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?

This drives me nuts. No, the thing about being a parent is that you have relatively few rights - what you have is responsibilities. If you have decided to up and leave your kids, then you absolutely do not have the right to rent a nice flat of your own and run a car in place of paying half the costs of raising the child that you chose to have. You damn well should be stuck living with your parents for ever, or living in a room in a shared house, and taking three buses to work rather than paying the running costs of a car. Will it make your life harder? Absolutely. That's the responsibility you assume when you have a child, and the kind of responsibility which you have just decided to dump on the RP. What kind of human being puts their own comfort above making sure that their own children are well looked after? (Clue: probably not the RP, who is now on duty 24 hours a day picking up the responsibilities that the NRP has unilaterally decided to abdicate).

It would also be interesting to see whether if NRP had to pay 50 per cent of the actual cost of raising a child, whatever the circumstances, they would be so keen to have more children in further relationships. And if the answer is no, then they probably shouldn't be having those further children - it means that they have been freeloading on the goodwill of the RP to subsidise their own decision to have a family elsewhere. I get the rage at the idea that NRP have the right to have "a life of their own" going forwards. No, what you have is a life where you have an obligation to meet the responsibilities you have already assumed - same as the rest of us. NRPs are not such special snowflakes that they can not possibly be expected to live with their choices or meet the responsibilities which they chose to take on, such that those responsibilities should be picked up by the rest of us.

As for the argument about not subsidising the life of the RP, then it would seem sensible to work out the difference in outgoings between the housing which would be needed by a single person with no children (eg. a room in a shared house and associated share of bills) and the cost of running a three bedroom house with all the bills that that entails. The difference is the cost of raising the children and should be split between the parents, surely?!

Sorry - that should be the cost of housing the children, not raising them!

then it would seem sensible to work out the difference in outgoings between the housing which would be needed by a single person with no children (eg. a room in a shared house and associated share of bills) and the cost of running a three bedroom house with all the bills that that entails. The difference is the cost of raising the children and should be split between the parents, surely?!

@HaveIturnedintoThatParent but the NRP is expected to have suitable accommodation for the DC to stay at too. So how is it fair they have to pay half the rent / mortgage of the RP as well as 100% of their own?

They are only obliged to have somewhere for D.C. to sleep if that is the arrangement. Who goes and checks? My ex and other men I have known blag it by having sofa beds in the living rooms or sharing rooms with multiple kids (mine had to share 3 in one box room) so no, he has provided himself with a home but it’s not a home for our children
They have no desk for homework, no wardrobe etc. It’s not a home

Working out general costs - also easier for a single NRP to find a new partner than a single RP, fewer restrictions about who they live with than the RP who has to be very cautious about who they invite into their home - RP cannot easily share costs with another adult, NRP can

But if both are single NRP only has to provide a space for D.C. to sleep. RP will be providing furnished bedrooms. If NRP has kids EOW, RP has to pay for electricity, gas, rent, water, food, laundry etc etc for 263 days a year - over double what the NRP has to pay to house their own children 104 times a year. CMS is already weighted against nights per year so NRP is already getting a reduction due to the 104 nights

My ex and other men I have known blag it by having sofa beds in the living rooms or sharing rooms with multiple kids (mine had to share 3 in one box room) so no, he has provided himself with a home but it’s not a home for our children. They have no desk for homework, no wardrobe etc. It’s not a home

That is so awful @Pookiedo I do totally agree with you regarding electricity etc but I think ideally the NRP should also be providing a home for their DC, with their own space, bed, wardrobe, desk etc.

My ex has chosen to not work for the last 9 years so he doesn't have to pay a % of his wage. So I get £30 a month from his jsa

He also has chosen to have no contact with his child so 100% of costs are with me.

But that's fine, we manage. And compared to many friends with ex's involved going through hell I am grateful of my situation (I know many ex's that are also fabulous and see their kids and pay more that fairly)

@HaveIturnedintoThatParent it's not always a case that NRPs are shitty human beings though. When I split up with my exh (mutually and amicably) he didn't "dump" DS on me - I wanted to be the RP, he agreed that it would be best for DS and he has overnights several times a month.

He is a fairly high earner. He pays me a decent amount of maintenance (more than CMS guidelines). Arguably he lives a better lifestyle than me - he has a partner who also earns well, they have a 3 bedroom house, 2 cars and go on multiple holidays a year.

DS and I are comfortable. We don't want for much. Our home is smaller than my exh's but that is because I don't have a partner so the only wages coming in are mine. I wouldn't expect my exh to live in a room in a shared house and give me 50% of his wages. But that's partly because he's a decent bloke and does right by DS.

Plus the maintenance will stop someday and I wouldn't want to get too reliant on it. I'm concentrating on improving my own finances.

