..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?

It's one of the main bastions of our misogynistic society, this. I cannot wait until a political party puts a stop to one parent thinking they can opt of their responsibilities to their own children.

If an RP needs to claim benefits because the father NRP doesn't support them financially (and I mean at least half the actual costs), then the state benefits the RP needs should be recouped from NRP.

SurlyCue, I was just about to say that. If I was an NRP whose ex was claiming benefits, I would be absolutely ashamed of myself, not talking about how I should be paying less because of the benefits said ex was getting.

Surely this also depends on how often your ex sees them?? He may also provide a home, clothes, nappy and food etc. and he is paying at least half the childcare costs surely? Obviously this is only if he has the child regularly

not talking about how I should be paying less because of the benefits said ex was getting

It is a definite mindset of some people. It was the very reason my exp gave for not paying any maintenance. "You get it from the government. Thats what your benefits are for" he genuinely believed/s that this absolved him of his responsibilities. Oh and also "I'm not paying your childcare" i didnt ask you to pay mine dear, just your own.

I agree that it's shameful. My friend's ex takes great delight in only paying the minimum, and when his wage went down one month ( he took unpaid leave for a holiday) he cut down what he gave her. Of course he doesn't increase it when he gets overtime

If I ruled the world then NRPs would pay half the childcare ( or do half the childcare) and then pay a proportion of their income to help with the rest of the costs.

I do hope the kids shun them when they get old. They'll be living in their care home with no one to visit them.

Having a similar problem with my ex, who thinks that because he pays the CMS minimum I should be paying the cost of after school care on days when he has the DC overnight.

I'm making sure to keep all receipts for childcare etc, so when he pulls the 'I more than contribute financially' line then I've got evidence that his 'contribution' in no way covered fifty percent of the costs.
My son needs new shoes (again) tomorrow, which will be at least another £60 for two pairs of shoes. All while he acts as though I'm sponging off him, with his minimal maintenance payments.

My ex pays £7 a week for our 2 children and pays no extras at all. I've no idea what he thinks that pays for. he thinks I should be grateful.

I'm of the view point that it's the minimum you can enforce and if I was a NRP I would if I could afford to do so (income wise not choice wise) pay more but nobody has to think like that.

I wouldn't date a high earner who only did the legal minimum but I wouldn't knock a low earner who did.

I'm not sure I've explained that well but in my head I know what I mean

would it be possible for him to provide support in other ways? Share care so that childcare bills are lower, for instance, or arrange for his family to provide childcare one day a week?

I'm always a bit wary when RP say their "ex should be paying half the costs of the child" because the NRP gets very little say in what those costs amount to.

Lots of kids are cared for by a grandparent, or aunt, while their parents work and I don't see why the NRP shouldn't be able to make similar arrangements as an alternative to paying for whatever the RP decides.

(If the ex in this case is a deadbeat dad, then ignore me, I'm talking about situations where the NRP is a willing participant in parenting).

Matilda2013 it doesn't matter if the NRP sees the children or not. The NRP doesn't always provide an extra room for said children and when they are not with the RP the RP still has to pay rent and associated bills for a property to house those children. They do not get a tax break or discount because those children spend the odd weekend with a NRP.

Maintenance payments should not be based on how much is spent on the child when visiting. Expensive gifts, toys and meals out are treats and do not keep that child clothed, fed and in school.

Maintenance is there to ensure the child has stability, a home and to cover associated costs of the home inc food and heating. Those who don't pay or pay the bare minimum need to understand that this is what their money for their child covers.

I had it with my ex who (before he decided to do one for good and never came back) accused me of spending child maintenance payments 'on crap' This particular time I had spent that paltry £139 a month on a carpet for DC's room. He thought I should spend it on toys only. Not realising a carpet amounts to meeting the basic needs of a child. DC was fed, clothed and had plenty of toys he couldn't use in his room safely :/

honestly. The attitudes of some many NRP - mostly fathers/glorified sperm donors - Is nothing short of atrocious. Esp when the RP earns way more than the NRP. Ex tried to use that one too when it came to not paying. My extra 10k a year than him was sufficient and leave him destitute.

If he's earning a pittance then expect to get "a pittance" in maintenance. What more do you expect?

Him to do what he can to reduce the financial burden on the PWC where possible. So providing childcare so they can work, having the child for more nights/meals, sourcing cheaper/second hand uniforms/sports equipment/shoes. If you cant meet the financial needs of your child then do what you can to reduce the cost of raising the child. You cant just pass that burden to the other parent and expect them to cover your slack.

YANBU. The actual amount is irrelevant, almost - it's that he thinks 8% is his fair share. It really isn't.

I think it's ok if it doesn't incl childcare.

Why don't you do a spreadsheet with all costs and incl childcare after the subtotal and divide by 2, then present it to him and ask if he can contribute to the childcare on top?

We do a private arrangement and I did this to ensure we were paying a fair amount. Incl clothes, school clothes, utilities, food, school trips, and some other stuff I can't recall and split by 2. I purposely excluded vacations and housing as both parents had these costs and it was up to the individual household how much they spent on them.

.... I meant to say, regarding childcare, he will see the decrease after x years once your DC is in school and then after x more years once afterschool care isn't needed.

We didn't need to incl childcare as thankfully PIL were only to happy to provide this for both Dh and xW.

notness. That's still very subjective though - because you costed the uniform, utilities, and groceries.

The OP says she's going to spend £60 on two pairs of school shoes - but her ex may spend a lot less on shoes, given the choice, just like lots of other parents do.

whatyouseeiswhatyouget- please don't get me started on how many ways the system assists the NRP in paying less. I had someone on the phone the other day, informing me that as my ex had an open case with the CSA he wasn't legally allowed another case with the CMS. Therefore they had to give him thirty days to close the CSA case. Which meant in essence that my ex isn't even liable for maintenance for our son at the moment, because of the existing CSA case. Hmmm. My stbxh is sooo lucky that I didn't have the funds to pursue ancillary relief through the courts.

And to all the reasonable people who say 'why not present him with a spreadsheet' etc? He isn't interested. He knows that his contribution doesn't cover half of childcare, plus basics (clothes, nappies, shoes etc). However he thinks that I deserve to live in poverty as I chose to leave him, and for not having a job as well paid as his.

I think that people have a pretty weird idea as to what the CMS minimum really is or what it might cover.

There was a thread of here just a week or so ago where people were telling the OP (a non resident father) that paying over CMS was unreasonable and unfair to his second family. That was with a disabled child too, so massively more expenses involved.

Re how much time you have the child I don't think it makes that much difference until you get close to 50:50. For example when dh and I separated we didn't give each other any money because we both had the children for half the time and so effectively split all the associated costs down the middle (eg half the childcare or half the tie covered, half the food, heating and other bills ect). Of course we both had to have homes big enough for them to stay, but that's just what happens when you split, your children need two homes.

I think that part of the issue is that for many NRP the children suddenly become the other person's responsibility that they may or may not 'help' with.

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?

I do see this point, but as plenty of parents who live together claim benefits for their children, it doesn't completely add up. Those benefits would still be needed, and in think it is completely relevant how often a NRP sees their child, and where they see them. If a NRP is providing a suitable home for their child when they visit, they shouldn't have to contribute to the basis bills and maintenance of the child's other home. Each parent has to house themlsves, and should be providing safe, suitable space for their children.

as plenty of parents who live together claim benefits for their children, it doesn't completely add up. Those benefits would still be needed

No, those associated with being a lone parent wouldnt. Those associated with low income are an entirely different matter.