Child maintenance vs cost of raising a child

[Pizzaandwine1]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that child maintenance should be calculated as half of the cost of raising a child?

I don’t understand how 12% of a wage is considered the correct figure given the difference in wages.

Eg scenario 1 NRP pays £100 a month as not on a huge ways - this doesn’t cover half the cost of a child

Scenario 2 NRP pays £800 as a higher earner but no where near the same is contributed by the RP in the upbringing

Obviously this would vary slightly based on how much the NRP has them I just don’t see how a child costs more or less based on parents income - surely a child costs X regardless?

MrsTerry - absolutely that needs fixing - I just think the system is flawed as a whole at both ends. Seems like some are massively penalised and others literally just leave the RP to sort out the child which is ridiculous.

I understand it from both sides - my dad didn’t pay any maintenance for me or my brother luckily my stepdad stepped in and made sure we had what we needed. My mum provided for us before she met him but obviously a huge struggle and needed lots of help from family for childcare etc.

Equally I have a good friend who pays nearly 600 a month for a tween DC whose mother doesn’t work due to childcare - despite the age of the child and the fact they e been in full time education for years. She’s just lazy. He recently got a promotion that he starts soon which means that’ll increase - yet still no incentive for the RP to get a job. RP also has an older child from previous who’s NRP doesn’t work and so my friends maintenance is essentially being used to fund two children one of which isn’t his!

The problem is that some men - almost always men - move on when they break up and no longer care enough about their kids to actually pay anything, unless forced to pay the legal minimum

Can't imagine being the child of a wealthy parent who basically says in so many words that "making sure that you benefit from what I have is nowhere near as important to me as making sure that your mother doesn't".

Corythatwas they could still go to clubs etc but the NRP could pay for them directly as oppose to it being used a way to increase maintenance surely?

I completely agree OP - but I think there are so many variables its hard to find another way to make it 'fair'.

In our situation we have SS 3 nights a week (weekend) so Mum has him school days 4 days a week. We pay maintenance to Mum as well as split uniform, clubs costs etc and buy 90% of his clothes, trainers etc as he only really wears his uniform on her days! I think SS is more expensive of a weekend when we have him - yet if DH wages increase the payment to his mum does also.

She also has a high earning partner, which doesn't matter so they as a unit are better off than we are.

theres never going to be a correct way to calculate it because everyone raises their children differently and you live to your means.

For instance, smallest ds costs me in nappies, wipes, clothes but that's negligible because hes had a lot of hand me downs, he probably costs me maybe a tenner a week extra in food.

for arguments sake lets say £75 a month. if me and dp split up and he was unemployed, I wouldn't get half that, but if he was employed and earned mega bucks Id get way more than half that.

however, ds costs us about £780 in nursery costs a month,. but technically that would be in "my time" if we split up, so would he have to pay half of that or not?

there are too many variables to be a "right way" to work it out.

Sometimes it works out unfair on the RP, and sometimes the NRP. its a shit system but realistically someone will always lose out no matter how they work it out!

Corythatwas they could still go to clubs etc but the NRP could pay for them directly as oppose to it being used a way to increase maintenance surely?

But Why would a wealthy parent not to make sure that their child lives in a nice house all of the time, not just the one or two days a week they have them (and plenty don't have them at all). Also the whole point of CMS is that the NRP has to pay it in cases they might not choose to pay it. Plenty of parents go off and want to pay the bare minimum for their kids that's why you have to insist.

When we divorced XH made it clear if I asked for CM he would go for custody, otherwise he was happy with 2 nights/1 day a week. Obviously a) my dc mean more to me than money and b) he’s a CF, but that aside, I wonder if more people who otherwise aren’t motivated to be the primary caregiver may do similar if CM was higher. If so, I don’t feel it would be in the children’s best interests.

NRP has to pay their own costs - rent, transport, insurance, food, utilities etc. Half of disposable income perhaps but not half of gross income.

The problem is that every single case is different. Short of employing someone to go through each split family on a case by case basis, they have to have some basic rules which work best for the majority.
For every nrp like your friend who would happily pay direct for extras, there will be an arsehole nrp who wouldn't.

I also think it's flawed in that it's adjusted based on the number of overnights. My DSC's mum wont let them stay overnight with us more often for the sole reason that then we might be entitled to pay her less it discouraging contact which is really irritating.

