AIBU to just not understand why child maintenance works the way it does??

[Oreosaretasty]

I just don't get it. why do so many people get away with not paying? Especially the ones who pay and still see their kids? While I do not suggest withholding contact unless they pay (Wouldn't necessarily flame you for it either, but I wouldn't suggest it and can see arguments for and against...) Why is it so allowed and wide spread? What is the problem? AIBU to not understand it?
My main stance is, If I had a kid (Unfortunately I don't yet) and decided one day to not pay for the roof over their head, not pay for their food,school uniforms, travel/whatever else kids need. How long do you think social services would take to remove said kid...?
Not very long I'm betting.... So
I just cannot comprehend it!
AIBU to think people shouldn't get away with this??

Canyouforgiveher - Things are bad enough as it is, but these suggestions would guarantee that divorce harms children.

all in your opinion. by ensuring children spend their time 50\50 with their parents it ensures they can have an equal relationship with each parent. it is unfair that children can sometimes only spend 10 or 20% of their time with their parent through no fault of their own. a good relationship with both parents should come before anything else in a childs life. both parents should have the opportunity to spend as much time as possible with their children. it is utter nonsense that one parent can end up with an order that says a weekend every 2 weeks is all the time they get and that's it - that should be made illegal.

there are obviously circumstances stop 50\50 like you say if one parent moves away but I suspect the majority of parents don't move away. if one parent moves then yes arrangements will of course be different. in that case though the childs wishes should be taken into consideration and not be forced into a situation they don't want to be in.

As for money - If you get divorced it is unreasonable to expect to keep the same standard of living as you did when you were a couple - when you are a couple 2 people share the cost of a single household - when you are divorced 2 people need to pay for 2 households - there is less money to go around. if you are now following your own path in life you cannot afford to pay for expensive organic food, or expensive designer clothes or go to out to 5* restaurants or go horse riding every week then that's tough - you cant expect the person who left you to pay for that experience for you.

I also don't believe its fine for one parent to want a child to do some activity then tell the other person they need to pay for half of it - you cannot make decisions for other people - you need to involve them and if they say no they don't want to get involved then they are entitled to say no. see when you were a couple and had a shared bank account because all money was family money it was fine but your not a couple and there is no family money anymore - you cannot dictate to the other person and tell them what to spend their money on.

Yep ds father doesn't pay. Hasn't in 8years. Says he doesn't have it to give but pulls up in range rovers BMW's brand new Audi's. I gave up asking after two years. Son will know when he older how useless his father is.

peggy and yet when it's the resident parent on a very low income, any decent one will spend a hell of a lot more than the measly 25% you think is too much on that child.

Excluding the absolutely mega rich, rp's one incomes from below the breadline right up to higher earners will use more than 25% on their dc. Whether that be because they are living on value instant noodles to buy the child better food, or whether they are saving less towards their pensions to pay for Eton. So bollocks is 25% a reasonable rate, let alone too much.

There definitely needs to be an overhaul of the system. I pay maintenance every month of 260 per week for 3 children. I don't begrudge paying this (though I'm also currently paying the mortgage on the family home - in return for which I'm able to see the children there at weekends as I don't have anywhere suitable at the moment). In addition to this, my STBXW receives £250 (ish) a week in Tax Credits and Child Benefit and just over £200 per week earnings from her job (two days a week).

This means my wife was a weekly income in excess of £700 per week. The costs involved in raising children, are to my mind, broadly fixed. I'm not trying to get out of paying, its just that I doubt that he costs involved in raising the children are more than £520 per week - especially as there aren't any childcare costs. I'm happy to pay more than my wife to reflect the fact that she does the day-to-day grunt work in terms of looking after the kids, but I refuse to accept that a system which leaves so many people on the breadline, whilst at the same time sees some women (like my STBXW) on more money than many two parent households earn, is fit for purpose.

Where custody isn't 50:50 there should be a fixed cost which each parent has to pay (adjusted for overnight stays) and which is deducted at source. The RP would then receive the appropriate level of benefit. Where a NRP was unable to pay, the amount would accrue, much like a student loan, and would become payable once their earnings allowed.

That is a pile of shit.

The entire point of CM is to raise the child to a approximate standard of living commensurate with the parents income.

Would it be fair for the gov to tell me my kids only need a lifestyle afforded by £40 a week when I live it up?

Eh, how would that work Malice? The government stipulates that children cost £100 a week on average, so every NRP, whether a high or low earner pays 100 pounds per week?

And the high earner gets to spend the rest of the money on himself on his other more deserving priorities?

Do you seriously think that or are you just being goady?

I honestly think that. I'm not being goady. I'm just saying that under my system, the parents (resident or otherwise) should pay for 50% (or some other proportion determined in reference to the number of nights they have the child(ren) ) of the costs of meetings the needs of the child(ren) That is what the state should be concerned with.

