..to say that paying the CMS minimum, is not sufficient financial responsibility

[PeutEtreHier]

Just that really - STBXH thinks that paying the CMS minimum (8% of his gross salary) is sufficient financial responsibility for our son, and that he needn't pay more. I disagree.

To illustrate:

If I paid only 8% of my income it would amount to £169 a month. That in addition to 8% of his income (£466 a month), totals £635 a month. An amount that doesn’t even cover my son's nursery fees.

So by his logic, after paying his nursery fees, I therefore have no further financial responsibility for my son as I’ve paid the amount deemed sufficient by the CMS.

Obviously, I don't just arbitrarily assign 8% of my income to my son, and instead pay for what he needs.

AIBU?

YANBU

Think it depends how much the 8% is.

8% for some people is £20 a month. You're getting £466 which is a reasonable amount in my opinion.

Presumably the people who think £20 a month is reasonable, receive tax credits etc to pay for childcare?

Have you looked into whether you are eligible for child tax credit help towards childcare ? Most lone parents may be eligible for help unless on a high wage.

Mediation? Legal advice is probably required. You would need to provide mire info for an assessment of whether it is or is not reasonable.

My gut feeling is that he is not being fair, but I'm not a family lawyer in full possession of the facts.

what would you like him to pay?

Yanbu!I don't understand these men who seem proud that they pay the amount they have to pay. It's the minimum ffs. Well done being proud that you contribute as little as you legally have to! Dearie me.

And comparing a better off family with a poorer one and doing the whole at least you get that much thing is a bit daft. Just because another man is giving even less to his children doesn't mean children with high earning parents shouldn't get a fair amount of it.

I think 50% of childcare costs plus a reasonable amount towards costs such as nappies and clothes. I don't expect him to subsidise my lifestyle but I do expect him to contribute half of reasonable costs.

YANBU. But that sadly doesn't mean there's anything you can do about it.

It depends how much 8% is! it could be enough! it could be ridiculously low.

I think paying half of the childcare cost is a reasonable thing to ask, as well as half of all directly associated costs, assuming the PWC doesn't get benefits.

YANBU.

It's something that really pisses me off. It's hard to explain but it's sort of not even about the amount of money I get - it's more that XH thinks it absolves him of all other responsibilities.

My ex husband always paid the least he could - even once giving up work just to prove a point when I pleaded for more money
He professed to love them both dearly - but not enough to support them - its as if he thought the money was for me personally to fritter on shoes and handbags!
When they went to university he stopped paying altogether - even though I emailed him and asked him to carry on some level of support - explaining that if we were still married it would be a bit odd for him to cut them off without a penny at 18 - also broke down for him cost of student accommodation etc
After a year guilt got to him and he made them an allowance of a £100 a month each (this was quite recently for context)
These days his property is worth a fair bit, he drives expensive cars, and goes on luxury holidays
I however have a fabulous relationship with my now adult children which he never will

Yanbu at all. I think they should pay half childcare costs and anything else such as clothes etc. They're the parent too. They think doing the bare minimum is something to be applauded.
My ex refuses to get a job or claim any benefits (he moved back in with his mum) just so he doesn't have to pay a penny. It's disgusting.

Ooofty, 8%! I thought the minimum CMA amount was 20% of your gross salary?

Bloody hell, that's low. And I don't think it should matter how much the salary is, your children should benefit from their parents' income.

I think if you are on the dole then £30 should be the minimum too, but that's another thread.

So OP, YANBU.

Yes I have to a agree with Rainbow, its very hard to articulate but I see so many men who think paying the min absolves them of any responsibility.

If I could pay £50 per week and have someone take care of every particular need my child has, pick up, drop off, arrange appointments, shop for them, take time off work when they are ill or childcare falls through, and only drop into their lives when I fancied doing something fun with them I'd be thinking I was getting an absolute fucking bargain.

Have had this same argument with X when he literally doubles his wage via overtime, but doesn't pay even a penny any extra or offer to buy anything and the money he does give doesn't even cover the 2 days nursery which allows me to work PT

You could dump the child on him for a month and see how he manages financially!

YANBU. Just because his 8% is more than others' 8%, it doesn't mean that your ds is getting a fair deal out of this; if you were still together, then your ds would have a higher standard of living than a child of less well off parents - why should that change just because you no longer are with his father? Also, as you have pointed out, the contribution doesn't even cover half of the costs of keeping your ds which, don't forget, isn't just nursery and clothes and nappies but also things like having a house big enough for him to have a bedroom, heating and lighting that bedroom etc.

I agree with Radiatorvalves that it might be worthwhile looking into mediation.

The rules are now quite complex if your weekly wage is over £800 a week, so really it's not even £466/8%.

It's 8% of the first £800 (he has a child from his first marriage who gets the other 8% of the '16% for two children'). And then 6% of anything over £800. Which works out around £420 a month.

Which would be sufficient, if I didn't need to pay for full time nursery care five-days-a-week just to allow me to work.

This is why i have long thought there should be a national minimum figure based on the actual cost of rasing a child, and then rising proportinally when the income is at a certain threshold.

Yanbu.
I get £20 a month and DS dad thinks he's dad of the year
Nursery costs 40£ a day

How much the 8% equates to is utterly irrelevant. Any man who thinks giving their DC the bare minimum especially when they can clearly afford more is an arsehole of the highest order.

Only giving the CSA minimum doesn't automatically equate to only giving your child the minimum though. Plenty of fathers only give their ex the minimum they have to but still provide a suitable home for their children when they visit and have to spend money on them during that time, which often doesn't equate to the same as tend educations they get for those nights either.

It's complicated, especially when you consider that PWC often get benefits as well, so aren't really paying for tenor children themselves either.

Of course a non resident parent should pay a fair amount, especially when it comes to childcare costs that aren't covered by tax credits, but costs of a child are going to be higher for a child that has separated parents instead of parents that are together.

YANBU.

8% is a fucking joke.

My ex pays fuck all, but thinks he's a brilliant dad. You can't reason with these fuckers.

It's a joke. My ex earns £1,000 gross a week yet will only have to pay £152 a week for our two children.

That won't even cover nursery for one of them so that I can work.

Im always a bit when people say "well PWC get benefits so X,Y and Z reasons why an NRP shouldnt pay half of costs" does it ever occur to you that those benefits wouldnt be needed if half the costs of raising a child were paid for by all NRPs? If that was state sanctioned. That if all parents paid minimum X amount, rising with income, towards their DC then benefits for lone parents wouldnt need to exist.