Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

315 replies

CocoEnglishChanel91 · 28/08/2015 08:58

Advice please. My boyfriend and I have no children. His son lives with his mum, who earns £20k a year, plus WFT Credits, Child Benefit - and is living with her new partner, a police detective sergeant who earns £50k. Combined household income (including benefits) pushing £80k.

My boyfriend earns £28k per annum, sees his son every week, has great relationship with him. He has to pay over £200 per month to his ex, and has the Child Maintenance people crawling over and vetting his income.

Yet the £80k going into his ex''s household is classed as not being relative. Surely it is?

He's not trying to escape responsibility for paying for his son. Far from it. He's paid consistently from the off (over 15 years ) but it seems ludicrous to me that his ex can have whatever household income she likes and that's not a factor.

It just feels very unfair to be, with everything seemingly weighted on his ex's side.

Why is the parent with care's income not relevant? Doesn't the child have two patents?

From people with experience is what I say about patents with care correct? And could it impact on me if we move in together?

Thanks

J

OP posts:
SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 20:22

I'm suggesting that giraffe and her DP, you know, the NRP, buy the child clothes seeing as their shit mother doesn't bother. Certainly sounded that way to me.

i suggest you are guessing because it would fit your PWC hating agenda Wink

supposing these children were running around naked and starving when they were at their 'mothers' you would still blame their dad

if he knew and didnt collect the children straight away and call SS then hell yes I'd blame him.

The school uniform is funded though a free school uniform scheme I think giraffes said

So by m1nnies logic (mother not buying the uniform = lazy) this means the father is lazy too as he isnt buying it either. Is that correct m1nnie?

Clothes worn at home, I am presuming are bought by giraffe's DP because his ex doesn't use the £600 to pay for them

i would really love to have that confirmed by giraffes. I have a funny feeling it aint true. Just a hunch.

3CheekyLittleMonkeys · 30/08/2015 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 20:42

It costs way more than 600 pounds per month to support a couple of kids. If the state is covering (more than) the mother's share, because she is ill (and I don't believe you can just sit on your arse and get disability payments), then too right giraffe's dp should cover the rest!

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 20:44

yes and I'm lucky because I'm not ill and have been happy to work full time for 30 yeras without maternity leaves so i can pay the ex and support all the children alone and (not my choice) have them 365 nights a year. It would ben ice to have a night without them here a year.... but the law does not allow me that as there is no law to force the non resident parent even to have the children one night a year

Janet, do you work the hours you do so you can pay the ex? Or do you work the hours you can do so you can have a very nice lifestyle and buy islands and that type of shite?

I'm also not sure why you complain so much about never getting a night off because of your useless feckless ex given that you are more than capable of hiring a night nanny or paying for overnight childcare.

Yes your ex should have been having them a reasonable amount of time and yes he should have been contributing towards them financially and he's a great big shit bag for not doing so. But it's not as if you didn't have options and you are hardly anyway near in the same sort of position of some of the low income mothers you so gleefully talk about supporting financially

Osolea · 30/08/2015 20:47

It's stories like Girrafes that make me wonder whether the system would be better if RPs who live on full benefits should have their child maintence from the NRP paid to the government instead. That way the child's needs would still be met, and the government wouldn't be paying out money that they don't need to because the NRP is paying their share.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 20:50

the fact that she gets free uniform is based on her own circumstances and not the dad's. So in this case the dad is completely irrelevant.

Fair point. So the PWC's circumstances mean the NRP doesnt have to think about uniforms or school dinners. She is the one who applies for the grant and sources, sizes and purchases the uniforms. He plays no part. Yet she is the lazy one? Confused

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 20:51

I used to work for the DWP back when it was. My god that was a nightmare

Osolea · 30/08/2015 20:53

He does play a part though, he's giving her money for those things so she's getting money for the same thing twice.

They don't take into account what a NRP pays in maintenance at all. A RP could be getting five grand a month from their ex, and they'd still get full benefits as well.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 20:54

Osolea do you mean a compulsory payment to govt by NRP and then paid on to PWC in place of tax credits/uniform grant/housing allowance etc?

m1nniedriver · 30/08/2015 20:54

Osolea, the government would still have to pay the RP Getting the benifits the extra money wouldnt they?? Surely if that was the case the RP would have less money every month??

It's not the NRPs responsibility to pay back the RP benefits. NRP has no responsibility to their ex, just their children Shock perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea?

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 21:00

he's giving her money for those things so she's getting money for the same thing twice.

No hes paying his share of the cost. Shes getting the other half of the money for those things.

