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?

You could have Fri to Sun nights so no childcare costs and reduced maintenance payments although no CTC at all?

well the kids much prefer being with me than being with him, so long term I hope/imagine they will live with me more than 50/50. The older ones are both at uni so cant help on a day to day basis - they do what they can when they are home. If the father took responsibility for shoes/clothes/trips etc I wouldnt have such a problem, but he is unable to do so. So that leaves a problem as well as the fact that it is tricky for me to fund childcare during the hols etc

As he is now receiving more money from taxcredits and child benefit, why can't he afford to pay for stuff?

well he does half the "childcare" during the holidays doesnt he? as he isnt working... can you not pay him to do it when it is your part of the 50/50

Are your eldest kids in Uni working? Do they pay their way?

Is it me or does the OP seem to be getting a hard time here?

This situation seems patently unfair to me - if children are 50/50 between parents, then why should one pay maintenance to the other? Seems utterly wrong.

It is not impossible I may end up in a situation with an unemployed Ex (as he has told me if I ever see maintenance from him he will stop working to prevent me getting my hands on his money) it would frankly add insult to injury if it were then suggested I should be paying him to sit on his arse.

OP I would seek some further advice on this, whether solicitor, CAB etc.

Let's say the law was changed to say that 50/50 care meant no maintenance either way. I can see the sense in that.

But what would that do to those where the DCs are with one parent for four days and the other for three? At the moment the "three day" parent is considered the NRP and pays maintenance for the four days the children aren't with them.

If NRPs in that situation knew that by having the children for one more day week they could stop paying maintenance entirely then expect a big increase in family court cases pushing for 50/50 regardless of what's best for the children.

Having a feckless ex will always mean that you end up paying more for the DCs than they do. It sucks but that's the way it goes. And the way the CSA calculates maintenance is unfair and does create all sorts of problems. But it really is surprisingly hard to come up with a better one.

Should either of you pay maintenance if custody is 50/50? I think you should go to court / a solicitor and have that looked at. I thought maintenance was paid to the primary carer, but if you have 50/50 shared care - how can that apply? Surely he'd be paying you for the time with you and you'd be paying him for the time with him = you each pay for the time you have them and call it even.

You need proper legal advice on this.

CSA rules are such that a) maintenance is paid from the Resident Parent to the Non Resident Parent, and b) you can't both be the RP.

Where there is contention over who is the RP and who is the NRP, the CSA deems that the person in receipt of Child Benefit is the RP.

NRP's maintenance payments are reduced pro-rata depending on how much time the DCs spend at the NRP's house (strictly speaking, it's based on the number of nights the DCs spend at the NRP's house). So, for two children who do not spend any time with the NRP then the NRP should pay the RP 20% of their net salary in child maintenance. If the children spend half their time with the NRP then that 20% is halved.

The CSA is simply following the laws that Parliament laid down for it. A solicitor or local court doesn't have the power to get laws overturned or to force the CSA to ignore the law.

My EH looks after our 3 kids 4 nights a week and I do 3 nights - in all school hols I have 5 nights and he has 2.
Over the year that equates to 50/50 exactly but - and here's the but! - residency is determined by the number of nights each partner has the DCs, not the days and even then it is calculated on the 'most common weeks' so doesn't take into account our holiday arrangement.
This means my wanker of a EH doesn't work, claims CB and I pay him a lovely monthly sum of money!

How has he managed to get income support if he had a 70k inheritance a couple of years back?

There has to be a negotiation to be had - possibly along the lines of "you do all the childcare during the holidays (while you don't have a job) and in return I will continue to pay all expenses and costs for "your" child and won't fight the maintenance amount"

I think you may find he's in for a bit of a shock. The child benefit is taken off the Income Support as 'money you already have coming in'.
That may change things a little.

I would re-write the legislation to say that whoever claimed the CB should be responsible for the costs of that child.

That suggests you're opposed to the very idea of child maintenance which, I'm sure, is not what you meant.

