AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

Just that. Does anyone have any opposite views? Anyone feel they ask to much? Etc

Micah does that include childcare? It can be very expensive in some areas and given that posters dp is a higher earner it's reasonable that the DC prior to the split had a higher standard of living - why shouldn't there be every effort to maintain that? Not the kids fault the parents split

The average cost of full time nursery fees is around £100 a week - that's £400 a month right there!

But not all kids need nursery some are at school and some have family to help out, so it all depends on your situation £1000 is alot of money I am with Micah I dont agree it costs that much to raise a child a month.

It may not cost that much for EVERY child (it didn't for mine) but I can certainly see outwith my own experience that it's entirely possible it's the case for some families, especially in parts of the country where the costs of living are high.

I paid £900pm on nursery in 2003 l. 7% of UK children are in private school which will be more than that per month.
You can raise a child on less than £1000 per month but when people are costing how much their child cost they are including stuff like the cost of an extra bedroom etc.

No it doesn’t include childcare. I am not sure where that would fit into my budget!!

Full Time childcare isn’t a permanent situation anyway. Yes it’s expensive for the first 4 years- we factored that in before having a child and had the money set aside. After school club is much more affordable.

If you factor in childcare then children do get much cheaper as they get older- there is no way my teen spends anywhere near the amount childcare costs!

Factoring in childcare - do you have a crystal ball then?

I couldn't predict my ex's infudelity, poor parenting and non payment of maintenance making me a Lp on nmw working full time with no support network and therefore needing full time childcare for the first 3 years and then wrap around childcare until dd was high school age (which wasn't much cheaper to be honest).

I live in a relatively "cheap" part of the country but if I didn't it's not easy to move and so Lp can end up stuck with high living costs inc childcare.

I think when people are saying "it only costs me £X per month to raise my child" "my costs aren't a lot more than if I didn't have kids" forget/don't include

Costs that are indirectly increased
Costs they don't pay for very often but can be high - eg replacing furniture
Costs they won't be paying for the child's entire time as a child

Also just generally a lot of people don't track their spending well, don't know what they are spending on what.

You see it regularly on budgeting threads on here and mse when people then do a spending diary they're shocked at how much they're spending and on what.

£500 per month is only £16 a day. So double it to include the Mum putting in an equal amount.

I really don't think £32 a day is a lot of money to spend on a child, school lunches, food at home, snacks when out, xbox subscriptions, roof over head, electricity, petrol, clubs, school uniform, haircuts etc and thats not including doing something like cinema etc

I also maintain most RP are spending all their income on the kids whereas NRP is just paying a small percentage. I would love to just pay £500 PM on my kids and have all my spare time to myself with the remaining 86% of my salary just for ME!!!!!

Ah yes,, that mythical crystal ball anyone claiming maintenance should have looked intobefore having children....

Haircuts! See even I forgot something

And toiletries (ESPECIALLY with teens).

I think it can be unfair both ways, my ex doesn't have to pay anything as he chooses not to work and has ds overnight a maximum of 3 nights a fortnight ( if he was in a low paying job he would have to pay something). While he sits on his arse I work full time and pay childcare. On the other hand my dp pays £600 per a month for 2 children (no childcare costs) plus pocket money and extras but all he gets is mum buys us everything, in reality mum's money is made up of tax credits, child benefit ,maintenance and part time wages but that's not what kids see just that mum is paying for things.

in reality mum's money is made up of tax credits, child benefit maintenance and part time wages but that's not what kids see just that mum is paying for things

Never miss an opportunity to be fit bash/look down on others, eh?

ohreally it's fact not looking down

Where your dps exs income is from is irrelevant ohreally, still his children half his responsibility.

How old are the DC are they old enough to understand about maintenance?

I was honest with dd she knows ex has paid but not consistently and not always in full. He however tried to make out to her it was loads - far more than needed. She was old enough at that point to understand and I showed her our income/outgoings and she could see for herself the little he occasionally paid wasn't as generous as he was trying to make out.

