Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Child maintenance

224 replies

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 00:39

So after reading a Facebook blog from ‘single mum still standing’ and living under the threat of maintenance payments being used as a means of control, and hearing the same issues/grievances from all my resident parent circle, I’m keen to know if the majority feel the same, or just some constructive feedback before I lobby my MP. Thanks in advance.

*This is my experience within the Scottish system.

After reading the very insightful post about maintenance from “Single Mum Still Standing” and the fantastic top comment from Phil Dooner and receiving yet another threat about maintenance, it really angers and saddens me that this country does not have systems in place to allow a fair and adequate system of control for the care of, and fair maintenance payments towards children after separation and divorce.

I have been separated for four years but still after all this time it comes back to maintenance and threats, if I ‘step out of line’

Even if the non resident parent makes a very decent wage but works under a limited company any maintenance payments would only be based on what has been declared. I’ve had regular threats to stop payments and this has happened in the past.

This needs to stop! It’s not just about maintenance payments, it’s about fairness and decency and a just society and actually teaching our children accountability. You have a child, you care for them, regardless of any other factor, they should be priority, period.

What are we teaching children right now? The resident parent must provide all, be all, expect nothing, unless the non resident parent is honest, moral, decent enough, can be bothered to provide.

The system as it stands says;

Resident parent it’s YOUR child, BUT when it comes to rights and access, it’s both ‘YOUR’ child/children, therefore if the non resident parent decides not to pay for whatever reason they deem fit, there’s not one thing you can do about it.

Non resident parent wants 50/50 access ‘YOUR’ child could well be subject to this growing ‘trend’ in court systems. Non resident parent wants to return after many days, weeks, years of not being present ‘YOUR’ child most probably will be forced into contact. Non resident parent has committed a crime? even towards the resident parent! Still a good chance ‘YOUR’ child will still have to endure contact. ‘YOUR’ child has to move house, schools, quit groups, have less than they would have had, not have what their peers have, not participate in the same clubs, not have the same life chances and opportunities? because the non resident parent just decides not to pay towards ‘YOUR’ child, tough, it’s actually YOUR child, and they can walk away from every last bit of responsibility if they so choose.

Resident parent, ensure you have a safe place to stay, food on the table, school clothes, trip money, activities, transport, homework done, emotional care, hygiene, clean beds, clean clothes, good communication with schools, groups, non resident parents (in fact be their PA because it’s your fault if they’re not kept up to date), Keep your own calendar up to date, make play dates, read parenting information, discuss well being, attend events, parents evenings and plays and sports days, do school runs and drop offs, attend doctors and dentists, make Halloween costumes and complete projects, make packed lunches and diners, and of course WORK! But understand your work isn’t important, the non resident parent’s work is much more important and you also need to source childcare and that is your responsibility. Child is ill... that’s your responsibility, not the non resident parent, and there is absolutely, not one iota of responsibility that they need to take, and there is absolutely not one iota of accountability enforced.

Resident parent however, if you don’t/can’t be bothered to provide?. have another family and can’t be bothered with your children from your first relationship? lose your job and can’t feed your children, self employed and choose not to declare all of your earnings and spend the majority on yourself to the detriment of your child’s well being?decide not to care adequately or communicate about your child because of another partner,Just don’t bother to turn up for your child?... ABANDONMENT and NEGLECT. And we will not just advocate those rights for your child and non resident parent, we will enforce them.

So, what is this teaching OUR children? Future generations? And where is the fairness or balance in this system?

The government needs to take this seriously when it comes to enforcing adequate care of OUR children. They are keen to promote a country that is child centred. There is nothing child centred in this archaic, toothless system. Non resident parents are afforded all the rights of a resident parent with zero responsibility. A system that actually allows and fosters control and abuse.

