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?

pizzandwine1 The nrp is expected to provide clothes for the dc whilst in their home. Not fair to expect the rp to provide them for you.

Sue51 - which is fine but just making a point to a pp that the maintenance this particular example pays only scratches the surface of what he contributes. Although CMS states it does include clothes.

Either way, my point in the post it that it seems people at both ends of the spectrum aren't catered for at all - you get RPs that don't get a fraction of what's needed for their child but then equally at the other end NRPs who have to pay through the nose and RPs taking advantage of that by not working etc. even when child is nearly a teen

I get £5 a week for 4 children bet my ex is laughing his head off.

I provide all the clothes he provides food and a bed for one night/day per week

It is simply a fact a lot of NRP run away from their responsibilities

Pizza I wasn’t making any assumptions about your friend because I don’t know them.

I was taking generally .

But now that you give more details about him - if he wants 50:50 residence then he can go to court and request it . I’m sure it will be granted if that’s what the child wants and It’s in the child’s best interest.

Of course he should provide clothes for his child, why on earth should the mother send him some ? Does he expect the mother to send him food to feed the child too?

He buys his kid Christmas and birthday presents . Amazing .

And he does 10 days of the school holidays that are 13 weeks a year ?

I don’t understand why you are holding him up as an example of someone who does too much and pays too much . I don’t know many mothers who do so little .

Greenlantern - that's awful! What is that supposed to cover exactly?!

PookieDo - agreed - the system massively fails lots of RPs when the NRP doesn't pull their weight and contribute

Kristina - no - you mentioned holidays - that's a minimum that he'll take child abroad not have them. He has them as much as possible in the holidays. He's already had to go to court for the access he has which RP used the child as a pawn by telling them oh dads taking me to court etc so would think very carefully before doing again as he doesn't want the child dragged through that again.

I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't provide clothes etc. my point was that the £600 to the RP is certainly not ALL that he contributes, he contributes significantly more than half which the RP massively takes advantage of, that was my point. He is happy to pay whatever is needed to give child a good life.

greenlantern53

Ah but don’t you know that children are cheap, if you made nappies out of old rags and fed then bread and dipping then you could manage fine on a fiver a week.

Just go out and avail yourself of that free top quality 52 week flexible childcare that’s out there and pick up a job as a CEO . It’s only your own laziness that stopping you.

Kristina - I'm not saying most mothers/RPs don't do enough. I'm saying in some examples.

This example the RP doesn't contribute anywhere near as much. Refuses to pay for school dinners, school trips etc. regardless of the £600 at least being using to partially cover that. At christmas gives the expensive list to NRP. Doesn't take child on holiday. Doesn't work due to 'childcare' despite the child's age, and NRP has already said if it was an issue he would pay towards after school clubs etc. In this case the RP doesn't pull her weight. i'm not saying that's a regular issue.

My post was about the system failing at both ends of the spectrum, and that's probably more common whereby NRPs refuse to contribute fairly but that doesn't mean that there aren't some RPs at the other end that take advantage...

I don’t know how you can do a fair way of paying though.

In my case my ex is an incredibly involved and good dad. He has our DD three nights per week. Two of which are school nights.

We do the following.
He gives me a token £100 per month, recognising I have her slightly more.
He pays for any childcare associated with his days which includes two days per week of holiday cover.
We split her costs generally 50/50. So clubs/clothes/shoes etc

It works really well for us, but he isn’t a dick. If I text and say he owes me £35 for x,y and z he simply transfers it. No asking for receipts etc.

If he picks up school shoes when she’s with him he simply lets me know what half of it is and I transfer it to him.

Mostly her costs never come to more than £250 inc childcare and that’s a really expensive month. So if he wanted to be an arse he could and I’d have the £450 CM reckons it should be.

I’m happy that we both meet the costs fairly though and I earn very similar to him in a good job.

No I’m sure your right. It’s just that 90% of lone parents are mothers and most of their kids have a lower standards of living than their fathers .

So I guess I think about these 99% of kids who lose out rather than the 1% of mothers who are chancers.

And yes I agree, there are problems with the CSA and the fact that payments are not enforced here as they are in other countries.

