AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

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

DH’s mum got a fiver a week per child. A fiver.

Is it damn fair.

DH walked round his entire childhood on milk stamps and with holes in his clothes when his Dad and new partner were buying rental properties and jetting off on four holidays a year.

I doubt there are any RP only spending 16% (or whatever CM minimum is) on bringing up the children! I would wager it is more like 100% of their monthly income!!

Because I like working things out donners and DH has gone out with DC so I'm bored I worked it out from our household.
Between DC food bills, 60% of our mortgage (3 DC 2 adults), their clubs, childcare (admittedly not extortionate now as only one isn't teenage), their school lunches, gas and electricity, other household bills, council tax for our home which is of a size we wouldn't have otherwise...petrol, their bus passes as neither of us are free to drive in the afternoon; we spend around 65-70% of our total take home monthly salary on the costs directly related to DC.

By that sum, 16% would then only be appropriate for a NRP having residency on i think 4.5 days a week. Which would then make them the RP. It's a fucking joke.

Only experience with it is when my DH had to pay CSA when his DS was younger, it was over £300 a month and we had our own child, these payments suddenly went up to that amount as they said he hadn't been paying right amount. Years later they admitted they had got it wrong and paid back the excess. It's a flaky system where nobody benefits but the CSA themselves, DHs ex was not receiving the full amount he was paying and our DD wasn't benefiting from our household lacking in funds. Wasn't DHs fault how he came to be separated from his DS mum, she went on to have 3 more kids to different guys and none of them were paying anything for their kids, convenient for CSA my DH was in full time employment and his payments went up to the £300 a month when his ex had youngest

Why would his payments go up because his ex had a child with another man? Or did I misunderstand?

Yabu. Of course it's not fair. It's a bloody joke.

I get £28 per week. That doesn't even cover petrol for school runs. So I feed, clothe and provide a home entirely out of my pocket whilst my twat of an ex lives it up.

Either a gf or staggeringly naive op

Between DC food bills, 60% of our mortgage (3 DC 2 adults), their clubs, childcare (admittedly not extortionate now as only one isn't teenage), their school lunches, gas and electricity, other household bills, council tax for our home which is of a size we wouldn't have otherwise...petrol, their bus passes as neither of us are free to drive in the afternoon; we spend around 65-70% of our total take home monthly salary on the costs directly related to DC

Yes. This is my experience of having three teenagers. Not a fiver a week.

And I’ve been saving for years to help them with driving lessons, orthodontist , university costs, flat deposit etc.

Parents who leave their kids short while being well off themselves are the lowest of the low IMO.

And step parents who encourage their partner not to support his own children are not far behind.

Can I just say, I have no issue with DH paying for his kids - in fact I'd happily pay extra to support them

What I do object to is:

1. He has to pay even if his salary goes down because his overtime stops

1. He has shared care by order of the court except she can refuse that because:

- the kids dont want to see you - the kids are unwell - if he does insist her eldest (not his) claims he made gestures at her and he gets another investigation into sex abuse (now advised by his own solicitor to stay away)

1. If he tries to send his kids anything for birthdays other than via his solicitor she opens them and repackages them as from her and her new DH

1. There is NOTHING he can do. He can bring the police with him on visits - which doesnt exactly do the kids any good being dragged away from their mother. He can go back to court but that just gets another order and guess what - the kids are sick etc

1. The only weapon he has is to withhold payment temporarily until he can see his kids - but he isnt allowed to.

I see him in tears everytime their birthdays come around, christmas we go on holiday otherwise its a bad memory for him. There is a reason they split (not me - came on the scene years later) and I can understand why she hates him so much but its not justifiable.

But he wouldn't be paying more because his overtime stopped he would be paying in lieu of money he has already received? She would be receiving it a year late?

She does sound mental and making up false allegations of sexual abuse is criminal and I do know mothers who have had children taken off them because of that.