I agree with pP who have mentioned maintenance plus 50% of child care. It’s often the child care costs that hold women back from good jobs. If they have help towards that, yhey and the DC will be better off long term. Plus it’s a cost that reduces as they grow up.

Right now, if we split, I’d have 2k a month childcare. Could probably reduce to 1600 as older DC could be home alone after school for a bit. Summer holiday care would be $750 a week for the three of them, for 3 mths.

And I think I’ve posted this before but one time I sat down and added up expenses for a child to make sure we were paying adequately (private agreement). I put in clothes, school clothes, food, heating, utilities, activities etc... the only things I excluded were housing and vacations. One household could choose to spend much more than the other on those, and both need housing.

I think if parents are amicable they can sit down and do this calculation and come up with their own number as the CMS wants families to do.

I agree with you in theory, although it wouldn't be possible in practice. As low earning NRPs may not be able to afford to live themselves. When one household splits into two money is spread more thinly.

Also the 12% for one child, 16% for 2 children is of the NRPs gross income. It works out at about 20-25% of net income. Presumably the NRP then spends money on the child in their own time and may contribute to additional costs (depending on how much they are already paying). So I don't think it's as bad as it first appears. But like with any rule or policy there will be some who suffer.
As previous posters have said many RP with young children will struggle if they are paying childcare costs because child maintenance will likely not cover this. Perhaps something could be done to address this.

I get £200 a month for three children. I dress to think how much they cost a month but it’s at least triple that. When it’s time to get school uniform, for example, I almost spend that on one child all in. XH gets away with it though somehow and he gets to pay slightly less because he shacked up with a woman who has children - never understood that one. He also barely ever has them so it’s not like he pays me that and has them for half the week.

It’s utter wank but the system is very much set up in the NRP’s favour.

Maintenance plus half the costs of childcare would be the ideal. In my daughter's case cm is 250 but childcare over 800 per month and no entitlement to benefits as she earns too much. Completely unfair. I also think maintenance should be calculated before the nrp takes out additional pension.

The issue with splitting childcare is that the nrp doesnt usually get a choice in what childcare is used and when. They might be able to care for the child themselves but the contact order may not allow it so theyre paying 50% of something thats not always needed etc
.

The loaded nrp possibly would not be so loaded if their career had been limited by being a rp.

It should not matter when the parents separated. The child should have the same standard of living in both homes. If the standard of living raises in one home it should raise in the other. Children may otherwise resent the parent with the lower standard of living.
Chances are the NRP has managed to increase pay because the RP is doing all the chid care and they have time to focus on their career.

"Is it just me or does anyone else think that child maintenance should be calculated as half of the cost of raising a child?" Totally agree! And that should include childcare costs.

I also think the nrp should not get to reduce what they pay due to stepchildren OR having more children. The older children don't need less food or clothes because their parent chose to have more DC. Particularly unfair when it's step DC - they have no financial responsibility to them, their own children should take priority!

People will argue "but it's different for different families" well I say look at bank statements etc from before a couple split and see what costs were for child then. Or what resident parent is paying out now and order nrp to pay 50% of that! As a starting point.

There should be a minimum too - could start by basing it on what govt considers a child needs to live on according to benefits amounts - even that is usually more than nrps pay!

ALSO I WISH it was done as a payment to RP direct from govt which govt then recovers from nrp - bet govt would be more bloody proactive in chasing non-payers then!!!

"In an ideal world yes but nrps also need to be able to live so it cant really work that way" bullshit argument! How are RP's AND the child/ren supposed to live if nrp paying nowhere near enough? Currently it's the RP is expected to go without in order to provide for the child. But god forbid an nrp be expected to go without!

I've seen it claimed on here of hard done by nrps I've NEVER come across this as true in real life! All the nrps I know are doing MUCH better than the RP's. Indeed even on here usually when challenged for details posters claiming they know of or are a struggling nrp turn out not to be. Usually it's just that they see it as paying for the RP's "lifestyle" when in fact it's paying for THEIR CHILD.

It's not subsidising the other parent its contributing to your child's life.

Sadly too many nrps don't give a shit! At all! They don't pay maintenance, they don't see the child, they plain don't care. You can't unfortunately legislate to make them care. You CAN legislate to make them properly financially responsible.

Biggest discrepancy in legislation at the moment is the tax credit 2 child limit. Which I believe is being carried through to UC rules. Reality of this rule is it penalises mainly women if they have more than 2 DC as they are usually the RP, yet nrp fathers (its usually fathers) because they don't live with all their DC aren't subject to the same ruling. They can have 2 DC in relationship 1, split with that woman, have 2 more DC with woman 2 and still receive tax credits for them, then split with woman 3 and have ANOTHER 2 DC and claim tax credits for them! And so on and so forth!