I agree, but there is no way to enforce this. RP takes the full weight of responsilbity for their D.C. and has no real recourse unless you know, NRP is living in a squat. NRP can move back in with mother for 5 years and the grandparents are providing the home and CMS is the same!

Ideal world a NRP would recognise the fact they have not provided a 2nd home for D.C. (just a bed for the night and some food) and ensure the RP was able to provide this in their resident home

RP takes the full weight of responsilbity for their D.C. and has no real recourse unless you know, NRP is living in a squat.
Yes, this. If I don't have any money at the end of the month, I have to add to my debt / credit cards, it is not an option. If I lose my job, my financial obligations do not miraculously disappear.
Therefore I absolutely cannot understand why the NRP is immediately absolved of all financial responsibility if they don't work.
My ex has moved abroad and pays £0 for the last two years, with a six-figure salary - the case is still in the court and he just refuses to pay out of principle.

I think what this thread proves is that there really isn't a fair way of doing it unless, like a pp said, every situation is done on a case by case basis. I can see a lot of RPs pissed off with their situation as the NRP is much better off.
My experience and situation is the opposite, so the system doesn't always favour the NRP - especially in cases of 50/50.
We don't provide SSwith a bed to sleep, he is with us 50% of the time and has his own bedroom and it is his home just the same as his mums is.

Here’s the government figures for the minimum costs to raise a child. You will see it varies by area and age of child, from 127 - 222 a week.

So NRP should be paying half of these figures at least . Of course these are children in foster care so there are no child care costs, school fees or expensive hobbies allowed for. If a child did any of these things before the split, in sure any decent NRP would want them to continue .

So the wealthy man up thread who only pays 600 a month is getting a bargain

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

but chances are that was a joint decision, and the SAHP probably wanted to do that too.

I don't think you can make a decision to be a SAHM and then cry because your ex husband has better earning potential than you.

if you're concerned about being left high and dry with the kids my advise would be go back to work!

if dp left me and didn't pay half the child care costs, and just paid me maintenance id be absolutely fine because I went back to work after 9 months and I have a better salary than him (though if he does overtime he gets more obv)

we get £26 a week from DSS mum, she was originally RP and then kicked him out.

When he lived with her DP paid maintenance, and for uniform all school trips bus fair when with us, school dinners when with us and clothes etc which we never saw again.

now he lives with us we get £26 a week off his useless mother and shite all else. She wont even pay his bus fair to get to school on "her day"

she is the lower earner though so is that ok? however she still walked away with the house she had never contributed to, a car dp bought her outright and obviously everything else dp had bought too - he literally left with his clothes and later got a whole 15% of the house he had single handedly paid for...

see what I mean there is no right calculation!

So the wealthy man up thread who only pays 600 a month is getting a bargain

Are you being sarcastic? Half of even the maximum allowance there is £481 a month. So if he's paying 600 he's obviously paying more than this.

It really does depend on personal circumstances though doesn't it. DP's ex has never worked and it was not a joint decision. She refused to look after DSD when she was younger, she wasn't working but they were paying for childcare as otherwise nobody else would look after her as DP had to work. When they split when DSD was around 18 months old, DP was still paying for childcare whilst his ex was still not working. DP wanted custody but his ex refused as then she'd "lose her house and her benefits and didn't want to move back in with her Mum and Dad" Thankfully now DSD is in school she does actually look after her but it was not a joint decision, it never was and in an ideal world DP would've loved to have been the RP but he couldn't afford any more court costs. Anyway my point is it really is individual isn't it and there's no fair way of managing it for all. If DP's ex claims she hasn't got enough money well then maybe she should get a job. We provide a furnished bedroom, clothes, school uniform etc as well as a considerable amount of maintenance (more than half of the values stated upthread for fostering). The quality of life isn't the same with his ex but that's not through a lack of money but rather through a lack of her not particularly caring much. In all honesty we'd love to have DSD here more but unfortunately his ex doesn't want that.

Sorry, have gone off on a bit of a tangent here.

So the wealthy man up thread who only pays 600 a month is getting a bargain

Are you being sarcastic? Half of even the maximum allowance there is £481 a month. So if he's paying 600 he's obviously paying more than this

That’s the MINIMUM amount for a child in CARE. There are no childcare costs or school fees, money for Christmas and birthday presents or foreign holidays for example. It’s a BARE MINIMUM to cover basic costs.

Why would a man who is well off want his child to live at the minimum standard of a child in care ?

Do you only buy your children the minimum you can get anyway with ? What a shit attitude towards your own kids.

Most of these NRP are men. Most of them who earn a good income do so because they have not taken any time out of work for paternity leave and they can work long hours in a demanding job BECAUSE they have had someone else to do the housework and raise their kids.

