To ask how you justify being with a non-maintenance payer?

[ohreallyohreallyoh]

I realise I will be accused of being goady but that is not my intention. I ask the question in all seriousness. If your partner/brother/son/nephew/friend (and female equivalents, of course) and you are aware that no maintenance is paid towards the upbringing of children, what is it for you that makes that OK?

My ex has moved in (again - 4th time!) with his girlfriend recently and she seems perfectly reasonable and my kids really like her. But the fact remains that as a self employed businessman, he pays no child maintenance whatsoever. It has not been an issue - I earn OK and my children want for nothing, but the bitter taste it leaves and the sense of injustice is difficult to shake. I suspect she doesn’t know, and that he has sold her the ‘perfect father’ vs. ‘crazy ex’ story which she has no reason to question (or chooses not to question).

So, under what circumstances is it reasonable?

I never said he was one of the men the poster was referring too.

I was pointing out that he COULD be (Though I highly doubt it) and I wouldn’t know one way or another, and then I explained why. To give the perspective of when some people say “I don’t know why she stays with a non payer, someone who doesn’t support his kids” I was pointing out she might not know.

But it’s not up to me to do the CSA’s or CMS’s job

No, not really. We shouldn’t actually need this organisation and indeed, if society as a whole took the view that the non payment of maintenance was unacceptable, the organisation wouldn’t exist because for the most part, NRPs would police themselves.

No one should be proud of CMS involvement, should they?

Completely agree. No one should be proud of it when they need to be enforced against to comply with their obligations.
I’m not aware of any involvement in my husband’s situation. I’ve never seen any letters or the like.

I think we do need the CSA/CMS for things such as calculations. They work both ways. A man I used to work with wanted to know he was paying the right amount and his ex was insistent for more. His rent and bills were so high trying to maintain a nice home with a bedroom each for when his girls came to stay he could physically afford to give her anymore, so he obtained a calculation to demonstrate he was complying.

Similarly if an NRP is paying something but insists they are paying “enough” or have had several pay rises etc I think the calculation part is useful.

*couldn’t, rather.

Have to say I think the calculation usually results in a minimum payment. Yet a lot of nrp interpret that as the max they have to pay.,

I also think it's wrong nrp get a reduction for having more children. The older children don't cost less because more children are born. If you're already a parent you have to consider if you can afford more children, you would if you stayed with your original partner that shouldn't be any different in the event of a split.

Also the calculations are based on the nrps income and far too many use loopholes to keep their official income low so as to keep maintenance payments low. They should be based on how much it costs to raise a child.

In his personal situation, I don’t know what more he could do though. He didn’t view it that he only wanted to make the “minimum” payment, but he couldn’t stretch his money any further.

He earned about £1500, his rent for a 3 bed was £500 his gas and electric £40, water £30, life ins £10 so on and so forth.

As they split up they were both running a separate households with so double the bills, that was just an unfortunate consequence of a relationship breakdown. There’s not really any way to get around that.

He couldn’t rent a one bed flat to get it any cheaper, otherwise he couldn’t have maintained the kind of relationship he had with them.

I don’t agree with the loopholes for support to legal tax avoidance for big companies so on and so forth.

Problem is with basing on how much it costs to raise a child is, it’s so subjective and can vary hugely on what area you live in. Also as another poster pointed out earlier, if you are with someone that earns £1500 a month (for example’s sake) why do you think they are suddenly going to earn double or triple that when you split up? Especially when I’ve pointed out earlier, they are now running two households instead of one?

I sit on the fence about having more children, if they were full siblings in the same house and the parents kept having more kids the others wouldn’t have so much, so I can see both points of view.

Other countries base maintenance payments on the basic costs of raising a child. Yes there are now 2 households being run but that's kinda the point too, the RP has costs too - more costs if like many they have the DC 5 days out of 7 and are the ones covering all costs except few meals and fuel used when at nrps house.

There's a thread running at the moment where the nrp is expecting the RP to pay for the school photos he wants out of the maintenance money. My sisters ex used to keep clothes and toys etc he'd bought the kids at his house, they weren't allowed to take them to hers because "I bloody paid for them" ridiculous, especially as he only saw them one day a fortnight and they were little at the time so outgrew things quickly, this included bikes, scooters and similar. Just pettiness.

A friend's ex would get his new partner to give him an idea of how much eg a manicure cost and if the kids told him mummy had fancy nails he'd deduct that from the maintenance. Bonkers!

The RP does have costs too. But if they’re running the same size household, then they’re quits on that. So then you’re talking extra food, petrol, clothes, they’ll be receiving child benefit, (possibly tax credits based on income) and the maintenance on top in theory. So in my example above she was receiving £147 in CB and maintenance excluding any possible tax credits. So let’s say she pays the same towards her children, just under £300. If you can’t support them on that for 5 days a week you need some serious help with budgeting.

But I don’t know how you can make it any fairer than a percentage of income. But again, you are entitled to your view on feeling it should be based on a basic cost of raising a child.

I’ve seen the thread on the school photos I agree that’s crazy. Some people have skewed ideas.

My other problem is with basing it on basic costs is, it unfairly disadvantages a stay at home parent (whether they’re female or male.) That decision would have been made a family with the advantages and disadvantages weighed up. Often the other person gets to further their career at the SAHP’s expense.