But i don't understand your logic of withholding money to make the kids see him, the DC still need feeding etc and lots of NRP blame the RP for the DC not wanting to see them but sometimes it is their relationships that leads kids to not want to see them or they have their own life/mates /parties etc

Do you never work overtime to pay for, e.g a new car, or a hobby or something that does not directly go to the kids.?

He can't go and work for something he wants (which he could if they were still together) without paying 16% to his ex.

Luck has it that he doesn't have to. We have joint finances and I earn twice what he does so he can afford what he wants.

I just want him to be able to see his kids (so far I've spent 20K in costs helping him and she's still an unbreakable wall)

I am sorry you have to deal with this wooly. It’s not fair but I doubt withholding maintenance would make a difference - it is a mindset and about something other than money,

I have the opposite issue - my ex has a good relationship with our children, totally untouched by me. He has not paid maintenance in 10 years.

My ex was an amazing Dad. From when we split we remained friends. He paid the minimum the csa said he should pay, £150 a month for 2 kids. I didn't mind because he was always a good dad. He had the kids 2 nights a week. He had another child and continued to pay and look after the kids. Then they split and he met his current partner. She was pregnant within months. He moved in with her and her 3 children from a previous relationship. At the same time he took on a second job earning more than his primary job. So his cM went down as he was suddenly responsible for her 3 children. But he hid his second job. It was a zero hour contract and the CMS accepted this without payslips. I have battled for 15 months so far and involved my
Local MP. CMS have been appalling from start to finish. Contradicting information, told I have to provide the evidence he is working etc. Eventually I received a phone call (only after the MP was involved) that said they have rejected my appeal as I hadn't proved he earned more than 25% above his declared income. BUT that my future payments would be going up by 150% as HMRC had confirmed his income was so much more than he had declared. The irony! You are telling me I can't prove he earns more but that moving forward he is due to pay more as he earned more! AND it gets better. He has only had to pay one increased payment. He has appealed to say that he is earning less this year (he just doesn't work for 5 weeks) and has submitted his lower payslips. So now it looks as if he is earning more than 25% less than last year and his payments are to be adjusted back to last years level (based on his primary job only). So for the sake of not working for 5 weeks at the start of the year he can avoid paying for the rest of the year. The CSM are fully aware but cannot do anything about it. It's a loophole that I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who is a victim of. The CSM have offered me £50 in compensation for their appalling handling of the case but yet still continue to allow this manipulation. I. The meantime I pay for 2 teenagers who cost me a lot more than twice his monthly CM.

He can't go and work for something he wants (which he could if they were still together) without paying 16% to his ex

He’s NOT paying it to his ex. He’s paying for HIS CHILDREN.

Children don’t stop eating, needing clothed and housed, doing hobbies and sports when he doesn’t see them. They don’t dematerialise when they are in a different place. This is basic physics. I don’t know why some people find this so hard to understand.

Child support is not a reward he gives to his ex when she does what he wants. It’s his legal and moral responsibility to HIS OWN CHILDREN who he created. It doesn’t stop because the children don’t want to see him.

Do you accept that he had the right to leave the marriage when it was no longer working for him? I expect you do.

And yet you don’t accept that the children have the right to not not see him anymore when it’s not working for them .

He gets to walk away any time he wants. But his children should be legally compelled to see someone they don’t want to.

Can’t you see a problem with that argument ?

The only weapon he has is to withhold payment temporarily until he can see his kids - but he isnt allowed to.

So not paying for his children's upkeep is something he wants to use as a 'weapon'.

That's disgusting actually. And you're still with this man?

If he has an issue with access, then he should go through the courts. His children need provided for and he doesn't get to abdicate that responsibility because he's having a strop.

My ex left january 2017 and hasnt seen the children since. I had to give up my job as it waa 6am starts 5 days a week including weekends. He left us with nothing so damn right he can pay his £46 a week for 2 children as benefits are so low to live on and i never planned om being in this position.

