AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

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

Yes I agree kids don't reduce in cost the more you have, however paying £500pm for one child is excessive as we do not spend that on our child. It's funding his ex's social life.

how would you feel if he dumps you, and reduces his payments for your DC because he had another child with someone else??

exactly!

I worked out recently, after reading a thread on here, how much I would have to give DH if I ran off and left him with our children. He is currently a Sahd.

If I gave him 80% of our assets and cms minimum and he earns 20k per annum I would be very well off and he would struggle to feed our children after childcare and housing costs.

On the face of it my contribution of over £800 a month and having them 2 nights per week seems generous. In reality I would be a greedy fucker free to progress my career with no worry about childcare. I'd have cash to Disney parent. Whereas after childcare costs even with Ctc etc my dh and children would be struggling. 3 under 5 - childcare presumably over 2.5k. Leaves 1300 for everything else including mortgage, car, council tax, bills, food for 4, clothes etc.

I could then legitimately be able to reduce my costs by taking another overnight each week or having another child.

Not sure how me having a significantly higher disposable income left is fair when my children are struggling.

To MummyOfLittleDragon

The 25% rule for changes in earnings can penalize either parent depending on which way it goes.

@littlemissrain your proposal would not change that - there is still a pregnancy and parenthood. It would just create more unintended pregnancies and more inequality.

@MsJuniper

No it wouldn't. Once the man had made clear that he wouldn't financially support the child, the woman could decide - in full possession of the facts - whether to continue with the pregnancy.

Tamatave2000
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. I imagine it would be too time consuming to administer and there has to be a cut off somewhere. But it seems terrible a nrp can get a 24% pay rise and give not a penny more.

To 43percentburnt

Your case is unusual in that as ex wife you are the higher earner. If you can afford more than 800 per month there is nothing to stop you paying more.

Adding to my previous post if I then chose to mess him around within CMS rules, paying late etc. They would have under £600 to cover everything including mortgage post childcare.

littlemissrain
So how do you proposd that child be funded? I don’t think a man saying he won’t contribute will deter a woman determined on continuing her pregancy. I think the tax payer pays quite enough thank you very much.

To Mummyoflittledragon

CMS have access to HMRC Tax Returns so annual review should be based on actual changes with a much lower figure of + or - 5%.

As you say an NRP could receive a 24.99% increase in earnings and not pay any more in CM. Other side of coin is if NRP loses a job and has to take another that pays 24% less they will have to pay same CM as before. So % spread needs to be smaller than 25%

@littlemissrain the bodily autonomy in choosing to terminate is just as important as that to carry. Both have physical, emotional and practical implications. It is not a simple equation, just like the decision to have sex.

@Mummyoflittledragon

We clearly have different priorities. Personally, I would rather the state supported some children than people were forced to become parents against their will.

I also think we need a culture change in this country where you don't have a child who you can't support financially.

To 43percentburnt

Can't workout where you are coming from? Who are you trying to penalise? DH or children or both?

Tama - exactly of course I would pay more. But on the face of it don't you think my £800 looks generous? I would take them places too, have them at least 2 overnights. Buy clothes, toys etc. To an outsider I may look great but in reality I am leaving my children poor. Those trips to peppa pig world, the cinema etc would be better as money in my exes pocket to buy petrol or food. I could go to the park instead and do free stuff with them.

Luckily I am not splitting up with DH!

On the topic of what littlemissrain is talking about, what if the man is tricked into having a child? As in the woman says she is on birth control but isn't. I have definitely seen a couple of threads on here where a woman asks should I fall pregnant deliberately despite my partner not wanting a child. Saw one where despite most people disagreeing with her she was going to do it anyway. I think I saw another where they suggested that since they use condoms they could just put holes in them. What happens in those cases? It doesn't seem fair on the man, and if a man did that to a woman it wouldnt be right.

To 43percentburnt

I assume DH is receiving CB and CTC in addition to what you pay?

To pay £800pm for 3 children taking into account 2 nights per week equates to an annual income of about £70K. So can judge for yourself whether you are above or below CMS

It doesnt work well enough because
It allows parents to not work/change job/ avoid paying
It doesnt work for the self employed

The calculation is what it is but there really should be some teeth. In some states they take driving licences and then jail non supporting parents.

Some parents here think they are beating the system. They are actually beating their children.

To AJPTaylor

To demonstrate that paying parent is deliberately not working is difficult as they may be looking, but unable to find work? If paying parent works on a contract basis they may be forced to change jobs?

I agree that Self Employed and those working through Ltd Companies is an issue, but seems more down to CMS case workers not knowing how to read HMRC Tax Returns and being unaware of the Variations Procedure in the Family Law?

Can't work out how sending a parent to jail helps? How much do you think they will earn in Prison and be able to pay maintenance?

