3/5 the other 2/5.
(less any qualifying overnights just to complicate things) but the 19% gross is maximum.

LilElvis

DUTR wrote: »

It's as posted 19% gross, one pwc gets 3/5 the other 2/5.
(less any qualifying overnights just to complicate things) but the 19% gross is maximum.

Surely that should be "minimum"? If a parent can afford more then they should give it in order to provide their child/children with a better standard of living.

DUTR

LilElvis wrote: »

Surely that should be "minimum"? If a parent can afford more then they should give it in order to provide their child/children with a better standard of living.

It's the maxiumum liability, yes if one can afford and wishes to , then they can contribute more, but as an adult you know money doesn't just magic off the trees. The contributer still has their own essential costs.

howmuchcaniget

thanks everyone.
I'm a reasonable guy and want whats best for my kids but have now 2 ex families who I have to negotiate with and make sure i'm paying the right ammounts to. Money is short and i can't spend the rest of my life on friends sofa's so need every penny to get my own place. I just wanted to explain it was not of my doing that the partnership broke down with my Ex GF as i thought she was the one... you know second time round you kind of know but she didn't think the same

been hard few weeks but it's amicable as as can be. I'm still paying the houshold bills at present even though I've moved out. I've given her grace until she has sorted her finances so not to impact our 2 children together. the children are the main concern in all of this.

Thanks again.

cte1111

Guest101 wrote: »

I fairly sure that's not how it works. The amount he pays for his first children actually goes down once he has more children.

Why don't we just wait for the OP to explain what they meant

As explained by people above, the amount paid to the first family goes down but is joined by maintenance to the second family, making the total overall maintenance higher than when he was just paying to one lot of children.

What do you need the OP to explain? He's asked what he should be paying and explained that he has 5 children with 2 ex partners. It is complicated and the fact that the calculations have changed with subsequent agencies doesn't help people.

HoneyNutLoop

It is capped at 19% for all children, not per partner.

While the 2 children lived with him, he would have benefitted from a 16% reduction to his income for children in his household, and paid 19% of the remaining income for the 3 children he had to pay maintenance for.

He now has no children in his household, so there is no reduction to his income. He will now pay 19% of his full income split between the 5 children, rather than 19% of 86% of his income, split between 3 children.