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?

Grrr. Replace ?? with a pound sign. Am on my phone and mumsnet obviously doesn't like the keyboard.

Yanbu, op.

Have rtft and too much to comment on everything. But it strikes me that overall it is much more common for nrps not to contribute enough and to shirk their responsibilities than for rp to demand unreasonable amount/ mess them around over contact etc.

I think some nrps can't deal with the balance of power becoming more even once they are not in a relationship any more and accuse the rp of playing "games" because they don't want to dance 100% to the nrp 's tune any more. Plus they can 't control the rp's decisions as to how to spend money on the kids, and this probably irks the more controlling type of person.

Nb I have never been an rp or nrp in a separated ex couple so just going by observations, mainly seen through work and on Mn. Friends I have who are separated don't seem to have had problems luckily.

Yes I have read my own thread?

I stated in the OP that this obviously applied to NRPs who are physically financially able.

If you pay CSA minimum, unless the RP is stonkingly rich, then yes you are a shit.

PS change I really feel for you, but this man has been a shit to you and is now being a shit to his DC .

How is it in any way not a shitty thing to do to not contribute half of your child's living costs?

Pps when we say no problems I mean no financial or contact disputes.

They obviously have the emotional situation of neither of them being with DC as much as they would like (I.e. all the time) and there are inevitable financial strains even when everyone behaves .

No, I think only if the income is significantly more that you e.g. 20k plus, as realistically that would probably start to offset the loss in CM/earnings due to being the primary carer.

I think my definition of "able to pay" is probably stricter than most.

In reality, many RP don't meet half the costs themselves as many don't work or do only a few hours so it's not only the NRP that don't pay.

In a lot of cases the RP can not work full hours in a highly paid career due to having total responsibility for the dc for example my Dsis has just gone through a marriage breakdown and is left with sole care for her dc and while she will manage financially and won't even qualify for cb nevermind ctc it will impact on her ability to work to the level she has been doing. The late nights which are occasionally forced on her due to the nature of her job will no longer be possible, the conferences abroad which she frequently speaks at will be much much harder to do. It will have an impact on her career, it will slow down any progression, it is likely to lead to her dealing with less prestigious and sensitive clients meaning that she has less potential to shine and show her value to the organisation leading to less promotions, less pay rises and no her ex won't be able to help out and won't be doing 50/50 as he has taken a job abroad. My sister will pay more than half the costs for their dc but she is the one who will also pay a cost to her career too for being a lone parent while her ex will be able to continue his career without having to consider the dc at all.

What is the CSA minimum?

If parents cannot support their children financially and the state steps in to help, I am OK with that.

If parents can afford to support their children, but choose not to do so, I cannot understand why the state allows it.

Many comments on this thread seem to imply that a man of financial means can pay a legal minimum to support his children that is less than needed and leave his exW and children in destitution with the state left to pick up the tab. Obviously the ExW should be contributing, but if she is the RP, we all know that her ability to earn is lumbered by caring responsibilities. To pretend otherwise shifts the responsibility off of the two parents and on to the tax payer.

Can we be clear on this thread what we mean when we talk about the CSA minimum? That is ??5 a week.

Or do we mean by that the CSA assessment? Which usually is much much more than the ??5 minimum.

If there is proper assessment by the CSA YABVU to expect a NRP to pay more than that. IF the NRP has deliberately lied about their income, or depressed their income by working reduced hours, then they ABU.

Some may find this thread interesting

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2422950-To-ask-how-much-are-Mumsnetters-owed-in-maintenence-arrears?pg=3&order=

5 quid a week is the minimum?

Funny enough I had a conversation with a friend about this last night (hope she isn't a MNer). I don't want to detail her life but she had very strong reasons for not even paying the minimum. Now counting down the day until her son is 17. Vilify people who never paid a thing, fine, but sometimes there's a complicated big long picture going on wrt payments, too.

change your husband is a horrible person.