If the RP was earning much more than the NRP, then NRP might be able to apply for Spousal Maintenance to be paid by RP which might cancel any Child Maintenance?

No it's not fair at all, should be much more. However, I get absolute zero from my son's father, so I'd accept a CMS calculated payment over nothing if I could. Unfortunately, CMS can't contact a parent living outside of Europe.

Tamatave - I think that is a brilliant idea, lets try and leave the the children with as little as possible.

Maybe the NRP could also apply to the courts for the house, I see no reason why the children should get the benefit of it?

Tamatave - I think that is a brilliant idea, lets try and leave the the children with as little as possible

You’re making assumptions here about the rp. What if the rp is dad, earning 100k plus a year? Should mum pay him cm if she’s on a 20k salary, meaning she can’t afford suitable housing for the kids to stay, or a car to pick them up to see them?

Same applies to both sexes- women are capable of earning very big salaries. What if dad has supported that by maybe not accepting promotions so she can stay in a more flexible job, would he not deserve spousal maintenance in the same way a woman would had she done the same?

If a rp has an income large enough that cm makes no difference to their lifestyle then why take from the lower earner? Surely the kids would be better off if both parents can provide as best they can.

What i have learned with cm is there is no one size fits all solution as every circumstance is different. The people who aend up better off are the ones who are willing to shaft the ex partner so they get more. Both men and women are capable of that.

Both parents are responsible to provide for the DC! So yes the low earner should still pay. I don't see what difference if its a man or a woman.

But why should all the money be funnelled into one household which already has a higher income, leaving the other less able to provide?

A nrp should be able to provide for their kids too. If there is enough money to fund a household for both parents why should money be taken from one- the kids are entitled to a similar standard of living visiting the nrp if it can be afforded.

It isn’t that the nrp isn’t providing, it is that they are providing when the kids visit. It may be the difference between sleeping on the sofa or having their own bedroom at the nrp’s house.

I realise it’s an unusual circumstance, but it does happen. If the rp won 15 million on the lottery, should they take £500 a month of the nrp, or should they be allowed to ise that money to rent or buy a bigger place so the kids can stay more comfortably?

I often wonder how quickly society would deteriorate if women started only paying the CMS minimum towards their children.

"I've spent my 25%, sorry kids, no more food"

It's pretty inline with visitation rights. Visitation and child maintenance are both so flawed in so many ways. But there's no fixable solution

The whole system is flawed. Too many families that then move on and have other families leaving a man to provide for two families. As well as step dads providing for another mans child. It's all so complicated.

@mooncuplanding if you only saw them 25% of the time it wouldn't be as clear cut as that.

You see them 75% of the time, 75% of your income will naturally go towards feeding, clothing and housing them.

Cocopopo really? You spend less than £1000 a month on your child? I HIGHLY doubt that.

Plus I think it's wrong to be awarded a reduction for subsequent children - the older children don't miraculously become "cheaper" because their nrp has chosen to have more children. Nrp should consider if they can afford more children BEFORE they have them.

Sausagedogs I absolutely agree that children for whom the nrp isn't even legally liable DEFINITELY shouldn't be a reason for deduction! 😡

Tamatave - I was first a single mum under the old system where maintenance DID mean benefits were reduced. ONE payment from my ex was taken as proof he was paying in full and regularly (he didn't/wasn't) and we ended up in serious hardship as a result. This happened to many single parent families which is WHY that rule was changed.

"CMS have access to HMRC Tax Returns" plenty of nrps lie to hmrc too

Youngmystery - "and if a man did that to a woman it wouldnt be right." Men do it too - see reproductive coercion.

"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?" They'd be in prison because they're ALREADY not paying so RP no worse off AND as a deterrent

The financial abortion - I understand the premise but disagree with it PLUS most cases where maintenance is pursued the parents were in a relationship and usually the children were planned/both agreed to continue the pregnancy.

If anything - given all the loopholes that are exploited, the nrps that refuse to pay - cms needs to USE the teeth they do have more often and more effectively but it would be great if they were given MORE teeth too. Make it a criminal offence of child neglect and stop messing about with civil law nonsense.