Other countries such as America or Australia have powers to arrest wages. In our tax system that can quite easily persecute a single parent that hasn’t declared their exact earnings or who can wipe out a local business with investigations I find it very hard to understand how they can’t ensure EVERY non resident parent is paying the pitiful bare minimum that the government suggests.

This bare minimum (if you’re lucky, equates to pounds a day) let’s see any of you non resident parents bring up well rounded, well adjusted individuals that deserve all the life chances that any child deserves whether their parents remained together or not, on a few pounds a day.

And this is where the Adverse Childhood Experiences really kick in, although the separation is traumatic, it’s the prolonged control and negativity this backward system allows.

It should be very simple, make non resident parents accountable just like resident parents. Have laws to enforce this, have a system with teeth, arrest wages, have a fair standard amount awarded to the resident parent at time of separation that is not controlled by the non resident parent, that does not allow any form of control, don’t allow abandonment, neglect, or abuse from either parent. It really shouldn’t be this difficult.

Us resident parents are tired, we’re tired of fighting a fight we shouldn’t have to. The majority want the best for our children, we want laws in place to protect our children and us and ultimately our country’s future.

This is a much bigger debate but to kick it off I’m asking for a petition to award an initial standard amount to the resident parent at the time of separation (in the exact same manner as government child tax payments would be awarded) that comes directly from the non resident parents wages/benefits/income. A payment that cannot be controlled or adjusted by the non resident parent and is not ‘means based’ on the non resident parent, what an utterly preposterous system in the first place. We have an actual living, little human being here, who needs care and food and much more, not a ridiculous tiny little percentage of an often made up income. Because at the moment you can have a situation where the non resident parent is required to pay nothing, so by this logic ‘their’ child should have nothing? How can this be right?
(*taking into consideration that many non resident parents are pushing for extra nights access only because this backward system then reduces the amount they have to pay, many are self employed and only declaring a little while their lifestyle tells a very different story, many straight up just don’t pay, many just pay when they want, many use maintenance payments as means of control for years and years and years, it should be a fair, standard amount in line with the cost of living and inflation, and bringing up a child in line with costs such as weekly/monthly food, childcare, health, activities, clothes, shoes, housing, utility bills, phone contracts, prior commitments etc... the list could go on) a fairer, further amount should then be based on what was a prior lifestyle for the children, house, area, clubs, activities, bills, and also future clubs, activities, needs, college/university etc... (not the now made up wage of the non resident parent).

The funny (or not so funny) thing is, I instantly imagined an outcry at that above list! “Phone contracts”?! And that is exactly where the problem lies...

The percentage of female judges in Scotland and the rest of the UK was sitting at an all time low when a study was conducted in 2016 (24% in Scotland and only 30% in England and Wales while the continent wide average was 51%)

Women struggle to get above 30% in the Scottish Parliament and 20% in the House of Lords...

Taken from gingerbread.org ...

In the UK “There are around 1.8 million single parents – they make up nearly a quarter of families with dependent children (i)”

“Around 90 per cent of single parents are women.”

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from these statistics.

I’m proposing a standard amount at time of separation that is paid directly into the resident parents bank account at time of separation that comes directly from the non resident parents income without any penalty to the resident parent/child (as is the current system) and this must be enforceable by law with the same penalties as not paying your council tax etc... (again highlighting the importance being placed on our children in this current system)

It’s still not morally right or fair but it’s a start.

OP posts:
HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 16:12

@tryinghardtobeagooddad

Just making sure I understand your point here - you think whichever parent earns more should pay the other one regardless of who has most care?

So for example, if my DHs ex wife got a job where she earned double what he does, you think she should pay him, even though we only have his DD 2 nights a week?

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 16:31

Oh apologies, I see previously you said that it should be proportional to the care split, my mistake Confused

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 16:42

I have to say though, I agree with a PP, I don't think the RPs income is relevant. My DH pays maintenance, if his ex suddenly got a better job I don't think his contribution should be less just because she earns more. Conversely if she lost her job for example, he couldn't afford double/triple his payment to make up the shortfall. A percentage of his salary (as oversimplified as it is) is the most workable (note I didn't say the best!) way to work out the payment as a one-size-fits-all rule (which I have already pointed out I think is not fit for purpose).

