To think if you're a NRP and you don't pay half the child's costs you're unreasonable

[FluffyMcnuffy]

This is not a TAAT but why oh why do some people think it's fine to pay CSA minimum?

Surely the only fair way is for the NRP to pay half of what it costs to raise the child I.e. Half childcare fees, half uniforms/agreed clubs and a contribution towards housing/food if they have the child less than half the time.

AIBU to think that if they "can't afford it" then they should go without the bigger house/golf trips/ski weekends and pay for their child like the RP bloody well has to?

AIBU to judge men who don't do this when they are physically financially able?

If men (mostly) had to pay half then they wouldn't go onto the next and have more kids, or partner somebody who already has kids.
Of course they shouldn't pay a new partners bills, but half of what it costs to raise the child. They had huge plans for this child when they were born, don't most Dads.

I'm self employed - which on MN is often claimed is a great way of avoiding CSA.

I have always paid way more than the CSA minimum. I thought it was pathetic. I pay ??400 a month on earnings of around ??21,000. I don't get CB or Tax credits. DS stays over 2 - 3 times a week, we have half the holidays and are very flexible in our approach. I do the school run twice a week.

I have struggled to pay this - got into debt but I felt it was my responsibility. I lived in shared houses and eventually (with help from an inheritance) managed to get a small flat in a crap area of town.

My ex has somehow managed to get a 3 bed house in a nice part of town. God knows how on her earnings but the bank lent her the money. It's near a good school which means DS goes to a good school. She works part time - I know she could work more hours but the company can't afford it.

She struggles. Even on a decent part time wage, she struggles. I know why - it's the mortgage. I know she depends on my maintenance and I know that affects the money she has to spend on DS.

I wish she would move somewhere cheaper. But DS has friends there and goes to a decent school. It's her choice and I have no say over it obviously. But it upsets me when she says she has no money when the choice she has made to live there is affecting that. But I know why she made that choice.

She always tells me on the phone she is broke. I believe her. But I look at what her house is worth and what she could be paying instead for a cheaper house and I struggle. Especially when her choice has affected me as I know she is struggling.

This is a bugbear of mine at the moment because ex "can't afford" to pay more than the minimum. The reason he can't afford to pay more than minimum is that OW contributes nothing to his new household so he is prioritising her & her child over his own children.
Actually I think csa minimums should be increased to reflect actual costs of children. Maybe csa minimum calculator should include a childcare element that way if you sign up to ??x per month based on having children you should have a responsibility to contribute.
I get less than 1/3 of childcare bill in total before any housing, food, clothing is paid for.
I earn a decent amount but it's frustrating to have subsidised him throughout our marriage because it was family money and then to have to do it when he opts out.

My ex pays csa and nothing else, hes not had them stay at his for 4 yrs.

JustanotherDad

This must be so hard because it's a no win situation for either of you.
Your ds will benefit from attending a good school, so worth it.

Newlife- are you saying anyone who has kids shouldn't go on to have a new relationship?

Pretty miserable world.

coffee the reasons for the parents not living together should not be taken out on the dc.

If I left my dh he would still be their dad and still responsible for them. It's not all about the parents and their relationships with each other. It should be about the parents and their relationships with their children.

The RP will have to find a man without kids though, as newlife says men with kids shouldn't partner someone who already has kids.

Nrp just have to live alone and miserable then. Or find that mythical being that is a woman without kids, who doesn't want kids, who wants to be with a man with kids.

Fwiw, I help support dh. If it wasn't for me, and my house, he wouldn't be able to have his kids overnight.

Just be aware that there are lots of Rps who limit access to increase the maintenance bill and won't let the Nrp see the child more.

It cuts both ways. The problem is that wages generally now are so out of line with the cost of living that the csa minimum isn't enough
I'm not talking about people who fiddle the system and lie but if the calculation is coming out at ??108 a month then the nrp is not earning very much and they are probably skint. Even if you were together you would probably be skint.
You can't get blood out of a stone and if they don't earn much there's not a lot you can do.

My ex husband hasn't paid a penny in years despite working full time. And I'm the bad one because I would be "ruining his life" if I claimed, as he wouldn't be able to live. Funny that when he's telling me he's buying a new car!!