Why on earth should the child not get more when the father earns more?

When mothers who are RP get a pay rise they say “ great, now we can move house / get a new car / take the kids on holiday / pay off our debts “.

I’ve never heard a mother say “ well I’ll make sure that my kids don’t benefit from my hard work getting this promotion “.

Most of these NRP are men. Most of them who earn a good income do so because they have not taken any time out of work for paternity leave and they can work long hours in a demanding job BECAUSE they have had someone else to do the housework and raise their kids

and the SAHP have been allowed to do so because these men work long hours in demanding jobs. It works both ways

school fees are not a necessity and most people do not pay them. Childcare costs yes, but again not everybody has them and not every NRP has any say in the childcare either.

the only reason DS costs us so much a week is childcare, when he is at school that will cost maybe £50 a week probably less. I cant imagine spending hundreds a week on one child. Its not realistic!

and money for Christmas and birthday presents is irrelevant as that wouldn't be included in maintenance anyway would it!

@Kr1stina

I have a primary aged child and primary aged stepchild. Neither of which cost anywhere near close to £143 a week!

@flamingofridays

Ive never been a SAHM no agreement but NRP has full Monday - Friday week with no childcare obligations to build career and pension and I have children Monday to Friday (and weekends) with limited opportunities due to childcare restrictions and costs

@flamingofridays

I don’t know why It is baffling you it might cost more than £50 per week for a child...?

• At least half of a weeks rent for me is £100+ (if I was child free I could downsize or force them to share or even save to buy a place and pay less on a mortgage)
• Fuel and associated costs for child related activities not related to myself - £30 per week
• Food - £30 odd between them for school meals, approx £50 for all associated food/drink/laundry detergent
• £20 at least per week water/electricity
• 10 or so a week on toiletries (I have girls) Sanpro, shampoo, deodorant, tights, revision guides
• don’t have holidays so not going to include them

Then there is school trips friends birthdays etc etc

It’s not £50 a week

it doesn't cost me to house ds as I already have a house, my gas and electric bills have not increased since having him.

I feed him but that costs me maybe an extra tenner a week, nappies maybe about a fiver a week and wipes about £3

fuel costs £0 as I walk him to nursery

ok maybe your kids cost a fortune but mine certainly doesn't!

I have no difficulty understanding that children cost a lot to run.

I have two teenagers , no school fees and no childcare costs.

School dinners alone at the local comp are £100 a month.

They do activities out of school three days a week . Bus fares plus a sandwich from Tesco plus the activity costs = £200 a month.

Weekend activities, sports tournaments , easy to spend £200 a month.

There’s your £500 a month gone without a single item of clothing, school uniform, sports equipment , mobile phone and pocket money, Christmas birthday and holidays.

Oh and the costs of running two cars to take them places and
Providing a roof over their head, utilities, insurance etc

I’m not saying these are compulsory costs but they are quite normal in middle income families. Lots of single parents would like to be able to do all this for their teens but they CANT AFFORD IT.

Usually because their earning capacity has been affected by their caring responsibilities.

And their ex is a feckless bastard who doesn’t support his kids. Or a mean bastard who has no idea what it costs to bring up kids.

And guess what, it’s not so easy just to go out and pick up a well paid job the day your youngest starts high school. I know this will be a suprise to some of you who bang on about “ my boyfriends ex is just lazy and he shouldn’t have to pay child support “ .

Kristina you are making massive assumptions here.

Who said he doesn't buy anything or provide anything?!

He pays the RP £600. He has the child at least 2 nights a week averages closer to 3 across the year. He takes the child abroad in the summer holidays for 10 days as a minimum as well as weekends away. He provides a bedroom in his home as well as all of the clothes etc. as RP refuses to send any. He buys child christmas presents/birthday presents and throws birthday parties separate to the RP.

He has the child any additional time he can and would happily have them full time or 50/50 but RP won't allow it.

So I can assure you what he contributes towards that child is significantly above the minimum and significantly above the RP.

The child DOES benefit from the pay rise - ridiculous to say that they don't. The RP should be encouraged to work not assume that because NRP has done well for themselves that they should also cover RPs cost of living - absolutely ridiculous.

Just as RPs who get very little shouldn't subsidise the NRP who is a low earner or doesn't pay.

I get the OP's point, but the trouble is there is no generally defined "cost" of raising a child. I expect that I spend more raising my children than some people do, and less than others do. What are we basing the cost on? Is it the same for everybody? What lifestyle factors are deemed to be essential and part of the "cost" of raising a child (swimming lessons? holidays? designer clothes? school trips? sports clubs? house size and location?) and what are luxuries and don't fall under the defined cost, and therefore shouldn't be halved?