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?

I agree with OP.

I also agree that high earning parents should contribute more for a better quality of life, but it should NOT e forceful taken from them with no definite assurance that the extra money is being spent on their children.

HaveIturnedintoThatParent
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)

If you are going to minimise the costs of the NRP then you should be doing the same for the RP.

So fuck off with the "room in a shared house and associated share of bills".

FYI, I don't have kids and live in a decent property by myself not sharing cos that frankly sucks.

I totally agree. I posted on another thread that my 3DC cost about £6k a month as I work FT and my childcare costs are high. I consider homework help with qualified tutors, activities and suitable accommodation to be needs because of our earnings. My costs are about £2k a month. On the tax return DH has an income which is artificially low because he doesn't take money out of his business. Why should I get some lower amount in the event of a divorce?

I've said childcare should be 50/50 with cost to raise them decided separately.

boney I think living in a share so the DC are provided for is perfectly reasonable. If the NRP wants to live in their own place they can find a better paid job or take on a 2nd job. Those basic costs of the DC need to be met first.

Want2bSupermum

I think living in a share so the DC are provided for is perfectly reasonable.

There is a minimum standard of living and forcing someone to live in a house share is not it.

By you reasoning if the NRP should be forced to live at minimum standards then so should the RP and the children.

So if the NRP should be forced to live in a shared house so should the RP and the children? Their"basic costs" are being met.

@Want2bsupermum.. I hope very much that you are not one of these mums that stops the father having as much access to his children as he would like (or beneficial to the children) and then demand money 'For the children'.

No point in getting a second job as all that will happen according to people on here should go on the children.

Especially with people saying they should pay 50% of gross wages averge wage is 18k how can anyone live off 9k a year (single males get fuck all benifets).

NRP need to be able to support themsleves as well as there children the current amount is a fair amount as 16% of net wages is a about 25% after tax .

The state supports single mothers too top up their income where as they do not for the NRP.

How would the children benifet if their NRP dies from like of food or shelter? Not all NRP can earn mega money remeber the average wage is around 18k other then the arse end if no where how can that wage realistically be stretched to cover expesnes for 2 households? Averge rent is 500 pcm average bills are around 200 pcm (gas electric water council tax etc) lets be generous and say food 100 pcm (25 per week) 800 x 12 = 8600 x2 17,200.

So pre tax they might just be able to afford two homes but tax at that wage is around 4k.

And these caculations do not take into account travel expesnes, childcare or stuff like clothes.

It simply is not workable expecting the NRP to foot the bill of 50% of expenses unless you only class it as the differnce between a 1 bed flat and the extra cost for needed number of rooms.

Because remeber the average mean income is 18k meaning most people are NOT earning this amount but simply due to high earners distorting the true figure (i think the figure is something like 70% of the population is on minimum wage.....)

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

Caring for children, seeing they have all they need, getting them to school, appointments, haircuts,uniform, doing homework, taking to parties, and god only knows what else isn’t taking responsibility? What about RP’s who can’t work due to illness or disability (their own or their child’s)? Are they not taking responsibility? Do you get pissed off that your neighbour works part time? Or your friend doesn’t work cos her husband earns well? People make choices or decision making is out the wi Dow due to circumstance. Either way, it’s none of your business what RPs spend money on.

I agree with others, you are not discussing a friend here. You are a new partner who doesn’t see why maintenance should be paid. Urgh.

@Ohreallyohreally,

Having children was a choice, it is not a full time job you are required to work without pay.

Given that just under 50% or marriages end in divorce and nearly half of all NRP do not pay maintenance I find it incredibly annoying when people continuously moan about such things.

Yes, its crap that a non resident parent does'nt always pay maintenance but that is the risk you take when you decide to have sex with somebody- it is a gamble you take.

I will also add that over 100,000 fathers in the UK each year are denied a reasonable amount of access to their children, end up in court and ARE still enforced to pay maintenance.

I think that Maintenance should be assessed case by case. If a RP has no other choice but to bring their children up alone then I completely see the need for maintenance to be paid. But, if there are two able parents then child residency should be split near enough equally with no maintenance required.

This country is very behind on beneficial shared parenting.

Not read the whole thread but I do think the NRP (usually a man) should pay more of the costs than the RP (usually a woman) as he hasn’t had to make the career sacrifices that comes with being a (single) parent.
Often the NRP won’t even pay for childcare on ‘his’ days, never mind 50% of the rest of the week.

OP I agree with you. I suppose it would cost a fortune to make it fairer.

I'm a high earning single parent with 1 child. I have worked since she's been 18 months old, now 14. Her DF doesn't pay any maintenance, and tbh he would probably try everything to avoid it, so I can't be bothered with the stress. I live 300 miles away from family and friends so never had childcare (when she was young)

My DP's ex get £550 per month for 2 school aged children. He has them 2 days per week, and pays extras. They went to court last year for their finances order - she earned more than him net per month on benefits and the maintenance.

So I can see both sides... however there are a lot of nasty assumptions from some posters, not all NRP 'dump' their kids, sometimes couples separate amicably, many NRP's love seeing their kids, many NRP's are happy a fair amount for their children. In addition to this not all RP gave up a career, some didn't have one to begin with, some actively chose to stay at home with their children.

