To say I understand why some people don’t pay child maintenance? X

[princessmum1]

Just that really. It seems crazy that child maintenance is not means tested beyond anything other than income. It doesn’t matter if your mortgage/rent or your ex partners is £2000 a month or £300 a month you’ll b expected to pay the same amount. Seems odd when you compare it to benefits that are very much means tested based on everything.

mrsmuddlepies I actually don't always think 50/50 care is best. I think sometimes it's better for a child to have one "main" home and then EOW and overnights with the other parent or similar. Going back and forth between houses all the time with no real "base" can be stressful and tiring for the children especially if the parents don't live near each other - in that case they can miss out on things going on near the other home as well.

Of course 50/50 can work fine but I disagree that it is always best. Each case is different. 50/50 would not have worked in my situation, my ex works shifts and travels the country for work (he cannot ask not to as it's part of his job contract) and I have a school hours job so it makes more sense for me to be the resident parent and ex to just have DS when he's off work. Thankfully my ex agrees and he is happy to pay maintenance.

Agree Re over 18's still costing money! Especially if they go to uni. But seeing as we can't (as a country) even seem to get nrps to pay before 18, after 18 is a fantasy!

My brother has always paid cm as i said upthread, even though he is low income and it has been a struggle.

When his dd went to uni he suggested she used his address as her home address as his income was far far lower than her mums and partner, and she would have been eligible for a lot more financial assistance.

But no, address had to remain mums and he was expected to make up the difference.

While i agree with nrp’s bearing costs, i also think some rp’s after separation don’t account for their ex’s wage. My brother has always been low income, always will. When they were together they had to budget accordingly, and made many cuts. Since separation he’s somehow meant to find money for violin lessons, half of ski trips with the school etc. His ex (rich new partner she left him for) can afford now it so signs her up, then asks for half and when he says he hasn’t got the money it’s not her problem, he should be paying half of all the child’s costs.

Same as private school. If the kids were in private school pre split then costs are split. One parent can’t decide post split to put them in private education and expect the other to bear costs.

Bitchqueen on one of my google searches related to this thread I got a lot of returns on articles saying that it's starting to be noticed that 50/50 care might work for parents, it's not working for children. They're left feeling insecure, not sure where "home" is etc.

Plus as you say it's not always possible or practical. My ex is 400 miles away, with schooling etc I can't see how we could have worked it and dd would have hated even spending all school holidays at his. Plus there were months at a time he wasn't even in the country (army) Then there's the real deadbeats who don't see their kids at all, who basically just bugger off!

"When his dd went to uni he suggested she used his address as her home address as his income was far far lower than her mums and partner, and she would have been eligible for a lot more financial assistance." That would have been fraud! So no that's not an option.

I agree costs for luxuries should be agreed upon. But there's a hell of a lot of nrps seem to thing BASIC costs (housing, bills, food, clothes, shoes, haircuts, school necessities, books, toys...) are luxuries! Certainly my ex very much taken that attitude and I've seen other examples too.

I think lawyers are told now that 50/50 should be a starting point and it would solve problems of non payment and father's having proper access to their children. There has to be compromise on both sides.
It would mean mothers did not miss out on career advancement too.
I think the law also is now keen to redress the behaviour of parents who bad mouth the other parent to their child stuck in the middle. Some mothers want the money without access and hopefully this will begin to be addressed by the courts.
Too many fathers are reduced to every other weekend. It results in lots of fathers feeling second rate.This has to change if parenting is to be fair and address the problems of responsible and shared parenting.

My youngest DCs father paid £60 pw until he was 18. I suppose that did cover his food and clothes. RPs (most of them) take a massive hit career wise just by having children. BUT personally, i want to be with my kids as much as possible. I'm prepared to take the career hit, I could work harder/more but i don't want to. In fairness, that's on me, not the NRP. My kids are older though and i would do more if we were starving.

Also i have 2 NRPs in our lives. One has always pushed and pushed for as much contact as possible. It has been absolutely to the detriment of our son who has never felt settled. The other has been more traditional EOW and leaving day to day decisions to me - that son is far happier in himself.

Also my post 18 kids cost a fucking fortune. Yes in an ideal world they should be financially independent - the world has changed, they're just not. But i have a choice I suppose. I could say fuck you, wear a denture, I'm not going to help you get your teeth fixed.

I am also a little conflicted with rp automatically being the female.

Dh and i are equal parents. In fact at present dh is probably more involved day to day as he has flexible working while i work ft.

Should we split I would want to be rp, but then so would he.

If we want men to step up and take equal responsibility for children should we be moving away from the “kids stay with mum” default? Women say they give up careers for the children and that’s fair enough, but I don’t think many men get the same choice. It’s catch 22 where men are paid better so it “makes sense” for the female to sacrifice the career, but to change that we need more men to take on childcare responsibilities and make it the norm at work.

