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?

Whycantidothis - that’s awful! Makes me so cross that there’s nothing in place to make it harder for them to just avoid paying!!

The shocking thing about NRP's avoiding payment is that there doesn't need to be changes made to the law, or sanctions brought in to deal with it - they are all there already. Deduction of earnings, bank account arrestment, removal of driving license, charge on property and prison are all available yet I've never once seen a newspaper story about a deadbeat parent being jailed or having their license removed for neglecting their child (and not paying what you are due too is neglect imo).

Yep and I have had to go back to a stressful job full time far sooner than I intended to just so I can pay for nursery.

Cms is a joke. I pointed out that he was self employed and had a limited company, I was told there was nothing they could do.

So yeah, basically I've been left in the utter Shit. £28 a month. It's insulting

At least they finally accepted that the system is shit and have stopped counting maintenance toward benefits.

When I was a child my grandparents were "awarded" £67 a week from my father. So, housing benefit (my elderly grandparents were landed with 4 kids unexpectedly and we had to live in a rented place for a while), counted their income as Grandad's wages + £67 a week maintenance. Despite the fact the Child Support Agency didn't get a penny from him! It had a really bad effect on our lives, I've no idea how they juggled things until my siblings went to uni and costs went down.

Graphista why is 50% the very least that should be contributed by NRP but not RP?
I agree mostly the people who are screwed over are RPs but that absolutely does not mean that NRPs never are.
If the wage goes up and RP gets more maintenance the child still costs the same, so in cases where the NRP does contribute as they should that’s just extra money in RPs pocket - not like they suddenly move into a nicer house or buy the DC more toys because they’re maintenance has gone up.
Obviously in cases where the NRP doesn’t contribute fairly the increase is a welcome and fair one as would go toward the child, but in cases where the DC is already more than catered for I can’t see the sense or fairness in having to give RP more.

Lalala agreed! Crazy how none of these are actually followed up. Also too many loopholes that mean they don’t pay as much I.e pension contribution etc.

Whycanti - self employment is another joke loophole - not sure why they don’t crack down on this!

I would love to know how many non paying NRPs had their passport and driving licence revoked. I'm about to do a freedom of information request to the cms.

Sue51 can I ask what that would turn up?

The cms do state they have these powers. It would be interesting to know if they actually use them.

Ah yes, sorry didn't read properly.

Sue51 - does that come under freedom of info? I'd love to know how you get on and what the stats are - please keep us updated :)

To add even more insult to injury I have got the name and all the details of the limited company, but 'we go off what the job centre tells us', on repeat...

Never mind the fact that he is in a trade with all the tools and equipment that is in very high demand and would yield an extremely good wage. So either cash in hand or putting all the money into the limited company... but I guess I will never know.

I suppose actually it's just made it clear what I already know, that anyone who stoops to such levels to avoid contributing anything meaningful to their own child deserves to end up on a very special sort of hell.

@Pizzaandwine1

Stop now. You are banging on that someone who got a pay rise shouldn’t have to pay more to some woman who is on benefits. It’s all speculation about this woman, one sided from your ‘family friend’ no one knows the circumstances - perhaps she has crippling MH issues. Fact is clearly your friend resents the mother of his child intensely for her ‘life choices’ when in actual fact it’s probably pretty fucking shit depressing and demoralising living off benefits as a single mum with a load of debts.

RP is resident parent. It is not realistic that they will ever be able to earn what a NRP can, unless they are a high earner/have free childcare or 50/50 with their ex. It’s usually physically mentally and emotionally impossible to be able to match a NRP earnings when you have your children, School and a house to run day in day out and hand your DC over at weekends to Mr fun Dad who has plenty of spare cash and doesn’t have to live off payday loans and baked beans

Pizza I don't know if it does but I want to try. I'll update when they reply.

Pookie - not at all. Have to agree to disagree you are missing my point entirely.

