..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?

Sorry obviously if nrp isn't getting 50;50 regular time with children then he should contribute more as well as childcare if needed. I just mean this should be taken account if they pay for a house with a room for them and they have to pay rent bills buy clothes and food etc too. It's not about expensive toys just daily things they need. My dp paid all childcare costs for dsd as his ex was at university and he could afford too and they do still split most things but obviously pay their own rent and bills etc. and he pays over minimum. I just thought that in some situations the time spent at another house needs taken into account too cause that still needs paid for

If it makes you feel any better, back in the old days when my dc were young I didn't get anything in maintenance until I got made redundant and claimed IS which is when the CSA (as it was then) kicked in. Except that because they calculated ex should be paying over what I would get in IS, I didn't get anything from that, and because I was claiming IS, I didn't get any maintenance payments. I swear to God that Kafka couldn't have come up with a more fucked-up system. It did all get ironed out in the end, and I got another job and etc but for literally months all that we had to live on was CTC minimum - I would do things like switch the fridge off at night so that we didn't use up electricity. And all this while ex was living the life of Riley. But as far as he was concerned, benefits should be taking care of us, so why should he. I agree that it's a mindset, but it's a seriously messed-up one.

south yes it is, but if you know your ex well you would have an idea of what they would think a reasonable spend was, and ours is probably higher, also had similar sized households etc

What lone parent benefits are you talking about? I wasn't aware there were any lone parent benefits that weren't associated with income, but I'd like to know, maybe I'm entitled!

This is such a personal and polarising subject, for some 8pct is way more than any child could ever need to live a privilidged life but to so many more 8pct is not enough.

I really do wish MN founder Justine could take the issue of CM up with David Cameron.

These men really need to be responsible for the children they have, in a way that reflects the real cost of raising them.

I'm shocked 8% is the new rule!

8% is not the new rule. In OP's case the father has 2 children to pay for. His bill for 2 children is 16% of gross income. That suggests his gross income is £70,000pa. This is around £4000 net pm.
So he's paying nearly 25% of his net income for the 2 children.
Child maintenance stopped trying to relate itself to the needs of each particular child in 1991. It's a blunt instrument. Some parents won't receive enough. Others will receive "too much".
The alternative is we revert to the old system involving judges and lawyers.