The rest is surely discretionary?

As for money - If you get divorced it is unreasonable to expect to keep the same standard of living as you did when you were a couple - when you are a couple 2 people share the cost of a single household - when you are divorced 2 people need to pay for 2 households - there is less money to go around. if you are now following your own path in life you cannot afford to pay for expensive organic food, or expensive designer clothes or go to out to 5 restaurants or go horse riding every week then that's tough - you cant expect the person who left you to pay for that experience for you.*

you appear to be talking about alimony. I am talking about maintenance of children. I wouldn't expect my husband to fund my lifestyle if we split - I can do that myself. I would expect him to fund his children's lifestyle as close as possible to that they had before, considering with his earnings he could do so without any material loss to himself. But by your reckoning our children would only be entitled to the same maintenance as any other child despite their father's high earnings. so as a direct result of divorce their lives could change dramatically - schools, activities, food, holidays. But no damage done of course.

You seem to be very confused about the purpose of maintenance. It is for children. Not the ex. Funny how so many divorced men seem to have this delusion too.

A friend of mine divorced his wife last year. The split started out amicably enough and the both agreed that the children's standard of living wouldn't change. This meant that his ex-wife went and rented a property that was 'on a par' with the old family home. Needless to say my friend initially paid maintenance (despite having his child more than half the time - and seeing his stepson regularly - including overnights) in order to enable her to stay in the new house, but soon realised that it wasn't possible to maintain the standard of living over two separate households.

As parents we have to make sure that we meet the needs of our children. For most of us, our children also benefit from holidays, larger houses, more opportunities, etc. as our circumstances allow. when a family splits, I honestly believe that each parent has to ensure that the needs of a child are met. I would never see my children go without (and they (rightly) have a pretty decent standard of living all round) however, as the higher earning parent, it's surely up to me if/when/how they benefit from the extra money I make.

I'm struggling to believe you're being serious.

Why do you think the CMS and benefits exist at all?

Because in 95% (probably more) of cases the man pays the absolute bare minimum he can get away with.

You think that if you're a high earner, your DC, that you CHOSE to have, should be only legally entitled to the minimum necessary in life to keep them alive and healthy, while you decide whether you deign them worthy of any extra discretionary spending?

When I lived in the marital home, that's exactly how it was. That's exactly how it is. I'm not saying it's morally right, I'm just saying that the State should only concern itself with making sure that the needs of a child are met.

There is not (nor can there be) any recourse beyond that. If my children had their basic needs met, but I then chose to drink, smoke and gamble away the rest of my income, then that would be my prerogative. It would make me a bad father, but it's not against the law.

The reality of course is that most people don't do that, but I really don't think it's the job of the state to interfere beyond making sure that the basic needs are met. Many don't/can't pay maintenance that even does this. That's the point I was initially making. That's the unfairness.

Until people, especially other women who get into relationships with non-payers, start shaming them into it and telling them that it's not acceptable it won't change. The amount of women who crib about the maintance men pay to their ex is astounding.

This.

malice it is considered to be a form of emotional abuse and neglect and is likely to cause all sorts of intervention

I think I've been slightly misunderstood here. I don't consider myself to be part of the problem. I pay maintenance every month. My kids aren't going without. I'm not looking for a medal btw.

All I'm saying is that most of the problems that arise around maintenance are to do with the perception that a NRP is funding the lifestyle of their ex-partner (in addition to that of their kids). This is often the gripe of the women that minipie refers to above.

My suggestion was to ensure that each NRP pays a fixed amount (so as to remove the burden from the taxpayer). That argument then goes away.

Needs I'm not sure it is. If the basic needs weren't being met, then yes. But if they were..........

My partner's ex wife was abusive - physically and emotionally throughout their marriage. After they split, and trying to organise contact, she alleged domestic violence even though he was living in my house at the time he was supposedly violent towards her. Police arrested him on no evidence, held him in cells over the weekend and released on the Monday on bail, permitted no access to house or children. Was then thrown out of court and police faced reprimand for arresting on no evidence (plus no formal interview, no legal representation and several other breaches of human rights). Due to this horrendous experience she was not permitted to know where DP lives and given no contact details. Private maintenance arrangement in place. She decided this wasn't enough and started a CSA claim stating that he wasn't paying anything. Also stated that he earns in excess of 70k a year despite being an entry level apprentice in a new career. They tracked him down. After months of writing to him at HER address making demands, they finally found my address. He received a letter stating he owed 17000 in arrears and was due her £750 a month as basic maintenance payment. Ha! It's now laughable, at the time it was gut wrenchingly horrendous. They then tracked down his work through HMRC and arrested his entire, no not 30%, his ENTIRE weekly wage for a period of about two months all on the basis of the lies of this twisted manipulative bitch. We spent over £500 in phone calls over a period of several months trying to sort this all out. Eventually they re assessed him as now having paid too much due to the arrestments and it all stopped. Letter through apologising for monumental fuck up and no arrears exist. I can understand why men kill themselves.