Whycanti - yep it's just a disgrace. A friend of mine's ex put 49% of his earnings (I think that's the max) into his pension to avoid paying any CM! Nothing that could be done CMS said it's after pension and people are entitled to put as much or as little into their pension as they please!

How is it unfair on NRP to pay more if they get a pay rise, it is not relevant to the NRP what the RP chooses to do or how they spend the CMS - to control how the CMS is spent would be incredibly dangerous. If your NRP friend has serious concerns about how his child is being cared for then he should apply for residency order. The end
If he isn’t and she’s just not very good with money, he still has to pay. Because it’s abour the child not the parental relationship.

I think it's a practical issue. If you make the wealthy nrp's contribution less then s/he has less of an incentive to stay and make the relationship work.

Plus why should the dc have a lower standard of living than their nrp?

"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." Because their is no 100% upper limit! Will he ever be paying equivalent to 100% of eg what a royal child or child of trumps had spent on them? Of course not!

"At what point is the ex financially scrutinised in the same way to make sure she is contributing. She isn’t." Are you serious?! This more than even other comments you've made, make me think your "friend" who is a "hard done nrp" is actually your dp/dh, possibly brother.

RP's are PROVING they're contributing DAILY or else their children would be starving and naked! If they're in receipt of ANY benefits they're scrutinised regularly by the govt! He'll complete strangers feel they have the right to comment on what single mothers do!

"anything above and beyond what it actually costs to raise a child is going to the exes lifestyle" pretty SURE from THAT comment that your "friend" is your dp/dh!

Why do you think THEIR CHILD shouldn't benefit from nrp getting a pay raise? They certainly DO if RP gets one!

"does that money automatically go on the DC?" Actually usually at least some of it does! And even if THE FAMILY gets a new car or whatever the child benefits from that indirectly.

"the CMS saying that has to go to RP regardless of whether the child sees the benefit of that is crazy." Yep true colours starting to come through now! If RP's receive more cm that in 99% of cases will directly or indirectly benefit the child/ren.

Lalalalyra - exactly! The cms DO have sanctions available to them and don't bloody use them!

"At least they finally accepted that the system is shit and have stopped counting maintenance toward benefits." God yes! When I first became a single parent this was still the case. Ex making a PART payment govt took to mean he'd pay the rest AND pay in full and regularly thereafter. Took months to get them to realise that wasn't happening! And I knew other Lp at that time having the exact same experience!

"Graphista why is 50% the very least that should be contributed by NRP but not RP?" Has your logic deserted you? Did I say that?! NO!

If nrp isn't paying 50% or indeed anything who the fuck do you think IS? It's the RP! RP's are ALREADY regularly, even frequently making up for the fact that many nrps DON'T pay their fair share!

"not like they suddenly move into a nicer house or buy the DC more toys" says who?! All the single parents I know that's EXACTLY what happens. The child/ren DO benefit.

Sue51 - I'd be very interested in the results of that request too.

There is enough derogatory pressure on single mothers as it is, and most of that is down to NRP crying Fathers4Justice dressed as batman because mum drinks lambrini on Fridays and buys herself new clothes
It’s not as shit and horrible being a high earning NRP as it is a low earning RP.

The NRP doesn't pay less if the RP gets a payrise though?

It's not relevant what the NRP earns so long as they provide for their child?

I'm not even talking about my friend here, in general the above applies whereby the NRP is a high earner.

If you ask most NRP about CMS they will always tell you the same story of the scrounging lazy woman. I promise you

how is this so hard for you to understand that in most circumstances a RP will be paying almost the entire portion of their income entirely dedicated to their children. Because they live there more time and cost more.

I agree that this friend is your husband and it’s a gross argument

I can’t imagine in what world paying 15% of your income equates to the same as a RP paying likely 100% of theirs to their DC

"The NRP doesn't pay less if the RP gets a payrise though?" Why would they?! They're not earning less!

"It's not relevant what the NRP earns so long as they provide for their child?" OF COURSE it's relevant! Why should the CHILD miss out on benefiting from THEIR PARENTS increased income? Why shouldn't the CHILD benefit?