To say enough is enough and we need to galvanise for a change in child maintenance laws

[Suliemantra]

I have just read the thread about the man training as a medical doctor in his 50s meaning the mother of his children works full time, is in debt and he pays nothing.

I have just read about the woman whose ex has 50 50, pays maintenance and does no parenting of their children while in his care.

I have read countless threads of men refusing to declare income to avoid child maintenance.

The family courts insist on 50 50 splits if the father wants it but makes no mandate for a father to be involved with children.

The financial and caring burden is disproportionately on women.

Our children are being damaged and our own ability to live outside of poverty considerably compromised.

Why is this allowed to happen? Why aren't we petitioning parliament? How can we do this?

Change needs to be rallied for - does anyone knows of existing campaigns or knows how to campaign in a unified and successful way for change??

I agree pp.
I'd also like to see areas such as pension contribution taken into account. It can't be fair that the higher earner, (often enabled by the lower earner who does most of the child care) is able to choose to save a huge amount to their pension each month and this is not counted as 'income' in terms of how the amount of maintenance they pay is worked out. I know of a situation where a man is choosing to pay £500 a month into his pension-which is almost as much as the maintenance he pays towards his kids.
The lower earner doesn't have the option of saving for their pension as they are limited work wise by needing to be around for the children (because the higher earner refuses to be).It doesn't seem quite right to me.

Interesting take on things, @pizzaforpusheen!

But, since you ask...there's a world of difference. I have a senior public sector role. I was on talent programmes being groomed for board level posts. I have stepped back from those, because they would require work to be pretty much all-consuming. I have got a transfer to a local office, so that I'm local when I have the girls, and have taken a pay cut to do that. I begrudge none of those things, because they ensure that I am able to focus on being a present and involved father. I have adjusted my spending accordingly. I expect nobody else to subsidise those choices.

My ex refuses to work full time. She prefers a 'lifestyle' job. I didn't say that was lazy. I said that isbher choice, and she is entitled to make it. Equally, I am entitled not to be expected to subaidise that choice, when I am working hard and making sacrifices myself. He choice, her reaponsibility. Do you see the difference?

also, basing it on wage is a little flawed. DP pays his ex almost 3 times as much maintenance for DSS, as she paid us for DSS when he lived with us. It did not cost us any less to bring him up, it does not cost her 3 x as much to bring him up.

Saying that, I don't know what would be a better system.

Things will never change, my ex has recent!y had to start paying £7 a week for 4 children (after 2 years of not working or claiming any benefits at all) and I've receive d a lot of abusiv e emails off him angry that he has to pay, people are saying 50/50 but what about fathers that are absent through choice (as he is)

The thing is, 50/50 residency is touted as a starting point for fairness. Might be “fair” to the parents. But it’s often the worst thing possible for children.

It is disruptive, having to trail switch between two residences.

It interferes with a sense of personal security, belonging and place.

It hinders children being able to create a lasting peer friendship group. This is often down to disruption of location, but also just having less time, attention and emotional capacity to form these bonds, because the amount of time that needs to be devoted to family life is essentially doubled.

This is without the fact that there may be different rules/norms in two different households, or more complex dynamics in blended situations.

The best thing for the children is for the children to stay in one home, and for the parents to split their time between the “nest” and their own residence.

I hate the amount of selfishness, blindness and hypocrisy that is spouted around “fairness” and “what’s best for the children” when all many people are really interested in is making sure their ex doesn’t get a better “deal” than they do.

Mumlife200 for every mother pissing her child benefit and child maintenance up the wall on nails, holidays and nights out, I am pretty willing to estimate there are another 1000 who are working all hours, having to put their children in childcare that they then end up working to afford, basically desperately trying to make ends meet, having to decide whether to spend money on food or clothes, or a new appliance or whatever that has gone bust, because they actually care about their children, and want the best for them.
And far too frequently the fathers will do anything to get out of paying. And then will criticise the 'money grabbing' mother.

@stucknoue I disagree entirely with the sentiment that maintenence should be paid until 25. A person can work from age 16 and in my opinion, children should be encouraged to work part-time throughout college/uni to supplement their own lifestyle. I don't think parents (whether split or not) should have to finance grown adults up until their mid-twenties. Going to university is a lifestyle choice and it is entirely possible to work, as well as to study for a degree.

Myself and exdh have a 50/50 arrangement.

It's on a rolling rota so everyone knows what's happens on what day , it's been successful for nearly 2 years with no plans to change it .

I don't interfere with his days , he doesn't on mine , if dcs have drs or dentist etc whoever has them takes them (or asks the other parent nicely if it doesn't suit) he pays dinner money on his days , I pay it on mine , he buys clothes , i buy clothes , after school club bill is split down the middle as are school trips and uniform .