"Obviously the self employment loopholes need to be sorted. If you tell CMS you earn £40 a week, this needs to be match what other financial services like loan and mortgage companies are told you earn" even applying bloody common sense would help! If he's living alone and running a car anyone with half a brain KNOWS he's not doing that on £40 a week!

"The minium is fine because the NRP needs to house the children too and pay bills their own bills people forget that." No they don't 'forget' anything - they know they have lower costs than the RP overall.

Worridmum - 1 that's EXTREMELY rare 2 the child didn't commit the assault and still needs to be raised NOT in poverty.

In fact men being "tricked" into being fathers I suspect is far more rare than is claimed BY those fathers. If you have piv sex AT ALL there is a risk of pregnancy - if you have UNPROTECTED piv sex then the risk is high and still far too many men "don't like" using condoms - then tough - deal with any consequences! Having sex is an ADULT act the response to consequences needs to be adult too. I've known a few guys become fathers as teens - they ALL have behaved more responsibly than the nrps I know with PLANNED DC (all aged 30+) now split from the other parent, not paying maintenance often not seeing the DC either.

"Your DP should have tried to improve his financial situation before he committed to having more children. Quite apart from contraception failure that's not how the human psyche, male or female, works, is it?" Except it is! RP's largely have to and do consider their finances before having more DC certainly planned DC.

"I don't agree a father should be paying the mother £500, I highly doubt the mother is matching that. It doesn't cost £1000 a month to raise a child." Really? Do you have DC? How much do you think childcare is? The difference in rent, council tax, heat, water, electricity purely due to needing a larger home for DC? Food, clothes, toys, books, medical supplies that aren't free, school uniform, school supplies, cleaning products, furnishings, transport - seriously - if you have DC go add up the difference if you didn't and could have eg a studio for minimal rent and all bills inc, none of their costs etc PLUS if the nrp is a higher earner why SHOULDN'T the nrps OWN children benefit from that?

Notasingle - yet many of these men won't relinquish parental rights won't even allow for the child's surname to be changed if it's theirs.

"Because women are judged, and deemed to be doing the wrong thing, no matter what they do." Yes and men are portrayed as victims - even if they're deadbeats.

"Non-resident parents who don't pay child maintenance haven't made alternative arrangements for the child, they've just abandoned their own responsibilities and fucked off without looking back. That's more like putting a baby in a bin than putting it up for adoption." Totally agree

"at what point does any of this mess become the woman's responsibility too?" You KNOW that was goady because it's usually women that are RP's and so they are covering MOST of the finances AND doing most of the practical and emotional graft!

"or, an irresponsible man stays true to form.
So if any woman chooses to have a baby with a man that they already know isn't reliable, it would be daft to be surprised when you still can't depend on him after choosing to have his baby!" By that reasoning most 2nd wives/partners are irresponsible in choosing to have children with a man who has ALREADY abandoned/neglected other child/ren - I happen to agree with that but I don't think that's what you meant.

"Personally I wouldn’t go near a man with previous dc who didn’t contribute properly to their upbringing or was bitter about it. It should not be socially acceptable to leave your dc struggling." I'm the same

Frouby - I totally get what you're doing with your post yesterday at 1327 Re role reversal - but I have to say I know 3 women who as nrps were JUST as bad as the men.

"And step parents who encourage their partner not to support his own children are not far behind." Definitely.

Cocopopo really? You spend less than £1000 a month on your child? I HIGHLY doubt that

Why? Our household income is just under £2k per month after tax. 2 adults, 2children, dog,cat, rabbit.

If I’m spending 1k on each child per month then i don’t know what dh, me, the dog and the cat are living on....

My bills per month are £1200. The remaining £800 pays for food, clothes, and anything else.

If dh left my bills would stay the same. I’d get more tax credits, and i’d spend less on food and clothes.