I think it was very weird and controlling for you to try and go to the scan, and I strongly suspect you wanted the child out of your lives, so this no contact situation is probably very much of your making.

A child is now suffering because their Father is a total wanker. Don't allow your anger to punish a child.

How you can be married to man who doesn't repsect you, and neglects his own child, frankly, beggars belief.

I meant minimum for his earnings, any more (add in 1/2 the mortgage where they live and 1/2 of extras such as school uniform, swimming lessons etc.) and we would be in serious financial fire straits. I am all for parents supporting their kids, I have an ex husband that pays me (when he does!) less than the CSA minimum, but neither parent should be left in a position when they can't support themselves and the rest of their family.

changed your oh is a wanker. So he cheats, get another woman pregnant and then just tries to sweep it all under the carpet by ignoring the child. I don't even really feel hugely sorry for you now, you chose to stay with the bastard and why you thought you should go to her scans I don't know. Does not matter if he cheated, you know he has responsibility for his child. Sounds like you knew you couldn't trust him and that is why you refused for him to deal with the mother of his child. Why on earth would he refuse to go to his child's birth? It's his fucking child.

Why you have respect for this man and allow him into your bed I don't know. Mind baffled

Poor child.

Like many on here, my own experience and my knowledge of friends' situations suggests that largely NRPs do pay what they can, and also contribute to trips, uniforms etc etc.

My observation on this forum (and on MSE) is that it's not the NRP who complains about paying CM, it's always the new partner who resents it. This new partner often knows that the bulk of CM is spent on shoes and nails. It's usual to read that the new partner's ex does not contribute to her children (therefore the CM is an unaffordable household expense). Quite often, we read that the NRP accepts the situation because he doesn't want to "rock the boat". Maybe he is just fulfilling his responsibilities!

What people lose sight of is that this is about paying for the children to live - to have a home and a decent standard of living. Having an unstressed RP is part of that. My ex paid CM, but living on one income (even though it was pretty good) was incredibly stressful. One unexpected bill was a disaster. It's sad that these discussions get so polarised.

Dh pays the csa recommended amount based on his salary. This was agreed by his ex as a fair amount. When they separated he also gave her two thirds of the proceeds of the house sale. If nrps paid half of what it actually costs to raise a child then I suspect that many would in fact be paying much less. Dh pays ??300 a month and there is no way on earth that 2 children cost ??600 per month to raise for immediate costs. I accept however that if you add in childcare costs then this probably won't come close to covering it and perhaps that ought to be taken into consideration. It's complicated and each situation is different. All I know is that when I met dh, he was living in a shitty part of the city where crime was all around and the environment was awful. The only holidays we could afford for the kids were camping holidays and I remember saving for several months until we could afford to decorate the room in which the children stayed once in a blue moon (we had them every Sunday and once a month overnight as that was all his ex was prepared to let him have). 13 years later things are much better, largely because I now earn much more so while dh pays maintenance I pay for the birthday/ Christmas presents, days out, holidays and various other extras (for example I will pay for dsd's driving lessons next year when she turns 17). We also live in a nice house in a good part of the city, mostly due to my salary. DH's ex hasn't struggled at all. She met another man shortly after they separated, her boss, who moved in and immediately encouraged the children to call him dad. They are both very well paid, live in a large house in a village location and have never struggled to afford holidays or decorating. I say this not out of envy or malice - things are very amicable. I say it to illustrate that many rps are not struggling financially in the way that nrps are. I am not saying this is typical and of course both parents should be equally responsible, but neither is it right to claim that nrps swan off without a care or a second thought, contribute nothing (or bare minimum) and life is a picnic. We have struggled financially for many years precisely because we have always put DH's children first. Which is exactly as it should be.

They should pay half of all child costs imo. They should be ashamed of themselves if they don't at least try their best be that financially or having contact. Unlike my ex who lives with his mum. He won't even claim benefits to avoid paying anything. Never once even asked about his child!