I claim one child benefit, he claims the other .

My point is that we both pay to parent equally , he is a much higher earner than me but that's neither here nor there as I choose my career and he chose his , it was not expected and nor was it offered that he should support my household , that's my job .

I have no time for anyone that doesn't pay maintenance when it due , nor have I any time for people that restrict access to gain more financially.

It was heartbreaking when we first spilt to not have my dcs with me but I chose a decent man to have kids with in the first place so I have always been confident in his ability to parent well so when he suggested 50/50 I had no reason to push back . ( I know people change when kids come along so I'm not saying it's your own fault you have shirker as an ex because you chose a knob .. believe me , the first exdh was a shit . She is 21 now and I've never seen a penny or him in all that time )

I've probably digressed from what the thread is about but I just wanted to stick up for the parents that do do 50/50 and it works , emotionally and financially

because I've chosen to work hard and pursue a successful career

Sigh. Plenty of people choose to work hard and are successful in their careers. U fortunately, not all careers pay equally well. Who gets to say whether someone is deliberately holding back rather than struggling to move forwards (for many, many reasons, not necessarily related to children. For example, I work pretty much full time in teaching. I also tutor and I also mark exams. I don’t earn as much as I could because to manage my home life successfully, I dropped my full time position to supply so some days, I don’t work (because there is no work) and others I work as a TA which pays less. I am not maximising my income because I could a) take a full time position and b) pursue management responsibility. Who gets to judge?

I'm equally damning about those mothers who trwat theirnkids as a meal ticket, and don't believe they have any personal financial responsibility, because it should all fall to the father

It is increasingly difficult not to work as a single parent. You should try wrestling with the joy that is Universal Credit. I don’t believe my ex should pay for everything but I don’t believe as a much lower earner I should be penalised for my career choices which were never going to have the same financial yield as my ex’s.

It is difficult to find a balance. More emphasis on mediation with trained professionals, severe and immediate penalties for proven lying or non-disclosure of finances, mediation-made agreements being enforceable in court would be a good start in my opinion,

@PlantPotParrot

What you pay her shouldn't be just enough to drag the kid up. It's based on wages because it should equate to what that child would have had if the parents hadn't split it up.

When the child was with you, you got the percentage from her which the government suggests would have been spent on the child if they were in the same house. She gets a percentage from you which the child would have had if they were still together. For example, a high earner and a low earner together could probably pay for music tuition and some sports clubs for their kid by setting aside a percentage of their wages for those things. Separated, the higher earner should still pay that percentage to allow the same lifestyle because the child shouldn't miss out. When living with the higher earner, the child will still get all that with the contribution from the lower earner. If you decide that his payment should be reduced to match what she paid you, then that means the child will not have the lifestyle it should have and you will have all that extra money for yourself.

Maintenance should be fixed at 40% of net income regardless of number of children.

My ExH hasn't worked for 4 years because his partner is a millionaire. i think therefore the liability falls to her like it does for all his other bills.

I don’t agree with this. His partner is really paying her own bills - the household bills and food for both of them. I’m sure his new partner is not stopping your exh from working. It’s his choice not to support his children.

Your children have two parents and it is up to you both to provide for your own children.

pizza what so children should have one main residence and never even stay at the other house? how utterly ridiculous.

as for I hate the amount of selfishness, blindness and hypocrisy that is spouted around “fairness” and “what’s best for the children” when all many people are really interested in is making sure their ex doesn’t get a better “deal” than they do

I agree, but you can say that of RP's and NRP's. I remember when I met DP and the only access he was "allowed" by his ex was Friday nights (had to be at her house) and Sundays, this was done purely so he could not have a social life - she admitted this. It wasn't better for his child. It was done to spite him. It was sorted out eventually, but people on both sides will do what they can to get the "better deal" as you put it.

Well how can we unify so that we insist there is political will? It's not just the CMS that requires reform it's the family court that allows shoddy parenting as an excuse for 50 50 etc

Totally agree. Make it a prison offence to not support your kids as in US

What you pay her shouldn't be just enough to drag the kid up. It's based on wages because it should equate to what that child would have had if the parents hadn't split it up

what do you mean by that? she gets paid a damn site more than what it takes to "drag a kid up" thank you very much.

Well If that's the case she would get 20% of whatever min wage was when they split up over 8 years ago.

This is a good start:

It is difficult to find a balance. More emphasis on mediation with trained professionals, severe and immediate penalties for proven lying or non-disclosure of finances, mediation-made agreements being enforceable in court would be a good start in my opinion

Maintenance should be fixed at 40% of net income regardless of number of children

how do you expect an NRP to live on 60% of a wage?!

