to not want to pay child maintenance?

[lemonybarcode]

Hi I have four children, the younger two are looked after by me and their father exactly 50/50 in terms of nights/time. I pay for all clothes/haircuts/swimming lessons/shoes/school trips etc for both of them. I work full time and their father does not work.

He has now been awarded child benefit for the youngest child, this means that I am not eligible for any CTC, but also that I cant claim any childcare costs for the youngest when i am at work during the school hols (obv their father has no need for this as he is not working). It also means that he can claim maintenance for the youngest child. AIBU in being pissed off that he can get £200 odd a month from me (and therefore make me unable to provide for all 4 kids) or should I just suck it up? Any advice?

i think you need to speak to cititizens advice or a soliciter, as this sounds crap. you need to able to claim for your childcare costs, this is a bit of a shitty hole in the net tbh, if the kids are with you 50/50 then neither of you should have to pay maintenance to the other providing living costs are split equally and it sounds like you are paying more ie providing clothes etc.

not sure what you can do tho :(

But wouldn't you want him to get HB and therefore be able to house your children whilst he's with them 50% of their time ?

5madthings: thanks - I thought i ought to see a sol :( its a shame as mostly things work out well and i thought that Id enabled myself to be free of the lazy fecker :(

Mosman - i think a job would be a good way round that problem. he has a lot of time he can work in

But now he's your ex that's none of your concern, as I said plenty of women have played this game - it used to be 12 years before any sort of job was suggested.

Jobs aren't so plentiful tho

You're earning, he isnt. It doesnt matter how much of a lazy bastard you think he is.

Or do you think the rules should be different for men and women?

Mosman: you may be right - but Ive been a single parent for 20 years in one way or another and I cant think of ONE father who provided everything for their kids AND had them 50 [per cent of the time and still paid maintenance

Jobs arent too scarce here :)

TBH I think the real issue is that lemony can't get help with her childcare costs because he gets one of the CB claims nor is he prepared to do the childcare...

I think if she got either the money or the help then paying adjusted maintenance wouldn't be such an issue...

At it is she is effective paying twice through lack of CB and CTC and CTC childcare element and having to pay maintenance whilst he doesn't work and won't do the childcare...

I think the problem here is that you're judging him about not working.

please don't let that cloud what's best for your children.

Plenty of SAHM's don't work and they are not necessarily seen as 'lazy feckers'

I don't know where you live that jobs are not scarce.

This infuriates me.

We have my OHs four children 3 nights a week, the third night theybgoemhime after tea at 7pm so arguable we have them over 3 days a week apart from the crucial overnight.

Because their mother chooses to work minimum hours in a low paid job hence gets almost £1000 a month in tax credit as well as claiming the child benefit, my OH had to pay her £300 a month cm. last year when we had all kids 24/7 for 4 months we didn't see a penny from her, because, get this, him not paying her £300 maintenance equates to her "letting" him have that money. Wish we'd gone thru CSA.

Now, to pay £200 a month for one child, when you have care of one, and have the child 175+ nights a year would mean you must earn in excess of £1000 a week.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and you were a bloke earning this and complaining about coughing up £200 a month you would be slated on here!

Unless you have got your sums mixed up, I don't see the problem.

So presumably you're getting CB for one child and he's getting CB for the other. Given you have the children the same amount of time each that doesn't strike me as an unreasonable compromise.

How would you prefer this to be done? How would you draft the change in legislation? "He's not working therefore he shouldn't get any benefits linked to the children"? "Only working parents are allowed to spend significant amounts of time with their children"? "One parent's working arrangements must be matched by the other"?

I understand it rankles - I, too, was in a situation where I was doing 50/50 care but my ex was taking all the child benefit plus I was paying over £350 a month maintenance. It was annoying but I sucked it up because it was what was best for my children at the time and I viewed it as important that my children maintained a good relationship with both parents. Plus I couldn't come up with any better ideas that wouldn't massively disadvantage many other separated parents.

Argh iPad.... The third night they go home.....

"Jobs arent too scarce here smile"

Then it should be no problem for you to get a second one to cover the extra costs.

Err the sticking point is that he won't do the childcare so she pays for the ALL the childcare yet doesn't get the CB or CTC or CTC childcare element and has to pay maintenance.

If she weren't having to pay childcare (that he could do but won't!) then it would all be a non issue wouldn't it?

www.csacalculator.dsdni.gov.uk/calc.asp

Jeez thanks for your helpful comments. I would get another job, but working fulltime whilst picking the kids up/dropping them off at school 3 days a week does make it tricky.

I would re-write the legislation to say that whoever claimed the CB should be responsible for the costs of that child. As it stands, the kids lose out big time as I cant provide and he wont :(

What would be the position then if the roles were reversed. And it was the man doing the full time job. Would the same rules apply. Surely there must be rules covering this maintenance issue. Who pays what, who gets the child benefit and so on. But I agree it would seem annoying if the OP has to pay a child minder in the school holidays and now is losing more money. I see now he wants his National Insurance paid so wants the child benefit. Hmmm.

If he did all the childcare then he'd have both of them more than 50% of the time so he could then claim CB and maintenance for both.

OP, if you want him to do the childcare as well as his 50%, would it be better if the kids lived with him full time perhaps?

That way you have no worries about childcare, the kids get to be looked after by Dad and you can have weekend/midweek access?

Maybe something worth considering.

How much are you going to be worse off by per week?

I agree you should get your older ones to help out in order to earn their board and keep.

Glad your ex is your ex though. Can you change the 50/50 so more of the childcare is covered by him?

Explain to him if he won't help with the childcare whilst he is able to (ie not working) than you will have no choice but to appeal the decision and fight it tooth and nail?

The father will be getting child benefit, maintenance, free school meals and child tax credits for one child. The CSA will reduce maintenance based on the OP having financial responsibility for the other child and for the number of nights a week the OP has the younger child.

The OP having the children half the time isn't making the father financially better off. He will be getting benefits for one child full time; he actually has two children half the time so the costs should work out the same.

The 'fair' solution then is for the father to now have financial responsibility for the child he gets money for. He should pay for school trips, shoes, clothes and so on. The OP should not be worse off because the maintenance payments will probably be equivalent to the cost of school meals plus what the OP was paying for essentials for the younger child.

I'm not sure what other solution could be found that would be fairer.

I am pretty sure you have calculated CSA maintenance wrong. If you earned enough to pay that much cm on shared care you would not be eligible for CTC. Check the link I put above.