My point is, for every cunt of a man abusing the system, there is a cunt of a woman doing the exact same thing. The whole CSA system is too open to manipulation.

you appear to be talking about alimony. I am talking about maintenance of children. I wouldn't expect my husband to fund my lifestyle if we split - I can do that myself. I would expect him to fund his children's lifestyle as close as possible to that they had before, considering with his earnings he could do so without any material loss to himself

nope I'm not talking about alimony. say your kids like £100 T-shirts - and you bought them from family money when you were married but your DH disagreed. now you split and he refuses to buy clothes at that price now. how can you force him to buy them? who says that spending £100 on a Tshirt is reasonable? surely clothing is part of CM?

I disagree that spending on children needs to be excessive and that because one parent earns more the cost of raising a child goes up - that's bollocks.

IF the system was fairer I suspect more NRPs would play ball and pay what they were due however it would seem lots of people want to screw the system...

You are the only one talking about 100 dollar t shirts. I am talking about more serious things like education, experiences, help with tutoring, sports etc. But you seem to be able to hold two completely contradictory opinions - children have to suck up an entirely different standard of living after their parents divorce, even if this isn't financially necessary AND this is in no way damaging to them.

I disagree that spending on children needs to be excessive and that because one parent earns more the cost of raising a child goes up - that's bollocks.

Really. All children cost the same. You seriously think David and Samantha Cameron expend the same amount of money on their children as the teacher down the road?

What is amusing though is that you think the current system is unfair to the non resident parents. I suspect you have a very personal ball in play here.

Peggy I absolutely agree. My STBXW grew up in a household that was constantly on the breadline. That wasn't unusual where we were from. The problem this caused (its relevant I promise) is that she promised that her kids would 'never go without'

Whilst I think that's good, and whilst we're proud to be in a position where our kids don't go without, she has taken it to an entirely (IMO) unreasonable level. Our kids don't appreciate anything. They have far too much. One of the things we argued about was the amount our kids had. I was guilty too, in that I went along with it, but it's not necessary for them to be decked out in designer clothes. Now that we've separated, I'm even less inclined to continue to fund this. I'm not sure the kids even notice! If anything, she's become worse since the split.

Really. All children cost the same. You seriously think David and Samantha Cameron expend the same amount of money on their children as the teacher down the road?

They probably don't. But the costs associated with meeting the needs of the children will be near-identical.

Canyouforgiveher I can guarantee you 100% I have absolutely no ball in this game. this issue doesn't affect me in any way shape or form.

all childrens basic needs are the same - if you want a better education and want to pay for it that is a choice not a need. if you want to feed them food from a 5* restaurant that is a choice not a need. if you want to give them a gold plated bedroom with a shiny ball in it that's a choice not a need.

people seem to get confused between choices and needs when it comes to CM. when you make choices that go above and beyond what a child needs you need to pay for that not the other person.

But when that child has grown up accustomed to holidays abroad, private education and a house in a nice area with their own room and lots of hobbies like horse riding/skiing/sailing or whatever, why should they no longer be able to do those things because their dad doesn't love their mum anymore? They need to leave their home, all their friends, their school and all the things they enjoy?

I'm talking about when the money is there for them to continue, but the dad would rather spend it on something else now, like a flash car or a new partner and family.

Because let's face it; out of sight out of mind. It's not the NRP who'll have to witness the upset of the DC after he leaves.

#NAMALT and #WDIT

Etc etc.

Not saying whether I agree with this or not but some suggest that those being paid maintenance should provide receipts for the purchases made with the money

Sorry I just had to comment on this ridiculous statement. I so remember my ex wanting to be certain that every penny he was giving me was only being spent on his dd. Apart from rent, electricity, gas and food, there are so many jobs you just cannot take when you are the resident parent.

Apart from the fact that everytime they can't pay, won't pay, you still have to feed and cloth the child. Gggrrrr

I also don't believe its fine for one parent to want a child to do some activity then tell the other person they need to pay for half of it - you cannot make decisions for other people - you need to involve them and if they say no they don't want to get involved then they are entitled to say no

Sounds fine on paper, but the reality is something else. The daughter of a friend of mine, here in Mexico, spent three years repeatedly taking the exam to enter the public university and failing to get in because places are extremely hard to get, finally her mother opted to send her to a private university but the father, who lived elsewhere and hardly saw his dd, refused to pay on principle.