Can we create a ten point charter for change of CMS and family court, for simplicity? Does anyone have any good ideas about how that could look?

The academic evidence consistently comes out in favour of shared care. Most studies don't differentiate based on a specific % of time (e.g. 50/50, 60/40), but they do reach a consensus that shared care arrangements are associated with far better outcomes for kids than arrangements where the child spends the majority of their tine with one parent, and much less time (usually EOW) with the other. Here's one example of a study - there are many more:

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=static1.squarespace.com/static/5154a075e4b08f050dc20996/t/54887e9fe4b04c36dc7d7873/1418231464149/40%2Bstudies%2Bnielsen%2B.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi1mbWkg8biAhULURUIHf69Bc4QFjAFegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw36i3eZnjr8m5qLotFvt5CM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?q=static1.squarespace.com/static/5154a075e4b08f050dc20996/t/54887e9fe4b04c36dc7d7873/1418231464149/40%2Bstudies%2Bnielsen%2B.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi1mbWkg8biAhULURUIHf69Bc4QFjAFegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw36i3eZnjr8m5qLotFvt5CM

I know there's a lot of prejudice on MN about 50/50, but since the academic evidence is pretty conclusive that it is usually (not always) in the child's best interests, that seems to be driven more by dogma / prejudice than by informed evidence.

The biggest challenge with 50/50 is in cases of ongoing conflict - generally where one parent is actively trying to undermine the arrangement. In those cases, mybown view is that parent should lose residency, because they're actively working against their child's best interests.

No. If they were still together, the child would have benefited from his change in career/promotion etc and the wage increase from it. The child should still benefit despite them being spilt up. If he is earning more then he pays more. That's how it works, because if they were still together and he was earning more then the child's lifestyle would improve. It shouldn't be any different just because they've split up.

You clearly want him to pay buttons... the minimum amount you'd calculate that it takes to feed and cloth the kid. But that's not what paying for your child means. It means you contribute to ensure they have the lifestyle they would have had if the parents hadn't split. So a percentage of salary. If his salary and disposable income increases then so should the amount the child had available for whatever they need.

I see the difference as you characterise it, but I am not convinced the picture you paint corresponds to reality even Slightly.

The divorce courts are full of people who paint themselves as paragons of virtue, and their partners as wholly inferior.

It’s really, really probably in most cases a case of some flawed and incompatible people not quite managing to make life together work.

Who then cannot summon the emotional maturity or integrity to let go of whether their ex is “winning” or “losing” compared to themselves. They are so caught up in the emotional fallout of their failed relationship that it clouds everything going forward.

You should think about how you talk and act about this to your children and the effect that will have on them. They already know they can successfully base a case for getting something on putting down your ex- consider how they learned that was a successful strategy.

Perhaps that is grounded in your obvious attitude to her and her choices. Think long and hard about the long term effects that will have on their self-esteem and sense of identity.

Remember that your ex was once someone that you loved and considered suitable to be the other parent of your children. If you are so superior, why did you stoop to her level to have children with her? Maybe she has some merits after all, perhaps different merits than you, but that’s just variety. If she managed to dupe you into having children some way then you obviously aren’t as superior as you think. Or maybe the better explanation is that you both just fell out of love and everyone’s faults look larger without rose-tinted glasses.

Anyway, treating your ex with respect will be much better for your children and their mental health.

For example why is it ok for the family courts to award 50 50 to a man who while would not meet threshold for social care involvement, does not parent to the same standard as the other parent, ie lax internet safety and porn exposure, lack of taking children to activities, no homework done, poor hygiene etc etc. Why should this be ok? How could this be argued?

My biggest problem is this.

When I was small I remember my Dad often worked overtime for something he wanted. Be it a new Car, a new set of golf clubs, tickets for the races that sort of thing.

It was usually for nice to haves and often wasn't for the the "family" as such.

Under the CMS any overtime is included in the percentage calculation. So the option for a NRP to work overtime for something for them that they maybe would do exactly the same if they were together is removed.

Its made worse by the fact that if the overtime you do is not available the following year, you're still paying on the basis that you earn it (unless you did so much of it that it made up 25% of your salary) unless his ex agrees to it being reduced.

Its for this reason I refuse to let Mr Imoen work overtime tfor anything. I'd rather pay for it myself. Because I know that his ex would not agree to any reduction in payments if his overtime became non available.

For example why is it ok for the family courts to award 50 50 to a man who while would not meet threshold for social care involvement, does not parent to the same standard as the other parent, ie lax internet safety and porn exposure, lack of taking children to activities, no homework done, poor hygiene etc etc. Why should this be ok? How could this be argued

that's a really specific example and nothing to do with maintenance?