Tamatave2000
Thanks for the info. There is an annual review, I didn’t know this. I haven’t been in the position to need to know. I go by what I read on other threads. I see the imbalance doesn’t go on for a long time, which was not how I was reading the situation.

littlemissrain
There are many cultural changes needed in this country. But I don’t think it’s fair to culture shift into shaming those, who procreate when they cannot afford to pay for their offspring. A certain amount of responsibility is required both ways and that requires money and education. Governmental money would be better spent on such education rather than wasting it by paying for children from a man, who had sex then wishes to be seen as a sperm donor.

He pays 1/4 of his wages, we have a mortgage and bills to pay too which isn't taken into consideration by CSA

Does his ex not also pay rent/mortgage and bills? Or does his older child not have a roof over their head, electricity, heating, water, etc? Is your DP only responsible for making sure YOUR child has these things and not his first child.

What a pp said still remains true, unless he gives more than half of his income in child support he is NOT contributing more towards his first child than your joint child.

Little Miss Rain has a point though. I know someone who was in a long term relationship with her BF (she is my daughter's age so was 20 at the time). She Said she was still taking the pill, he trusted her, she had stopped after three years as she had decided she didn't like her uni course and wanted to be a mum. She never discussed it with the boy or her family. She did discuss it with her friends who told her she was nuts and she wasn't being fair, she went ahead and got pregnant anyway. The boy is now a father, he never wanted this at nineteen and doesn't want it now. He didn't have a choice, this was a girl he had been with for three years and trusted.

The child has no contact with the father now, the mother is on benefits as the father is at university and it's all a bloody mess. Surely he should have some rights?

I dont feel it's fair i get £200 a month for three children and then get him telling people how i spend "his money" on myself which just isn't true. Every penny i earn pays to keep a roof over their heads and feeding and clothing them. I havent spent a thing on myself in months but if you spoke to him we are living the high life on his money.

As a paying parent, I think the cms rates are ridiculously low. Cms would have me pay around £300pm for my son. That's not even a third of his childcare bill. I pay 50% of what it costs to house, transport, feed and provide childcare for him, because he is my shared responsibility

No it wouldn't. Once the man had made clear that he wouldn't financially support the child, the woman could decide - in full possession of the facts - whether to continue with the pregnancy

Just because termination is legal doesn't mean that it is easily accessible, particularly through the NHS, right up to the legal deadline.

A woman can only legally have a termination up to 24 weeks, and in actual fact it can be very difficult to obtain one after 12 weeks and nigh on impossible in many areas (except in exceptional circumstances) after 16 weeks.

It usually also takes at least week (often more like a couple of weeks) to actually arrange a termination - if you go through the NHS rather than a private/charity clinic it can often take 3 weeks to book.

So most women would need to have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy by the time they were about 10 weeks pregnant. After that their options may be incredibly limited, and in many cases for many women may be non-existent.

So littlemissrain at what point would the man need to declare he was "financially aborting"? It's all very well to say Obviously, a man should only be able to financially abort before the baby is born but the idea that a man has the choice to abort up to 40 weeks, whereas for most women there is only a choice up to 10 weeks is clearly unfair. If the man gets the right to abort right up to birth (or even up to say 13 weeks in most cases) where does that leave the pregnant woman who up until that point may have felt she had the full support of the father and is now left with no choice to terminate?

You also say this should apply as long as he was made aware of its existence at that time - what if he isn't? Can he financially abort an existing child? What about the cases where women do not know they are pregnant in time to get a termination (as I said before in many areas you would need to know you were pregnant and have made the decision to terminate by 10 weeks in order to get a termination through the NHS)?

@littlemissrain I actually agree with you, though I’m not sure how it would work in practice and would be a complicated piece of legislation. I fear that despite the intellectual logic of your argument I think it would struggle in the real world.

But it is unfair that both partners can take precautions - use a condom being the best example here - and if an unintended pregnancy occurs it really is completely in the hands of the woman to decide both her and the man’s lives.

I would not for a moment want to remove a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy she does not want to continue, it is absolutely right that we have free and easy access to abortions. But it is a double standard that, despite taking the precautions available, a man may end up having to provide for a child he not willing and able to care for when a woman wouldn’t. Equally he may want the child but (also rightly) has no way to continue the pregnancy if she decides not to. It is about bodily autonomy, but also about caring for another human for minimum 18 years. He took the same precautions as the woman, but doesn’t have the same rights to say ‘I am not ready for this’ if that contraception fails. Women have choice, men have to live with her choices.

I started having sex at a fairly young age, I always knew I wouldn’t feel able to have an abortion. I was careful and took the Pill, but was also very clear with partners that abortion was not an option for me, and whilst I took necessary precautions, if a pregnancy happened, a baby was happening, so no one was under any illusions. They could choose not to have sex with me if they weren’t prepared to shoulder that risk. More conversations like this need to happen as well.