"It’s utter wank but the system is very much set up in the NRP’s favour" OF COURSE it is! Because MOST nrps are MEN. And who's MAKING the rules? Mainly MEN.

The problem is that some men - almost always men - move on when they break up and no longer care enough about their kids to actually pay anything, unless forced to pay the legal minimum

I know one of these, he has a good job and currently pays no CM to his ex. I have no idea how he got away with it, but he's constantly taking her to court about something.

Meanwhile, he has a convertible, lots of holidays, nice flat, etc., and decides at the last minute whether he wants to see his DCs EOW. He even tried to pull out of a one week holiday (taking DCs) this summer that had been agreed upon months previously.

He doesn't seem to give a rats about his children, it's all about him and upsetting his ex as much as possible. Luckily she's able to cover all the bills herself, just.

As a high earning RP (so no vested interest) I actually agree with you OP. The current system works in the middle for the majority but not so much at either end.

Where a high earning NRP earns a lot more than the RP maintenance can create a disincentive to work - I think in these cases the % calculation could be capped after a certain amount so future salary increases don’t result in an increased contribution. Particularly in relationships that were of short duration. That said, if the RP is a low earner because they facilitated the NRPs career over many years then that should be dealt with through spousal maintenance.

Low earners is a trickier situation - do you ask low earning NRPs to pay a higher % (ie there is a minimum cap as well as a max), even though they may not be able to feed and house themselves?

I think it'd be incredibly difficult to make a system work that suits every situation. But in principle I agree. I'm just not sure how it would work in practice.
What I'd like to see happen though is the nrp being responsible for 50% of the childs care so 3.5 days a week. No ifs and no buts. So on the nrp days if they need childcare, they arrange and pay for it if needs be, if on the rp day childcare is needed then same for them. Because this is one thing that I've found a massive problem to me working, my ex just says 'can't have DD that day's and it's down to me to organise and pay for childcare if I'm working, despite it being one of his days. Similarly if he decides to piss off on holiday without her 'because it's cheaper in the school term' - no shit Sherlock! He should then have to contribute towards the childcare needed because of his absence. The nrp doesn't get to say 'I can't do that day' or go off on holiday in term time because it's cheaper. This happened regularly to me when DD was small and it ended up actually costing me money that I didn't have to arrange childcare that I shouldn't need because DD was his responsibility for 'his' days. And as the CSA apparently need both hands and a map to find their arse, never mind a non paying nrp I wasn't getting maintenance either. I got a % back on regular and registered childcare - but these instances were usually last minute or the registered childcare wasn't available, so I was left with forking out for a babysitter or not going to work - which puts your job at risk if you just don't go.
Similarly with anything extra and non essential like sports or activities that cost, 50/50 split with regards to payment, unless one parent agrees that they will fund it themselves. If one parent can't afford it and the other can't or won't afford the full amount then it can't happen - wouldn't be any different than the parents being together and not being able to afford the child doing an activity.
Of course things like choosing the childcare provider could cause issues with this, I can see that, but it may equalise things so the nrp and rp have the same opportunities to work and progress and earn more and the child ultimately benefits from both parents. This also would prevent the nrp being totally unable to work due to childcare - there's 3.5 days automatically that the other parent has responsibility and if they shirk that then they are charged at the rate of the provider the rp chooses for that time regardless.
I think the only exception should be up to two years where the child may be breastfeeding and obviously that's a care task that can't be completed by a father - so after 2 the rules apply and daddy is forced to take on his responsibility. And yes I know there's women out there who do this and men in this situation, but as a pp has said, the majority of rp's are women and the majority of nrp's are men, but it'd work both ways anyway.

What bugs me is that the calculation assumes that the RP stays at home and relies on welfare.
When my ex left, I had a toddler and a 4 month old, and no recourse to the welfare system. The nursery fees were £2.8K, and the official maintenance calculation was around £900. The court has refused to award top-ups as the minimum income of the NRP where they would consider additional maintenance to be due is £3K/week net.

I get 30pw each child (I have 2) which I feel is a joke. This covers their school dinners, extra school things whereas I pay to actually house them and all childcare costs. Tax credits have paid for my D.C. whilst I have worked as many hours as I have been able to