Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

[CocoEnglishChanel91]

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

I am assuming he is 15 as the OP said that her boyfriend has been paying child support for 15 years. So he is at least 15. Im guessing.

But yes, teens are expensive too. Maybe not on a monthly basis like childcare but in one off expenses, mobile bills, school trips, clothes, make up etc they can rack up a fair set of bills.

The thing is itsraining quite often the 'new' partners of each parent do end up picking up the financial slack - on both sides - which the op needs to be aware of. I earn much more than dh so in reality while he pays maintenance, it's me who pays for birthday presents, additional expenses like school trips/ driving lessons, holidays and days out together etc. I have no problem with doing this as, after 13 years, dsd is like a daughter to me anyway. But I do wish people who slagged off nrp and their 'new' partners/ families acknowledged this too. I made a choice with my eyes open and have no regrets. But it's not for everyone and the op needs to understand that it works both ways.

Aw. Shall we finally let your bloke off the hook?
I'm sure now he has paid for a bit of his child's life he should be allowed to stop. Child doesn't need to even think that his dad supported him for more than 15 years, surely? That won't affect his opinion of his dad at all.
How lucky for your DSS that he has a loving mother and her new partner to pick up the tab. Maybe after you two have had a child for 15 years he could move on to the next one. If you are lucky too you may have a partner to pick up the tab for his child with you too. Huzzah!

There was a thread in Relationships recently where the OP's partner was getting a hammering for not wanting to pay towards her DD because he wasn't the father so which is it?

Who you talking to chicken?

Sorry it was an observation, wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular.

What was the observation? That a different thread with different people and different circumstances got different responses?

Because child maintenance is a percentage of the non- resident parent's income!!!!

If I were a millionaire and my XH were on benefits, I would still insist on claiming the £5 or whatever it is, just on principle.

Common sense would suggest those ones wouldnt need any paid for then wouldnt it? It isnt hard to make a calculation for child support with childcare cost and then one without. Is it?

Well, yeah, I think it would be quite difficult to make a calculation for a child that uses childcare and one that doesn't if 'using childcare' is going to be the only criteria.

There's going to be a big difference in the childcare costs for a child who only does after school club three times a week during term time to a child that does four full days in daycare every week all year round.

Which is why I said I think it would be better if each parent splits the cost of childcare exactly equally after any government subsidy has been deducted.

I would persist in claiming it out of principle. Nothing or nobody would stop me, 3cheeklylittlemonkeys.

osolea you havent read or understood my posts. I said it is possible for the government to calculate a national minimum and use that for the childcare contribution of child support.

Eg: lowest childcare rate i have ever seen is £2.90ph for full time care (under 5s) that works out at £628 per month. Each parent responsible for half so £314. NRP pays £314 for each child under 5. Some PWC get a childcare element of wtc. This would reduce the NRPs half even more. Its really not difficult. But yes of course it is much easier to just leave women to pay for all childcare because of course thats women's business to sort anyway

" He's not had a holiday in ten years - while his ex and her man go"
Presumably if you earned what the exs new boyfriend does this could be you too!!

PWC who are on benefits pay more than 7% (£5 out of £70 JSA) of their income towards their DC, why should a NRP on benefits be exempt from paying it because the PWC has more? Your responsibility to your DC doesnt stop because you have less income. As i said the PWC on benefits dont get a pass on paying for them.

I'm reading and understanding your posts perfectly well thanks, I just disagree with you on how it should be calculated. If anything, you seem to be insisting that I think women should be left to pay for it all despite me clearly saying it should be split equally after any government contribution has been deducted.

I don't think it should be calculated at all, because you'd need numerous different calculation options to try and suit all arrangements, and even then you still wouldn't be accurate. Taking your method for your cheapest option would work fine if a child was in the cheapest childcare available full time, but it wouldn't work if a child was in slightly more expensive childcare for less time. So supposing your method of calculation was the closest match for the family that uses slightly more expensive childcare but for four days instead of five, then the PWC is either not going to get enough to cover half of the cost, or they are going to get more.

Which is why it seems like it would be easier for the CMS to take proof of what the exact childcare costs are, that proof of how much the PWC is getting in childcare vouchers or childcare tax credits, and then split the difference between two. Then the NRPs half just gets added on to the normal CMS payment.

Not that I'd expect the CMS ever to use any type of common sense of course - ime that's never going to happen!

As i said the PWC on benefits dont get a pass on paying for them.

That will be because a PWC on benefits will get benefits specifically intended for looking after the child. The NRP will only get benefits intended to pay for themselves.

Apologies osolea i did think you were saying "too much bother to try and split childcare costs" i see now what you mean. I agree, it makes so much sense "do you pay childcare? Can we have your bills and your tax credit award please. There you go, sorted" done. Clearly not worth it for the powers that be to put in place though. They dont seem to associate much with common sense.

No probs

I absolutely wouldn't think that NRPs shouldn't contribute towards childcare - no bloody way!!

If you married your bf, your income wouldn't be taken into account. The mother's new partner's income isn't taken into account. That's how it works.

£200/month won't actually cover half the boys expenses. Your bf is already getting off lightly.

Divorce/separation is expensive. It dilutes resources. If this bothers you, seriously consider looking for a new partner with a "clean slate."

That will be because a PWC on benefits will get benefits specifically intended for looking after the child

Of course, but very often they have to use the money intended for themselves as well to pay for stuff the children need. More than a fivers worth.

If a NRP couldnt afford their £5 contribution they could provide childcare or do school runs or extra meals. If they were doing that i'm sure cremeegg would be willing to forego the £5. Im guessing. I know i would. I obviously cant speak for others.

I'm childless and think you are unreasonable . In fact women like you make life much harder and cause rifts between parents. I hope the child's mother claims the amount she's entitled to- which incidental is more than your partner is currently paying. I think these things are sad because it causes trouble and the mother never knows how much money they are going to receive. The child is the one that suffers. I bet you don't have children do you?