But then as women in getting that equality we are giving up that default parent- which if we’re honest would we be prepared to do?

It’s a complicated issue. But that “out” that men have which seems to justify them ducking out of parenting post split also benefits women in that we remain default rp. And of course we don’t have the resources to take individual cases before a judge to decide who should be rp in the face of indecision.

I would hate to be a weekend parent. It’s got to be shit. And i don’t know a woman who would want to be. But men are expected to do it and be grateful.

Tldr: separation is shit and i can really see why people stay together for the kids.

" It’s catch 22 where men are paid better so it “makes sense” for the female to sacrifice the career"

Yes, but in general men do earn more, and also, a bit more controversially, women tend to choose men who earn a bit more than them so while we still look as men as the breadwinner, women will continue to be the ones who have to reduce their hours/stay at home etc.

Obviously if men start doing more of that, it will change what happens with residence. In Belgium now it's already the norm for 50-50 unless there's a good reason why not. Very fair for the parents, but maybe not so great for the children who are constantly moving from one home to the next.

"When his dd went to uni he suggested she used his address as her home address as his income was far far lower than her mums and partner, and she would have been eligible for a lot more financial assistance."

That sounds like fraud if the student's real main home was her DM's.

Well my delightful ex went straight in benefits when I applied for child maintenance (he left when she was three months old), despite being 'self employed' and having a ltd company. He has made about three payments of £28 per month, it has for some reason now gone down to £24, and has since made an application for a mandatory reconsideration. So has paid nothing for the last three months and the cms (despite all their claims of taking non payment very seriously) have basically said there is nothing they can do.

It's not even about the £24 a month, it is just appalling that someone can even do that. Luckily I have savings, and I've gone back to work full time, knowing that yet away he has got away with it, a continuation of the last ditch attempt of trying to exert his control, may as well just cancel the claim so that he doesn't have anything left over us.

joebloggs that is shit, i assume he doesn't care about seeing the child too.

I suppose in general if it is a casual relationship (not saying about anyone on the thread) maybe a small fling or ONS and the mother continues with the pg it must be hard to feel connected. I'm not excusing anything just saying there must be a world of difference to paying for a child you don't, in truth, care about. A dollop of sperm is different to carrying and giving birth to a child. Not trying to insult APs, I'm sure you see my point re walk away spermers.

Thighofrelief, unfortunately we had been together five years and were engaged, before I got pregnant and he revealed who he really was, hence me finally managing to get him to leave because of various incidents (including violence).

Hasn't seen her for six months, I assume he is peddling the sob story of me refusing to let him have contact, how I kicked him out, how he is the innocent victim, how I am bleeding him dry through child maintenance, conveniently forgetting that a) he's a violent shit and b) apparently he's moved at least three hundred miles away c) he's working cash in hand but of course I can't prove it... hence me just thinking I may as well just end the claim, as really what is the point? £24 a month? Doesn't even cover a morning at nursery... he's a disgusting waste of oxygen. I am glad there are decent men out there though who actually care about their children.

Ironically I just got a call from the cms. The payment has gone down to £23 a month! What the heck is anyone supposed to do with that?! It's just insulting. And as I said, if he contests it, there is nothing they can do re non payments. Sick to death of it all.

Completely agree with you Micah. There must be more equal parenting and attitudes have to change. It is hard to get some men to take equal responsibility when they are treated like sperm donors. If fathers are legally required to have financial responsibility, there needs to be an expectation of equal, shared parenting.

What is anyone supposed to do with £23/4 pcm? I don't know what nappies/baby milk costs anymore - would that be a weeks worth? For an older teenager that is almost a weeks pocket money. For a 17 year old in London £35pw is really not unreasonable. Or at least £20pw.

Just did a quick calculation. Say a baby goes through six nappies a day. Pack of 35ish nappies is around £8 (pampers in my case, her bum won't tolerate anything else), although I do hunt around for offers... that's around £40 a month in nappies alone.

For the record, this was a vague calculation based on figures that had been rounded up, just incase anyone gets pernickity about prices and numbers of nappies.

So basically yeah, wouldn't even cover nappies for a month, let alone childcare, which unfortunately in the area I live it, starts at around £65 a day...

Ugh my head hurts now!

If we take a calculation of 50% of baby milk, clothes, nappies and work related child care for one month what is it? I mean the bare minimum to keep baby alive.

It's not about what's best for the parents though, it should be about what's best for the child. I would hate to be a "weekend parent" but my ex is happy with this arrangement and to pay maintenance and as a result we have had no need for any court involvement, we get along really well and we have a happy DS.