I could see the argument if there was a HUGE disparity in income, e.g. mum earns £500k, dad is on minimum wage so can't afford accomodation big enough for the kids to come and stay, and they have 50:50 care. Even then, I still don't necessarily agree with it and think it would be hugely problematic to put into practice.

RubbingHimSourly · 22/07/2019 16:44

No. That wouldn't work.

You could end up with people (( mainly men )) paying for two sets of families
........I don't think their ex partner will be happy when theyre not only paying them but also potentially paying towards his new partners children. Because their household income may be higher but he may be the main earner. It will impact the amount of extras they can afford.

And tbh. It doesn't hurt kids to know they can't always have what they want 💁

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 16:54

Oh wait I missed that bit (I'm on a roll today!). You think it should be based on household income? Meaning my income is included in the calculation and I should have to contribute maintenance to his ex wife?

Think it is be pretty obvious I'm going to disagree with that! I love my DSD and financially contribute to her in our house, but not in a million years will I be handing my own money to his ex wife. It's up to her parents to ensure she is provided for, anything I provide is extra and voluntary.

tryinghardtobeagooddad · 22/07/2019 17:21

The household bit was an unintentional mistake.

But no @HollyGoloudly1 - I wasn’t meaning that if circumstances changed that the other parent would need to change theirs to make a shortfall. Simply that a percentage of one parents income would go towards the upkeep of the children while the other one was looking after them - and vice versa.

The point being, my ex gets financial help from me for the 4 days our children are with her, but I don’t get any financial help from her for the 3 days they are with me - and I have virtually all the same costs as her.

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 17:32

Ah I get you now, it's an interesting point. I guess the simplest answer is that it's taken into account (if you go through CMS) as your contribution is reduced for each night you have them.

I have always thought it was strange though that it's a 1/7th reduction though as it falls down for shared care - the 'NRP' would still have to pay 4/7th of their calculated amount to the 'RP' even though they have near enough 50:50 and to me it would be logical that maintenance should be zero at 50:50.

tryinghardtobeagooddad · 22/07/2019 17:40

@HollyGoLoudly1 - and you have hit the nail right on the head with that reduction calculation. It is simple not fit for the scenario where parents are trying to cooperate and put the children first.

Even if you try and put together a private arrangement that is sensible and works, you have solicitors that swear by the CMS calculation - and advise not to deviate. And even still (at least in Scotland) any private arrangement can be overruled by the CMS after a year.

Which is why I maintain - and don’t quote me in this - but I’m sure I’ve read that Norway and Australia work in this way - both parents income as well as the care split are taken into account when determining child maintenance.

tryinghardtobeagooddad · 22/07/2019 17:56

And it’d be really easy to do. Both parents do the calculation - put in their respective incomes and circumstances - one gets 4/7 - the other 3/7. Or 5/7 and 2/7. Etc. As the meerkats say - simples Smile

Yes the percentages might need to change from what they are today - but that’s easy enough too - a national survey of what percentage of income is used for bringing up children, and you take a median as the benchmark. Private arrangements could vary the percentage up or down.

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 18:01

So just as an example so I'm totally clear what you are proposing...

Dad earns £2k a month and has DD 3 days a week, mum has DD 4 days a week and also earns £2k.
Dad pays 16% of his income -3/7th for his nights (£183).
Mum pays 16% of her income -4/7th for her nights (£137).
Meaning Dad pays an overall £46 a month rather than £183. Something like that you mean?

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 18:02

Crosspost!

