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?

Yeah. And drink vodka by the bucketful and wear designer clothes. Still not got a goat.

@sue51 not according to CMS.
We have SS 50% of the time over the year. 3 nights per week as standard, extra 1/2 nights each half term and maybe an extra 2 nights a week min over the summer hols. But we still have to pay CMS to his mum. Purely because she is classed as the RP and gets the CB.

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

OK. So in a £100k/25k earnings scenario, assuming £25k was a full time wage, how is a 50/50 split of children's costs fair?

You are still mixing lifestyle and maintenance. RPs pay their own housing costs - either a mortgage or rent or Housing benefit or a mix of these. Of course, that might include some/all/a tiny bit of child maintenance received but that's not unreasonable. The child needs a roof over their heads. It is still the choice of the RP to not work or work part-time.

ohreally - how is it not fair? The lower earner would have less disposable income because they are a lower earner? The child is equally their responsibility regardless of whether it's the NRP or RP that earns more or less. Because one parent earns more doesn't mean they should pay more in either scenario, RP or NRP as the child is equally both parents responsibility. If £25k wasn't sufficient to cover 50% of the child costs I don't see how that's the other parents responsibility to then cover the difference?

ohreally - & of course the RP can choose to work whatever hours they please or not at all, as can NRP. In both situations neither party should have to contribute to the other persons choice to not work full time. NRPs that don't work to avoid should still have to pay so that there isn't this benefit to them to stop working. But NRPs who do contribute shouldn't have to cover the RPs choice to work part time or not at all either.

I agree you are mixing lifestyle and maintenance

Also I feel like you aren’t exactly showing how it’s ‘unfair from both sides’ as your DH isn’t living in a 1 bed flat struggling to pay his bills you appear to have a relatively good quality of life despite paying CMS regardless of what the RP is doing with her own finances

We are talking about NRP who do not contribute at all or anywhere remotely near what it actually costs to raise a child therefore putting the whole responsibility onto the RP

Your DH does not shoulder all the NRP responsibility and if he did, he should become RP

You are talking about the middle sector of people who have some gripes. Not RP’s who eat baked beans for months because they get £5pw CMS and their bills cripple them because childcare costs are also crippling them

I do believe that NRP who put RP into this position should have more stringent checks - whose house does NRP live in? Who pays those bills? Do kids have living space? Whereas to claim any benefit RP has to provide a multitude of evidence to claim, NRP just has to avoid letters and phone calls, never really being called to account! The NRP should be sanctioned if they don’t comply with checks/evidence and paying towards their D.C.!

Pookiedo - not at all - he's a family friend by the way not my DH - my DH doesn't have any children (other than bean in my belly haha).

My friend does struggle - he has to fund two houses in an expensive area, pay way more than 50% of the child costs, all because his ex doesn't want to work. His savings and overdraft were recently destroyed as she'd gotten herself into £6000 worth of arrears on her rent and he didn't want his DC to be evicted. And it's not because she couldn't afford rent, it's because she knew he'd step in and pay. She recently bought herself a brand new car (on finance more than likely) but did that whilst not paying the rent, and it wasn't needed as he bought her a car 3 years ago to make sure the DC could get to school etc.

Totally agree about the other end too though, which all my other posts do say. My mum often went without whilst working all hours under the sun for me and my brother to eat etc. because my dad didn't pay. My point is that both parents are responsible. More often than not the RP gets the shitty end of the stick but that isn't always the case which is all I was saying. Definitely wasn't expecting the thread to focus so much on one side, when my OP clearly shows that I think it should be fair all round.

I don’t understand why he is paying her debt (did he not divorce her) and how she gets car finance. The fact he can afford 2 houses in a nice area isn’t the same as what we are saying! Your family friend sounds like he isn’t exactly extricating himself and having separate finances after a split and possibly being taken advantage of his own accord

OK. So in a £100k/25k earnings scenario, assuming £25k was a full time wage, how is a 50/50 split of children's costs fair?

I’m assuming in your example the 25k is the RP’s earnings. Always is in these sorts of examples. But what if it’s the RP earning 100k? Does that mean the NRP shouldn’t have to pay half?

Pookie - never married her. He didn't want DC evicted and put into temporary accommodation which is what she was threatening 'I'll just turn up on the councils door'.

Funinthesun - totally agree. Doesn't make sense that it's not 50/50 either way when one parent earns more. They are equally responsible for child. I do think that so many RPs get a rough deal but that doesn't mean that all NRPs aren't good parents or don't pay either.