In summary, I think adults should be independent and support themselves and children should be supported equally by both parents.

My ex is not allowed contact direct or indirect with our children. He got us into this mess, he is the reason he has no contact, the bloody least he can do is pay matinence. Contact and matinence are not linked.

@Bbbbbbbb2017
They are though- as maintenance reduces based on the amount of contact. Which makes perfect sense.

Okay to all the assumptions that a close family friend (essentially like a brother) is my DH.

Laughable that you assume that because I can see it from both sides that I don’t think NRPs should contribute.

Astounded that people think that the DC don’t benefit when the NRP earns more - of course they do! Does the NRP not buy them things, take them places, holidays etc?!

Dillydally totally agree with everything you’ve said! Maybe you put it more eloquently than I did lol.

You've made several comments that make it clear RP's expect unfairly high amounts to be paid.

The example you're using of a supposedly hard done by nrp you clearly only have one side of the story, whatever the reason.

"Does the NRP not buy them things, take them places, holidays etc?!" That is a fairly typical new partner type comment. These are extras. Nice but not the point! The point is this is the type of shit a Disney, non maintenance or low maintenance paying nrp would come out with.

No good "treating" the DC when at nrps if nrp is not paying full maintenance and DC (though more likely to) thus going without as a result.

When I first split with ex he was playing Disney dad on contact days, meanwhile I was going without food and even a winter coat at one point so that dd didn't go without.

Argh - more likely to be RP

Graphista - absolutely some NRPs do play Disney dad or whatever and I agree this is totally unacceptable, that doesn’t mean that some NRPs aren’t taken advantage of.

I’ve made it very clear in previous posts that the system fails more RPs than NRPs but that doesn’t mean that it fails all RPs or doesn’t fail any NRPs.

My own real life experience and from what I've read on forums Inc mn it is extremely rare for nrps to end up in genuine hardship due to paying maintenance. Whereas it's frequently the case for RP's

Indeed I've never come across a case of an nrp in genuine hardship either in real life or online.

In real life I've known people claim it - while in a perfectly nice house and driving a relatively new car and going on regular holidays.

Online - when I or others have challenged it's turned out that the perceived 'hardship' is things like not getting a holiday one year, or not being able to get a newer car (even though current one perfectly fine) etc.

Rather brings to mind the phrase

"When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression"

Graphista again - agree with you.

That isn’t to say that the RP shouldn’t take responsibility as much as a high earning NRP (again I know this is a minority but a valid point in how the system fails lots of people nonetheless). That was the point I was trying to make.

Coming from a family where my mum often wouldn’t have dinner or we had to go to my aunts so she could work to keep us as my dad didn’t contribute I completely agree that the NRP should pull their weight.

The cost of raising a child is the cost of raising a child and I think that it should be considered more when calculating maintenance (which in most cases would likely mean the NRP should pay more if childcare etc included so that both parents can work full time)

Having children was a choice, it is not a full time job you are required to work without pay.

I think ohreally has mentioned this, but I find it odd that the amount of "work" that the RP does for the children isn't considered when calculating maintenance. Both parents chose to have children, but if the NRP only sees them EOW, the RP is doing the majority of child-rearing for them.

It's not just about paying bills, etc., it's all the driving around, doing the washing, cooking the meals, etc. for the DC that the NPR only has to do EOW.

I know nothing about the CMS system so don't have a go if I'm misunderstanding how it works, I'm just judging by what I see IRL.

Amicrazy that’s why maintenance is higher for NRPs who have the children less. So NRP who has EOW would pay more (assuming wages are the same) than NRP that has them a few times a week

Surely it is the interests of the children that are the starting point. So say a NRP was a very high earner and RP a SAHM, why should they be forced back into the workplace because it would be the children who would miss out (on having the SAHP they were used to) the RP would have the childcare headache that most lps have anyway, and the main person to benefit would be the NRP.
Contributions are not only financial anyway. RP is providing vast majority of the childcare and all that is associated in terms of practical emotional, physical, support etc.
Has to be decided on a case by case basis I'd say

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.

It is! Its madness.

It would be very simple to deal with it effectively. The vast majority of people won't actually quit working forever to dodge maintenance (I know some will) so I'd allow people a certain number of chances and then adjust their tax code. HMRC/CMS can pay it out as they bring it in automatically from the tax code.

I do honestly think that if it was mostly women who dodged paying maintenance it would be viewed differently. In fact I'd go so far as to say if it was mostly women more people would view it as aform of neglect.

Look Pizza, from a single parent I have faced this scenario and this is what it looks like, for real:

So NRP gets payrise and doesn’t pass it on to RP through CMS.

RP has very little excess income to spend on holidays and trips to Lego Land, probably saving up all year/Tesco clubcard vouchers etc, Sun caravan park holidays.

The more pressing concern is: how do I afford 6 weeks summer holiday childcare when I have a job and how will I pay for all their new uniform this term?

In NRP house they have extra £ and book a family holiday to Spain. Lovely.

The children still have a struggling RP who is worrying about uniform but they got a holiday to Spain out of NRP.

What is more important for the welfare of the child?