It really winds me up every time I see it go into my account as its just a reminded that he still hasnt bothered to get a job, which he wont get as he owes arrears and it gets better, doesnt have to pay them whilst on benefits! just over a pound a week per child

Regardless of whether a RP 'pulls their weight' financially, I am not sure that means that a NRP should equally not pull their weight or in some way be absolved of the responsibility of paying whatever the CSA/CMS minimum calculation is. If the RP doesn't want to work and is able to manage their income on benefits and maintenance then ultimately, there is nothing to stop that (other than Universal Credit but that's a whole other ball game) and it is ultimately their choice. As a single parent I work and receive no maintenance which basically means I may as well not work because I'm no better off and my pension is sod all to write home about and certainly isn't going to sustain me in old age. I can't pay more because I'm sole provider for my children and the figures just don't add up. I understand that some RPs will make the decision that it simply isn't worth the hassle.

I am also very much against the splitting costs down the middle. That doesn't happen in marriage, so why on earth it should happen post-separation is beyond me. Few partnerships have 2 people who earn exactly the same and indeed, 2 people who have brought exactly the same to the table in the first place. If a mum came on here and said 'my partner earns £100k and I earn £25k, we both work full time, but he is insisting that I pay for 50% of all our costs' there would, without any doubt, a cry of LTB. Why a lower earner should pay the same as a higher one is beyond me. I will always earn less than my ex - not because I am lazy or can't be bothered but simply because my chosen profession is less well paid!

Cue idiots saying I should change my profession, I'll bet.

The nrp also has opportunities unavailable to the rp. For example deciding to do a full time masters so as a student no cm to pay. No discussion, no notice and no thought to the impact on the rp's finances.

It is not the norm that RP’s behave like you describe it is the exception

ohreally it doesn't mean a NRP shouldn't pull their weight - but there should be encouragement for both parties to do so equally.

And whilst costs aren't always split 50/50 when together that doesn't mean that the higher earner (whether NRP/RP) should continue to subsidise the others lifestyle. A split/seperation/divorce means that there are now two houses to run, the higher earner can't afford to run 2 houses? A lifestyle change is pretty much 99% certain after a split which both parents would be aware of.

The difference being in a couple that are together is that they are together, they are a family unit, when they split they aren't. Both parents could go on to meet new partners etc and that becomes the new family unit.

Sue51 - yep which isn't fair and I totally agree with you.

Pookiedo - I'm not saying it's the norm it's just an example. I'm very aware that the most failure happens to the RPs who get no support (like my mum). I was just using both ends as an example as to how the system fails lots of people.

If you put into the CMS calculator that NRP has child MORE than 3 nights a week - it still calculates a figure for them to pay the RP - despite having them the same amount of time or more - how does that make sense?

Ohcomeonron - that's something I noticed when looking with my friend and didn't understand!

@Pizzaandwine1
Yeah it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I definitely think the system is flawed - I'm just not sure what the answer to it would be to be honest.

Surely if you have the dc more than 3 nights a week you are the rp and should be getting cm and cb.

Sue51 - that's that you'd have thought but that's not what the calculator says... very odd.

And whilst costs aren't always split 50/50 when together that doesn't mean that the higher earner (whether NRP/RP) should continue to subsidise the others lifestyle. A split/seperation/divorce means that there are now two houses to run, the higher earner can't afford to run 2 houses? A lifestyle change is pretty much 99% certain after a split which both parents would be aware of

Unfortunately, like many people (and this is what makes the non-payment of child maintenance socially acceptable) you are mixing 'lifestyle' with 'child support'.

And please don't preach to me about divorce, 2 houses etc. As the ex of someone who doesn't pay maintenance, I am on the other side of this subsidizing my ex's household to the tune of hundreds a month. There has been absolutely no lifestyle change in his household. The difference is my ex not supporting his children is a socially acceptable act, considered a 'behind closed doors' issue with an assumption that 'there must be more to it'. On the other hand, that I work three jobs and still claim tax credits as a single parent makes me a benefit scrounging slut who shouldn't expect the state to subsidize her lifestyle. Go figure.

I work three jobs and still claim tax credits as a single parent makes me a benefit scrounging slut who shouldn't expect the state to subsidize her lifestyle

I bet you eat meat, have a TV and get your nails done more than once a year as well

ohreally

My posts are saying exactly that - NEITHER should subsidise - not sure who is saying you're a scrounger, I'm certainly not.

Paying for the ex (either NRP or RP) to stay in the same level of housing etc. is not fair on either side, which in more cases is the RP where the NRP doesn't contribute. But both parents know that a split also means less money to go round overall as inevitably costs go up so just because they didn't split 50/50 when together doesn't mean that's a sustainable arrangement moving forward after a split, for either party.

I 100% agree that the NRP should support the child financially, never disputed that. That doesn't mean that everything in the child's life re housing and affordability of holidays or luxury items remains the same, running to households on the same income as previously running one obviously has impact on lifestyle was more my point.