Pookie - he can't afford 2 that's the whole point. Just because he earns a good wage does't mean he can afford to pay more than 50% of the childs costs.

I also think, whilst it would be difficult there's an element in which the circumstances of 'the split' occurred should be considered. My ex likes to use the phrase 'when we split' or 'when the marriage irretrievably broke down' whereas I tend to use 'when you left' or 'when you chose ow over your kids'. I did not choose to be a single parent with minimal contact and support from my 'Co parent'. He chose to leave and move away. I know realistically that could never be factored into any financial calculations but it is a consideration in terms of what's fair.

HugeAckmansWife - agreed! When my exH and I split (he cheated) he left me in such a dire financial situation and there weren't any children - it made me realise how awful it must be for those who are in similar but with children!

Morally it's just so unjust but don't know how it could ever be factored in!

@HugeAckman circumstances of a split are so subjective though aren't they, how would you prove it either way?

DP's ex would say he left her with a small child and walked out on his responsibilities. Whereas DP would say he left as he couldn't stand the emotional abuse he was receiving from her on a daily basis, he couldn't cope with working FT, paying a Nanny to look after his young DD, coming home every day and having to do absolutely everything and then his wife doing naff all and just spending all of the very limited money they had coming in. So he left whilst still paying for childcare, her rent, bills etc everything for months as well as also trying to get back on his feet. She wouldn't even let him take so much as a photo of their DD so whilst she kept everything, he had to start completely from scratch whilst still paying 90% of her / their DD costs.

He’s not actually obligated to do any of those things. His obligation is as discussed during this thread: suitable housing and appropriate CMS. If you choose to work outside of the system then that is his choice
If he’s a better parent he should be RP and put his money where it will benefit the kids in that sense. Bailing RP out in a toxic relationship - legally he is not obliged to do any of that he is doing so he has no recourse to change the system. Does this make sense?

Pookie - yes I see what you’re saying but my point is when he gets a pay rise he’ll automatically have to pay even more, which doesn’t seem fair when the current £600 isn’t being used properly as it is

I’m assuming in your example the 25k is the RP’s earnings. Always is in these sorts of examples. But what if it’s the RP earning 100k? Does that mean the NRP shouldn’t have to pay half?

Of course. All parents should make a contribution but it should be within reasonable parameters. The RP could be a millionaire but that doesn’t negate the responsibility of the other parent.

Pizza that you can’t see beyond ‘each parent has an equal responsibility’ meaning 50/50 on everything, regardless of income disparity just makes me want to weep. It is attitudes like this which ensure children are going without in favour of some twisted sense of ‘fair’.

also think, whilst it would be difficult there's an element in which the circumstances of 'the split' occurred should be considered

Good god no. The payment of maintenance is about the children, not who left who and whether or not it was justified. You are effectively suggesting compensation for the wronged party. Supposing a judge ruled the ex was right to leave you due to your unreasonable behaviour?

Ohreally - yes and if the NRP is a millionaire that doesn’t negate the RP of responsibility either - in the case of an extreme high earner the RP wouldn’t have to work at all as maintenance would be more than a full time wage. How is that both parents taking responsibility.

In circumstances where one parent can’t earn as much due to illness or any other manner of reasons then fine but when it is sheer laziness or NRPs not working to cheat the CMS system how on Earth is it fair the other parent should pick up the cost?! Parents should BOTH be looked at in terms of providing for the child not just one who happens to earn more.

in the case of an extreme high earner the RP wouldn’t have to work at all as maintenance would be more than a full time wage. How is that both parents taking responsibility

Exactly. It’s not.

@Pizzaandwine1 your argument is nonsensical

RP is ‘looked at’ in terms or what they qualify for in benefits and support. They also have to jobseek when their child reaches 3. Their finances are combed through, hoops to jump through
But CMS is disregarded for a lot of benefits. So your ‘friend’ is over paying and bailing her out of his own choice hence the ‘systems’ in place to deal with this ex never kick in. You can’t argue it both ways. This would be like a RP saying they aren’t claiming CMS from their millionaire ex. Why would you do it if you don’t have to? It’s to help the kids. But he doesn’t have any obligation to help as much as he is, and there is no sanction for RP because he is contributing to her not needing to work by financially supporting her over 50%
People have morals or they don’t. She doesn’t and she’s not suddenly going to grow some