You need childcare during the times your DCs are with you. He doesn't need childcare during the times your DCs are with him. He is (effectively) the RP for one of the DCs. You'd get into very sticky territory if you tried to put in place legislation that said that the RP should pay for the childcare that the NRP needs. F4J might support such a campaign but I doubt many others would.

ah. I see. Thanks snorbs.

It really should be altered to reflect what happens in the case of a totally 50/50 split.

CB I mean. and the idea that one has to be non and one resident. Is there no way to say they are both? when it's a true 50/50 shared care?

So technically could the ex received the child benefit yet still agree that the op is the resident parent so she is able to claim the CTC childcare element....

See that would make the situation fairer.

CB I mean. and the idea that one has to be non and one resident. Is there no way to say they are both? when it's a true 50/50 shared care?

Nope. None whatsoever.

F4J might support such a campaign but I doubt many others would

I'd say this argument is genderless.

Surely the ex's primary reason for wanting to claim the CB is to entitle him to more benefits not neccessarily to entitle him to 7.5% of the op's salary.

He is only the RP for one child so 15% minus 7.5% as 50/50 nights split and erm can't she counter claim for £5 for the child who is resident with her presumably mins £2.50 for the 50/50 split?

Honestly I would consider letting him be the resident parent of both children and having them 3 nights each and every weekend so you had childcare covered. Obviously that would be assuming you don't have any issues with his parenting! Working full time is far less stressful if you're not coping with the school run, homework and after school activities 5 days per week...

Child Benefit is a "gateway" benefit. If you get CB then you are entitled to claim a number of other child-related benefits. If you don't, then you don't. You don't get CTC if you don't get CB.

I'm not sure I'd agree that this is a genderless argument. Over 90% of RPs are women. Therefore any changes that would be to the detriment of RPs would disproportionately affect women much more than men.

Nevertheless, I don't see lone parent organisations such as Gingerbread agreeing to any campaign to make the RP responsible for the NRP's childcare costs.

AIBU in being pissed off that he can get £200 odd a month from me

Er they are your kids - do you think I should pay for them instead of you? If you don't pay him maintenance then I will be paying, that's not really fair is it? I mean taxpayers will be picking up the bill for his rent and paying his income support.

*Child Benefit is a "gateway" benefit. If you get CB then you are entitled to claim a number of other child-related benefits. If you don't, then you don't. You don't get CTC if you don't get CB.

I'm not sure I'd agree that this is a genderless argument. Over 90% of RPs are women. Therefore any changes that would be to the detriment of RPs would disproportionately affect women much more than men.

Nevertheless, I don't see lone parent organisations such as Gingerbread agreeing to any campaign to make the RP responsible for the NRP's childcare costs*

And in your first statement therein lies the main problem and the reason equitable shared care parenting is not possible in this country.

The gender of parent should be irrelevant as regards what is best for children. It's quite telling that very rarely is it accurately reported that proportionally female NRP's are far less likely to meet their CM obligations.

The whole system is antiquated and based on long gone social expectations of the role each parent plays.

To be honest OP's dilemma is the reality which millions of father's live with on a daily basis.

The gender of parent should be irrelevant as regards what is best for children. It's quite telling that very rarely is it accurately reported that proportionally female NRP's are far less likely to meet their CM obligations.

Is this true?

I paid over and above what I should have, (out of guilt and through manipulation from a nasty ex) for 4 years, then the children decided to live with me, and daddy dearest walked away from all responsibilities, included finances.

And I'm aware of an overwhelming number of women fighting to get CM from their baby daddies, so I'm not so sure about the above statement. Where does that come from, what report?

I'm not sure where Sparks got that information from either but I must say that from the anecdotal evidence I've seen myself from meeting/talking to other single dad's, this does certainly seem true.

I know certainly in my case my ex gives me very little and I'm one of the lucky ones who get something. Plenty get nothing. At the same time I do know I spend more on trainfares sending the kids up to see her than she gives me in maintenance.

Of course I could go to the CSA but I learned years ago that having a small amount come in regularly each month is way better than an award for a larger amount which I rarely see. Of course there's the principle behind it all but principles don't put food on the table.