If care is shared 50/50 ....(22 Posts)
then why does the Dad still have to pay maintenance?
In some cases one parent could still be bearing the brunt of most of the costs, ie. uniform, school trips, out of school activities etc etc.
fact is he doesn't. or shouldn't. but the system might be too inept to deal with cases where there's no RP and NRP.
More dets please, maybe we can help you
The child benefit people simply can't hadle it. They insist one person has to be resident and get the child benefit.
If there are two children involved it is simpler in that you claim child benefit for one each.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Cos that's the law. Even if the childcare is split 50-50, the person holding the child benefit is entitled to maintenance minus a 50% discount. But he/she still has to pay something.
Fair? Well....depends on what side of the fence you are on.
I don't think it's fair.
If one pays for all extra curricular stuff and school stuff etc then they should get maintenance from the other.
If they split this equally then they shouldn't.
Both should be able to claim 50% child benefit and 50% of any relevant tax credits or benefits.
If the care is split 50/50 then both would have household bills to pay so that's irrelevant.
You're right. It's not fair. At one point I was paying my ex over £300 a month in child maintenance even though our DCs were living with me at least as much as they were with her.
And now that our DCs are living full time with me I'm lucky to get £5 a week maintenance off their mum. But that's another argument...
Yes sadly the courts reward parents limiting access for finanical gain. A friend has the situation - despite having the Court order that stipulates regular access and having that access the mum is able to go to the CSA and say - dad doesn't see child and they believe her, not him. There are absolutely no safeguards, so in this situation the dad has to resort to ridiculous means of confirming he has his child, he has to obtain signed forms from the mum (which she mostly won't do). It could go the limits of him having to take a picture of his child with a newspaper and a subsequent one the next day to prove overnight (this was suggested as proof!! by CSA) Who would do this to a child. The system has to change - costs should be based on the actual costs. In my case I agreed the costs with the ex - we then split these. It can be simple if people really want it to be.
so if I earn less than my ex but we share the kids 50/50, do I still pay the same as him for everything related to the kids? Up until tonight, I was under the illusion that our salaries were roughly equal. I opened the pack of financial information I was given at mediation this week, and discovered that he did, infact, earn 3 TIMES what I earned in the last financial year... we are splitting the kids 50/50 at the moment. but is it fair that I pay half the nanny, half of everything, when he earns so much more than me (and clearly always has - in spite of me paying 50% of everything the whole time we were married - but that is another story!!)
Well even with 50/50 one of you is getting the child benefit. That parent is entitled to claim child support from the other person should they choose to do so. Though be prepared for issues if you do (ie not paying for half of clothes/uniform, school trips etc - if you're getting maintenace it covers some of those costs afterall...)
It doesn't matter whether that parent earns more or less than the one who gets the child benefit, the calculation is a percentage of their income.
And yes, if you have a nanny then you would of course pay the nanny for the days they look after the dc while those dc are in your care. He pays a nanny for the days his nanny has the dc while in his care.
It's actually irrelevant that your ex uses the same nanny (though probably better for the dc and easier for you both overall).
So if it's 50/50 care and you have the nanny on all the days you have the dc then you pay half her wages each.
there will be no maintenance as we have joint residency - ie the children are jointly resident with each of us on a strict 50-50 basis at his insistence.
he will claim child benefit for one child; i will claim it for the other... (assuming he ever gets around to claiming it for one of them, though - at the moment it is paid in my name into a joint account)
what happens in that situation? i continue to pay half of everything even though he earns 3 times as much as me and i get no maintenance.
and if it is all dependent upon who receives the child benefit, what will happen from 2013 when we are not entitled to it? neither of us will be entitled to claim it then.
Yes you would claim from him for the child you get CB for, and he would claim from your for the one he gets CB for.
It's not that simple to get the CB transfered if you object. But even if he does get it for one you'd still get something like 15% of his income for the child you get CB for and he'd get 15% of your income for the other.
Maintenance is meant to keep the dc in the lifestyle they could have expected had you stayed together. This if he earns more he pays more, and vice versa.
I can't really decide what I think is fair in MakingAMess's situation.
I don't really like complete joint bank accounts if you both work roughly the same amount of hours. I think you should have a joint account for bills, food, DCs stuff, christmas and birthday presents, household stuff, meals out, family daytrips, holidays etc. Then each have your own accounts for anything else you want to get. If I had a total joint bank account I would feel like I would have to check it was OK every time I wanted to buy something.
If my salary was less than my partner I would expect to have less spare cash than him to pay for any non-essentials or luxuries I wanted. So in that sense the same applies for if we split up. But I can't decide if I would expect him to put more money than me into the joint account. Ie the same percentage of wages but cos he earns more he would put more in.
Join the discussion
Please login first.