Pookie my argument makes perfect sense in the fact that aside from his additional contribution, the basic calculation means that his ex gets a % of his wage regardless of how hard he works to get a promotion or progress in a career. Why should his ex be entitled to a % of his wage always when at some point in the near future the basic rate that’ll be obliged to pay more than covers 100% of the cost of DC. At what point is the ex financially scrutinised in the same way to make sure she is contributing. She isn’t.
I don’t understand how it makes sense that if a NRP gets a significant pay rise that means the child costs more to raise? They don’t. All NRP and RP should contribute to the child - anything above and beyond what it actually costs to raise a child is going to the exes lifestyle - whether that’s a NRP who doesnt pay enough or an NRP that pays loads.
It makes no sense that under CMS rules they say one 11 year old requires maintenance of £25 and one requires £900. Both children cost approx the same to raise? I’m talking about a basic but not difficult upbringing here not the luxuries that may or may not come with a higher earning family. The child in questions getting £900 will still get the benefits and luxuries of a higher earning parent without the NRP having to fund so much more than half directly to the RP.

Equally an RP would never say that because NRP only contributes £25 I’m not going to pay more than that towards child either

It baffles me how you can’t see it from both sides. A child costs X amount to raise regardless of earnings. This does not suddenly double because one parent gets a pay rise.

Well my abusive ex has made my life hell, contributed zero to dc whilst he was here, as soon as I made a claim for Cm as I was on maternity leave, he suddenly became 'unemployed' (despite having been previously self employed. I get £28 a month. A month. And even that is late.
As a comparison, nursery is £75 a day.

Also many families get pay rises and promotions where the parents are together - does that money automatically go on the DC? No. It could get a new car or go into savings etc. Ludicrous to say that every pay rise a family earns should go directly to the DC when clearly this doesn’t happen in non split families.
If I got a pay rise of say £500 a month I wouldn’t automatically spend that on DC I would more than likely save it - the CMS saying that has to go to RP regardless of whether the child sees the benefit of that is crazy.

"Particularly in relationships that were of short duration" completely irrelevant for CHILD maintenance - children whether from a ons or a 20 year marriage are still CHILDREN for 18 years and require their needs met for all that time.

"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?" Never found this to be true in real life. All the nrps I know doing perfectly well.

"No, what you have is a life where you have an obligation to meet the responsibilities you have already assumed" EXCELLENT way of putting it!

"but the NRP is expected to have suitable accommodation for the DC to stay at too." Not legally/officially and many don't bother! They don't even see their non resident kids!

PLUS the child's MAIN residence should be provided by BOTH parents.

Govt also seriously needs to clamp down on nrps deliberately reducing official income so as to reduce/get out of paying maintenance. FAR too many loopholes at present.

Kr1stina thanks for posting that. s you say that's the absolute minimum and I'm sure foster carers would say the true costs are actually higher - yet loads of nrps don't even pay half that!

Flaningofridays the poster wasn't talking about sahp! But the fact that a single RP has a much harder time finding a job that fits with available childcare (most places mon-fri 'office hours' only which most jobs these days are outside these hours - even office jobs!) AND with the flexibility to cover eg child sickness (regardless of the fact in law parents are supposed to have this flexibility in ALL jobs the reality is very different) while an nrp doesn't have to consider ANY of that! They can apply for/take any job they like! Even if it affects contact with DC. I've known many nrps request and get RIDICULOUS contact arrangements because they've CHOSEN to have jobs with shifts that aren't family friendly.

"if dp left me and didn't pay half the child care costs, and just paid me maintenance" and what if, as happens a LOT, he didn't pay ANYTHING? and didn't see the DC? And please don't say "he'd never do that" because I can assure you that are very often famous last words!

"she is the lower earner though so is that ok" absolutely not! The sex of the nrp is irrelevant. You may notice that I've mainly said RP/nrp rather than 'mum' or 'dad' - most nrps are dads but I'm also aware of 3 nrps who are/were mums and they behaved just as shittily as the men!

"it doesn't cost me to house ds as I already have a house" - but if you DON'T have DC you don't need as many bedrooms, hell if I didn't have dd I could live in a studio which would be at least £150 less pcm

"my gas and electric bills have not increased since having him." Sorry but I think you're kidding yourself there! Even with a baby, extra laundry, having lights etc on when doing night wakings will bring your bills up and as they get older these will definitely increase.

"I feed him but that costs me maybe an extra tenner a week" clearly still a baby so that will DEFINITELY increase as he gets older.