He hardly sees the kids either tbh he's too busy with his new gf and her dc!

"Imo far too many women see their children as either a meal ticket or some sort of commodity where they are rotting up how much they cost and demanding exactly half."

And precisely how many is that "far too many" coffee?

I must live a sheltered life because I don't know any woman who thinks like that. Meals for their kids, maybe....

Just to add, it takes to to create a child, so that money from the ex is paying for the child the ex co-created.

I agree that everyone is entitled to fall out with a lover, whatever their relationship status, but abandoning kids is shitty without a really bloody solid reason for it.

two.

w fail.

I'm saying both parents should have 50% responsibility for a child they have had. irrespective of other partners.
You can have a relationship with who you like but you must pay 50% of the child's upbringing.

The problem newlife is that lots of people don't earn enough to pay 50% which is why you can claim cb and tax credits.

Is th 50% a set figure.per month if so how much?

Newlife I don't agree that all men are sh**-bags who don't deserve a new partner or even children after a failed relationship.

My DH pays the amount that CSA decreed (after the ex in a fit of pique figured she'd get more money via them and shafted herself) and then puts the difference aside for DSS, in addition to supporting my son and our children and boy, are we skint!

I didn't give rats behind about my exP's love life, holidays or what-have-you when he paid just the CSA minumum as per his wages (went via them because unlike DH he neglected to pay at all for a year). His life, his conscience, his choice. But to pay essentially nothing due to 'illness' whilst he gallivants around Europe climbing mountains on the tax-payers dime? F-ing disgrace.

I came on to say what collaborate said but collaborate said it better.

CB and CTC are paid towards the cost of raising kids, so would reduce the cost to the parents. If neither parent claims these benefits then obviously they each have to pay more from their own pocket.

I do think NRPs should pay a fair amount but it's difficult to determine how much that is. In the case of my eldest daughter her father has paid precisely ??0 but while I was a single parent receiving tax credits I had enough to provide for her. If I had pursued him via CSA the money I received wouldn't have changed her lifestyle drastically.

On the other hand a single NRP working FT will get very little help through benefits, if any, and may potentially have to pay the RP 25% of his/ her wage. I know many hardworking people who would not be able to survive on 3/4 of their wage and would not be able to afford accommodation suitable to have kids staying, such as a shared house.

At the moment it's not a fair system for either side, really.

YANBU. In fact, if the RP is the one who does most of the work because they are the ones at hand then I think half the financial cost is the minimum amount and for decency the overall cost in time and finances should be evenly split.

So things like help with homework, washing, cooking, cleaning, emotional support, help with bullies/school woes, lifts hither and thither, cuddles after nightmares, generally bringing up and teaching about life... . If the NRP is very hands on and available for day to day care etc, genuinely shoulders a fair share of the work of bringing up a child, then half financial cost is fine, but if not, then they should be taking on the lion's share of the financial cost.

And I think that an NRP who takes no responsibility, practically or financially should be open to criminal prosecution for neglect. Some places in the states imprision people for non-payment of child support. Quite right. There should be other penalties too- things like revoking passport etc. Abandoning a kid should have real consequences.

BTW Changed kick that c*nt to the kerb quicksmart.

I am a NRP at this moment in time, I couldn't afford 50% and maintain my own home, so I guess I pay the minimum amount (15%). But like today, I bought her proper school shoes for fifty quid, and I pay a hundred and fifty pounds on public transport to see her twice a month, and I keep some clothing I buy at mine, and send more home with her. When she needs something, I either contribute or buy it myself

So her dad may not get half my income, but my daughter benefits from about half of it. This after five years of not contributing at all past the fiver a week himself.

I think half is too much for most low income earners, it's definitely way too much for me to afford.

Just be aware that there are lots of Rps who limit access to increase the maintenance bill and won't let the Nrp see the child more

and worse still, refuse all contact forcing the NRP to go to court (to the tune of 8k) because as the RP they can.

Mairyholes not all families get CTC and not everyone is miles over the 'you earn too much' line. At 200 over we're massively worse off than if we were 200 under-a lot more than the 199 difference!

And I think that an NRP who takes no responsibility, practically or financially should be open to criminal prosecution for neglect. well said Ryan!