If they split up and the other parent takes the children, they may have limited their earning capacity by staying at home to minimum wage (at least temporarily.) So to suddenly say now you have to pay this massive chunk when you can only earn x, despite your sacrifice over the years to further xpartners career is too simplistic in my view.

I agree it's become overly simplified. I understand why the csa was brought in, but when maintenance was settled by courts a judge took into account all the variables not just one factor.

Of course the ideal would be if nrps would always be decent people and pay a decent amount of maintenance without arguing over every penny. It's the perceptions that need to change.

That there are nrps that feel right in boasting they pay no maintenance or pay a minimal amount by working a dodge because they know their friends and family, colleagues, bosses not just partners ie society as a whole, won't call them out on it, won't think less of them, or worse praise them, is disgusting - it's this that needs to change.

I couldnt be with someone who didnt do everything in their power to support their child.
My DH has at rare times been blinded by anger at ex and talked about not paying but I quickly remind him that's not on. We have joint finances though so things are transparent and I would know if he wasn't paying. As a couple I think CM needs to become a shared responsibility and that method helps it all work better

I would also add that DH has been unemployed for a year now due to health issues, we still pay the original amount except it comes out of my pay. It's very hard at times when DSDs complain about us being stingy (no one knows about the health issues andum unemployment) when we are trying so hard.

Of course the ideal would be if nrps would always be decent people and pay a decent amount of maintenance without arguing over every penny

“Decent” is relative though. Especially when you’re splitting the same household income over two residences, two lots of mortgage/rent, council tax, electric, food etc.

Unless one or both of you are very high earners, the reality is finances will be tighter when you split.

As a couple I think CM needs to become a shared responsibility and that method helps it all work better

Sorry I disagree with that. It only would work if RPs new partners money was also used In calculations. You can't have it one way and not the other.

I agree with you pigletwaspoohsfroend

The thing is even with the CMS involvement a NRP can get away with paying only 16% of their salary.

I honestly don't think any RP is only contributing only 16% of their salary bringing up the kids. More like 100%!!

And it is the RP doing most say 75% of the childcare and organization (and often 100% of the care because like we said earlier these Fathers who pay no maintenance often don't make effort to see the kids either) so the RP can't just go out and earn more money as they are restricted to school timings etc

And it is the RP doing most say 75% of the childcare and organization (and often 100% of the care because like we said earlier these Fathers who pay no maintenance often don't make effort to see the kids either) so the RP can't just go out and earn more money as they are restricted to school timings etc

It isn't just fathers. If you are going to take partners wages into consideration then my DSC should have 6 figure sums coming their way from their useless excuse for a mother and her equally useless new husband. Especially considering she has no contact whatsoever.

However it won't make a difference because they will continue to pay zero.

My DH is a non maintenance payer. However, we have 50/50 as agreed by DSC's mum and DH. Any other costs eg school clothes/shoes/trips etc are usually split 50/50 also.
Everything else is bought for DSC seperately. Dscs mum and we both have another child, so DSC lives between both houses. It's always been like that since mum left DSC when a baby. She also left 10000 worth of debt which we are still paying off.
If he was not paying and only had every other weekend, I would expect him to step up and pay as kids are expensive and both parents should pay to bring up a child. Everyone has different circumstances though, I'm aware DH's situation isnt the norm.

@PigletWasPoohsFriend talking about mothers not paying will fall on deaf ears in this thread. It's about deadbeat dads only lol

I categorically do NOT believe new partners income should be taken into account when calculating cm.

I say that as a receiver and giver of maintenance.

If it was my exh would be paying substantially more to me, but my partner and I would be paying substantially less due to our circumstances.

They shouldn't have a second family (whether male or female) if they cannot afford the first. It might feel like fun to start all over again with another set of babies but usually it means the first children suffer financially.

They allow nrps to have a discount for new partners children. So bloody wrong.
But If the nrp is officially responsible for his dps kids then why not include the rps income.
They should just cut the discount all together. What kind of shit head would lower the payments because they have a new partner with kids?

Oswin my ex did, that is before he stopped paying all together. I agree though if the nrp can have their payments reduced why can't it work the other way ?

Nobody is saying that it is fine for women not to pay maintenance and nobody is saying that a parent who has 50% custody should pay maintenance.
What tends to happen is that an awful lot of nrp, who happen to be fathers, do not pay either any or pay insufficient maintenance. They also tend not to look after their children much either.
What often happens is that upon meeting s new partner, the oartner enquires where their dc are and that's when the nrp takes an interest in having contact with their dc again. Either that or the usual "my ex wouldn't let me see them" spiel is churned out.

Actually several of us have said we know it's not always fathers that are nrp but they are the majority and its for ease of writing I think most of us are referring to fathers, certainly the case for me I am well aware through a few single dads I know that nrp mum's can be just as bad (and again yes I'm aware there's a couple nrp mum's on the thread and its not all nrp mum's, my brothers eldest's mum was fine, but the others I know of behaved appallingly)

I agree step parents are NOT financially responsible for their dsc, but equally I think it's not on for nrps to get a reduction in how much maintenance they pay because they're living with step children - those children are or should be covered by their original parents.

Evilstepmum, where things are properly managed 50/50 That's perfectly understandable and makes sense, it's actually better, unfortunately not possible for all families eg even if my ex was a decent bloke he was military until very recently so stationed all over Europe and frequently in the Middle East.

Yes I've apparently "turned dd against her father" wasn't necessary, he managed that all by himself. Absence doesn't make the heart grown fonder if it involves cutting off your kid!