"nappies maybe about a fiver a week and wipes about £3" really? I was more than that nearly 20 years ago with dd. Check your bank statements/receipts and see if that's REALLY what it's costing you. What about nappy cream? Teething products?

"fuel costs £0 as I walk him to nursery" does HE walk to nursery? How much is/was his pram/buggy? and how much is nursery? Where are the nearest primary and secondary schools? How will he be getting there?

What about clothes? Bedding? Towels? Feeding equipment? Sterilising equipment (if you're still at that stage)? His cot/bed? Toys? Toiletries?

"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 “ ." Hear hear! The jobs market at the moment is EXTREMELY tough! Let alone trying to find one with family friendly hours/ethos AND pays well!

Dd is working now but prior to that there's:

Housing - extra cost as we can't both live in a studio or house share!

Electric/gas - larger home means these costs are increased, if it were just me I'd also have fewer rooms lit, fewer electrical devices being operated, less fuel used for cooking, wouldn't be running my own fridge/freezer/washing machine necessarily. Only paying for the hot water I'd use for bathing/handwashing not for dd too...

Cleaning products - use more of these in a larger home and kids make mess! And use loo roll!

Food - by early teens they're easily eating as much if not more than an adult, they need the calories.

Clothes & shoes - including uniform and sports kit which is rarely cheap! And as they grow needs constantly replaced!

School equipment - stationery, books, home ec supplies, school bags, PLUS it's now expected by the govt that homes have access to Internet - homework, discipline, school dinners etc all managed online now! So that's not just wifi but a device to do it all on! Plus I've found printers seem to be expected to be available too!

Toiletries - again more used as they get older especially when they hit the sweaty/busy teen years!

Toys & books - essential for development and education. Libraries closing in many places and even where open subject to cuts meaning stocks aren't as good as needed. Few computers available for ltd time to users and usually old and not working great. Printers frequently out of order.

And THAT is BASICS! That's not even including haircuts, hobbies, mobile phones, days out, increased costs of school holidays (eg children who'd normally get fsm those families struggle during school holidays), car/transport, birthdays/Xmas (inc their friends birthdays), large items of household equipment breaking etc etc

"not assume that because NRP has done well for themselves that they should also cover RPs cost of living - absolutely ridiculous." Where has ANYONE on this thread said they expect the nrp to cover the RP's living costs?!

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

"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 ." Absolutely! The example given is BARELY parenting. Only doing certain things when they have the child and £600 is relative- what's he earning?

Also op - where are you getting the "info" on what the nrp does/doesn't do? I'm strongly suspecting all based purely on the word of the nrp - cos they never lie eh? Never make out they're hard done by 🤔

Ohreallyoh - not all single parents are on benefits by choice! Certainly after children are a certain age that's not allowed within current benefit rules anyway. I worked until several years ago when I became too ill to work. Doesn't mean my ex isn't still responsible for our child, though he certainly seems to think so! He has never regularly or reliably paid maintenance even when I was working but as soon as he knew I wasn't working he became WORSE! Seemingly never occurred to him whatever he thought of me, that this meant HIS CHILD was missing out! He also hasn't even seen dd for several years she's lucky if she gets a birthday card - usually late! I appreciate you noted that it shouldn't really make a difference to what nrp contributes.

"but there should be encouragement for both parties to do so equally." Currently there's FAR more pressure/onus on the RP to provide for DC than nrps!

I don't expect it to be 50/50 for both households completely, I do think 50% of the minimum costs of raising a child is the very LEAST that should be expected from nrps and it's not happening in most cases!

"Because one parent earns more doesn't mean they should pay more in either scenario" why? Why shouldn't the child benefit from a parent earning more just as they would if the parents were still together? RP's don't not improve the child's lot if their income goes up! Why should nrps not be expected to do the same? Even the govt disagrees with you seeing as cm is currently assessed as a percentage of taxable income!

"Whereas to claim any benefit RP has to provide a multitude of evidence to claim, NRP just has to avoid letters and phone calls, never really being called to account!" So true!

"pay way more than 50% of the child costs" according to whom?

"Definitely wasn't expecting the thread to focus so much on one side" really? When it's predominantly mothers on here who are usually the RP's?

Don't think assessing maintenance on the basis of who's fault the split was makes sense. Doesn't change how much it costs to raise the child. In that scenario if it was the RP who cheated would it be acceptable cm was reduced as a result? Of course not. Because the child had no agency in the breakdown of the relationship.