A RP could be getting five grand a month from their ex, and they'd still get full benefits as well

Yes because a) maintenance can be stopped in a heartbeat and b) the £5000 is for the child from the NRP. The RP's benefits are covering the RP's responsibility to the child. The NRP paying £5000 does not remove the RP's responsibility to provide for their child. Just like if a RP was a millionaire it wouldnt remove the NRP's responsibility to provide.

LostMySanityCanIBorrowYours · 30/08/2015 21:00

Do free school uniforms still exist? I thought they'd been scrapped?

Does it cover shoes, trainers, wellies, coats, bags, stationary? Because the cost of those is eye watering.

What about free replacements when the child climbs a tree and manages to rip off half of their trousers? Or when they decide to grow three foot overnight.

What do your dsc wear if no one is buying them clothes Giraffes?

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:03

I agree that a NRP has no responsibility to provide for an ex, and the RP is responsible for providing themselves with a home and for providing their children with a home. But after that, if there's child tax credits or any other child related benefits being claimed, then half of that figure should be paid back to the government by the RP.

I don't think it's right that RPs can claim benefits at the same time as getting a nice chunk of money from their ex. The NRPs contribution needs to be counted somehow, and obviously they are still obliged to support their child even if the RP doesn't work or claims benefits. So if the maintenance was paid to the government, then they would not have to spend out so much in benefits, but RPs woudnt suffer if their ex chooses not to pay sometimes, and the government could chase them if they don't pay.

I haven't explained that very well, have I?

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 21:04

Yes, a person could theoretically be getting 5k a month from the ex but I don't suppose many are!

I also think an nrp does have a responsibility to their ex in some cases. If the rp is doing the majority of the childcare or has been a sahp, the ex has derived benefit from that labour.

I think we have to stop this situation where one person (usually the man)seems to keep all the money and the other person gets all the responsibility for the dc (and the poverty which often accompanies this).

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:06

No hes paying his share of the cost. Shes getting the other half of the money for those things.

No, she's getting the full cost. Because plenty of NRPs pay nothing, so the government gives enough to pay the full cost, not half of it.

Except in cases where there's disability and the RP can't work, why should one parent get to be subsidised by the government and not the other?

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 21:08

Not one of the counties I work in offers any help towards school uniforms.

They used to do that osolea it did not work and created huge problems.

I'm also not sure how comfortable I am with CM not being used to lift children out of poverty or that we should be advocating using it to keep children at benefit levels of poverty

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:09

In cases where the NRP has a responsibility to the ex because they've been a SAHP, it shouldn't last more than about a year. That should be enough time for a RP to get a job to support themselves and their half of the children, and any childcare cost should then be split equally.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 21:09

In my area (not sure about others) the uniform grant is £35 (and some pence) for the uniform for the year.

Our school jumpers (have to buy from school supplier) are £13
A two pack of white polo shirts from asda is £2.50-£3 depending on size
A pair of trousers from asda are £5-£6 depending on size (dearer for slim or wide fit)
I got black trainer type shoes in sports direct for £9.50

So £30 if a younger child with £5 spare for a school bag. Or you could keep the £5 and buy half a pair of shoes in the next term when the toes wear through.

StealthPolarBear · 30/08/2015 21:09

Presumably because if their respective family circumstances?

StealthPolarBear · 30/08/2015 21:10

Don't mention the trousers with the holy knees!

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 21:10

Except in cases where there's disability and the RP can't work, why should one parent get to be subsidised by the government and not the other?

A NRP is just as able to claim benefits based on his living circumstances and income as a RP is.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 21:12

Forgot the obligatory /her

StealthPolarBear · 30/08/2015 21:13

I'd be really curious to know what % of situations where the mother has the children in the week and the father at weekends does the father still accept that childcare for the child's parents to work is half his responsibility and actually care for the child for 2.5 days, or pay for that childcare on top of his maintenance payments?
Is this common? My feeling is no.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:14

People who live on full benefits (without disability) aren't in poverty because their benefits are too low though, if they are in poverty at all.

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 21:18

So you think it's fair then, that a sahp can make huge career sacrifices that help enable their dh/dw to forge ahead in their careers, on the understanding that they are a team and when the relationship ends the wohp gets to keep the majority ofvthe money while the other still has missed out on promotion/pensions etc?

If you agree during a marriage to one person being a sahp, then I believe it obligates you even after divorce. A year is by no means long enough to compensate for years out of the workplace.

In addition, there are not many child friendly jobs out there. Think it's very unfair that rp often ends up with minimum wage job and full responsibility for the kids.

Swipe left for the next trending thread