Sorry I meant Scooby not ohreally

graphista off course its not my business and he should pay, my response was more aimed at those saying all RPs pay more than NRPs, they don't (most do, I pay 100%)

There is no need to point all that out, Scooby, as well you know. It is quite clear what you think of the ex in your situation. Or indeed, any other parent who may claim benefits or tax credits or work,part time to juggle the needs of their family with the need to work. I see/hear this kind of shit all the time.

all he gets is mum buys us everything, in reality mum's money is made up of tax credits, child benefit ,maintenance and part time wages but that's not what kids see just that mum is paying for things

Well of course they would say that, they're kids! They don't think about where the money comes from, they see Mum paying for things so that's what they say. You sound bitter.

The reality is that child maintenance is more likely to be avoided or evaded if one parent gets the house and the children and the other parent gets kicked into the outer darkness with nothing but a bill. Essentially it says that the latter parent has no role except to stump up money, and in all other respects is a non-parent. I understand that in the UK the general practice of the courts is to award custody rights to one parent only, and give the other parent visiting rights only, even when both parents want custody. If this is correct (and I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong) then it is hardly surprising that so many parents decide not to pay.

This sort of outcome would be avoided if courts awarded shared care instead. That would keep both parents involved in bringing up the children and make it more clear just why the money needed to be paid. However, I have heard that UK courts don't consider this to be in the best interests of the child - again I would be interested in comments about whether this is true.

By the way, I noticed a comment above that the Child Maintenance Service is a "paid for service". Does that mean people entitled to recieve child maintenance have to pay the CMS in order to get them take action? You're shitting me right?

What’s fair for one isn’t fair for another. My ex husband left me with 3 children and has never paid a penny but my current partner of 15 years has paid £300 a month for his son who chooses to stay more than 70% of the week with us. Don’t get me wrong I love having him here-he’s grown up a lovely young man inspite of his mother!! Roll on his 18th birthday as it really sticks in my throat that she holidays on that money and doesn’t take him with her!! He comes to a caravan in Cornwall with us

i understand that in the UK the general practice of the courts is to award custody rights to one parent only, and give the other parent visiting rights only, even when both parents want custody. If this is correct (and I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong) then it is hardly surprising that so many parents decide not to pay

Ime yes, this is correct. My dh sought legal advice to stay with the kids. He was told he’d have to prove her unfit- drugs or alcohol for example, as the mother is pretty much always awarded main residency.

Courts are amenable to 50:50. The issue is that for most families on an average income, it is impossible to provide to equal homes. One parent has to have a larger slice of the assets in order to provide a main home. The nrp is then left with what’s left over, and usually can only afford a small house or flat, if that. Then 50:50 becomes impossible because the kids stay in the main home where they have bedrooms and space for all their stuff, at the nrp they may have to sleep on sofa beds, share rooms, or the nrp ends up on the sofa.

In the uk there is always one resident parent who the child benefit is paid to. It is not possible to have two parents of equal legal status, even if care is 50:50.

Bit shit really.

The UK courts consider ‘status quo’ to be in the child’s best interests. So if mum has worked part time since child was born or has been a SAHM, it is not considered appropriate to remove child from majority mum’s care. The younger the child, the more likely this is to be the case.

Teens are able to make their own decisions and the courts generally won’t get involved.

Yes, CMS is now a paid service. The penalties are high to paying parents who don’t pay (I think 20% on top) and receiving g parent loses 4/5%. You have to pay also to open a case.

Unfortunately, the realist is that mainly women are disadvantaged by having children and lose out on career development (both directly and indirectly). As such, an uneven split of joint assets is inevitable otherwise, why would anyone marry? The point is ‘in it together’ so when out, a fair division of assets is rarely 50/50.

I don’t think I’ve ever been left speechless from such a stupid statement in all my life. I’m dumbfounded!!!!!

I think it's unfair. Current rules state that if one of you earms over £55k you can't have it (fair enough) BUT if both of you earn below it you can have it, so you can earn up to £190-100k as a couple and still get it! Absolutely ridiculous!