Resident parent doesn't necessarily have to be female but usually females do most of the childcare, not always but often. I don't know many men that actually want to be stay at home dads. You especially see on these boards a lot of cases where men can't be bothered to do childcare.

Oh wow! That's maths beyond me! I'll give it a go from my perspective with a just turned one year old...

Say £40ish a month in nappies
Say around £10 on wipes
Say £10 on nappy cream
Say £100 a month on food (for the baby - ingredients, snacks etc)
Mine is just coming off formula but could go through a box of formula a week (£11 a box, for today's calculation let's say two a month so £22)
For arguments sake, let's say clothes even out at about £40 a month (for everything from coats to socks, a couple of outfits a day for when clothes get wet, etc at nursery)
Childcare for mine is £75 a day and she is there 4 days a week (I work full time and have very little in the way of family to help out) so for me that's £1200 a month.

So a total of £1382 divided by two is £691.

Again, I am sure it could be done a lot cheaper (re clothes and stuff, I've just thought about what I've had to buy this past month or so for the colder weather and going up a size, and I buy Tesco clothes!) and as you can see, for me it is childcare that is the killer, but I had no choice but to go back to work full time, and as I say, no family really to help out more than one day a week. Plus big expenditures for example, I've just had to buy the next stage car seat, that's another £140, but supposedly will last til 12...

And that doesn't include petrol, car maintenance, house bills (gas, electricity, internet, water, council tax, etc). Again, I know that there are so many ways of cutting corners and reducing the amount, but it is a substantial amount of money that needs to be spent simply housing a baby each month if everything is taken into consideration.

In fact take away the childcare in my case, and that's £182 a month in basics. So £91 divided by 2.

But again, doesn't factor in the cost of running a house/car or other extras like toys, classes etc or the big things that need to be bought like car seats.

Again, if the system is not working, it has to change. If Belgium (and Scandinavian countries, I think) are pushing for 50/50 childcare, the U.K may well follow.
Many fathers feel excluded after divorce or separation. This cannot be ignored. So many threads on here want to see more equal parenting, which ultimately has to be right. Women today want to prosper in their careers, increasing numbers of mothers work full time so the expectation must be to maintain that balance after divorce.
I think statistics show that, post divorce one third of men lose touch with children. I was reading on a thread just now that a mother (RP) can't face the thought of her child spending Christmas Day away from her. A number of posters have advised her not to let her child go. Thankfully the OP recognises the need to be fair. There must be an end to the mother being seen as the resident/ gatekeeper parent.
Change will, and must happen, to reflect changing roles of the family in the 21st century.

What about when (inevitably) the father decides that family life is not for him and just disappears. What about men who are violent, controlling, coercive? What about men who decide they want to see their kids from time to time when it suits them? Why should they not have to be made accountable for the substantial amount it costs for the rp to raise a child?

Why oh why oh why is it so easy for such men (inevitably) to wriggle out of contributing to their children? The cms claim to be tough on non payment, will deduct the correct amount etc. But in my experience, they have taken the word of him to the benefits office that he is not working (again as per my previous thread I know that it is highly likely that he is, self employed, ltd company, etc), and when I questioned the last few months of non payment whilst he was contesting the princely sum of £24 (or whatever the hell it has gone down to now), they said they will wrote him a letter and he has two weeks to make the payments he's missed because he 'has to be given a chance'???! What if I relied on that £24 a month for essentials???? Argh just makes me SO ANGRY!!!!

50:50 is never going to be appropriate for a baby or toddler. I question whether a primary school aged child could cope all that well unless the parents have a very co operative and communicative relationship.

I think it comes down to the attitudes of the NRP and RP. If both genuinely want what's best for the child they'll make all efforts to do that together.

When you have one part of the equation (sun consciously or consciously) fighting agsinst that it will always fail and the ultimate losers will be the childten and the other parent who does try their best.

In my situation im seen as money grabbing as i used to ask for help for the bigger things (secondary school uniform/school trips etc). I dont now as i was told i was begging and that they need to survive. When theyhowever are taking their third holiday abroad and discussing buying a top of the range camper van it does grate.

My ex moved straight in with the OW over an hour away. Won't let the kids speak to me or friends when they are with them and the wonders why when he demands the kids visit for the whole Christmas period why they refuse.

They miss parties, sicial outings, family weddings because he is so inflexible with his every other weekend.

But as he pays the minimum maintenance he believes he can do what benefits him best.

They are pawns in his image conscious lifr style. Whrn they're with me they dont seem to exist in his world.

The fact he pays maintenance means he doesnt have to put in any effort to actually parent, make them feel welcome. Find out why they don't like going.