HollyGoLoudly1 · 22/07/2019 18:06

I do see your point but I suspect we will need our hard hats on.

tryinghardtobeagooddad · 22/07/2019 19:19

Basically yes. But I suspect the percentages would have to be adjusted upwards in reality to be representative of the actual costs involved.

hsegfiugseskufh · 23/07/2019 09:54

I could kind of agree with this, but when theres a massive difference in income, isn't it sort of punishing the higher earner for having a better job?

isn't it an incentive for a parent not bother upping their hours, or becoming a SAHP?

GrandTheftWalrus · 24/07/2019 21:48

In the scenario I posted I know the ex wife has a much bigger income than the nrp but still wants more from him. His mental health is struggling trying to get a better job to give her more money.

Pankhurst09 · 24/07/2019 23:14

As I said, us resident parents are tired, I feel even too tired to respond after working all day, non resident parent (dad) only picked up children an hour ago because he had golf, he has children two nights a week but because it’s the holidays he needed longer to himself. I don’t advocate for 50/50 care, I think that’s an adult need and want, and definitely not in the best interest of a little vulnerable human. If I have just one night away from home my whole week is not as ordered as it would be if I’d just been at home and allowed to be around my familiar routines. This isn’t rocket science... start putting the child first... stand in their little two shoes and think... would I want to be passed from pillar to post? Would I want to be made to choose between parents? Would I want one stable home and access to my nonresident parent freely and without prejudice? If I think back to being a child, 50/50 care would be horrendous. Having a ‘main’ home and two caring, loving parents however, who understood the difficult dynamic and acknowledged that one of them (the non resident parent) had to ‘take the hit’ would have allowed me to feel much more secure and cared for. Stop thinking of yourselves! Because that’s what everyone of these last posts have been about, dad’s needs, girlfriend’s needs, blah blah blah. CHILD’S NEEDS the end

OP posts:
coldwarenigma · 24/07/2019 23:57

Not read full thread so this may have been covered but what about RP using access as control as well. Not all RPs are paragons of virtue.

Unless DS pays what his ex deems enough (not CMS calculation) he is stopped from seeing his kids. He took it to court..his punishment was even further reduced contact. She has made it clear 'they are 'her' children and no court tells me what to do'

He has a choice pay maintenance or spend the money on legal fees he cant afford both. If he pays to do legal route she will withdraw what access he gets and has made it clear she wont accept court orders. No court is going to take effective action against a parent who looks after the kids well, no concerns accept parental alienation and letting them travel unrestrained in cars so she can fit in their cousins too, 1970's style which isn't recognised as abuse yet anyway.

Pankhurst09 · 25/07/2019 00:05

And let’s make this very simple, If you have a child you have 50/50 financial responsibility from the outset, however we all know this never happens, so there should be a system that takes this from both your wages, a standardised amount that can then be means tested upwards from a set amount. Because as so many commentators have said, contact can’t be based on financial input, fair enough, I don’t think any decent resident parent bases contact on financial input. However I think a resident parent would be well within their rights to make a judgement call on the fact, a “parent” makes absolutely no financial contribution to their “child” and they do not want that influence in their child’s life. I have two lively, lovely, beautiful, influential girls, and what you’re telling me is that in this current system I’ve to not let their voice be heard, allow other adults to push their needs before my girls? Because that’s what this thread has become and it’s just highlighted the fact that we need to shout louder! let’s get this sorted at the outset and locked in to responsibility because it makes a huge difference to your child’s life chances. And if you’re truly all about your child having all those life chances they deserve you’ll happily commit to this before moving on to any other scenario. Pretty fair I think? I was with my partner from 16 years old, child at 29, married at 30, 2nd child at 33. He chose to walk away, should my children now have limited life chances? I have pushed for contact! I advocate for a healthy relationship with both parents (even though he was hooking up with a single mum 10 years younger in my children’s school) what I’m trying to put across is, no matter how badly he treated me, I’ll always put my children first, and I genuinely think this is the case for the majority of mums on here trying to advocate for a fair deal for their own children. To all the doubters, Just sit back and listen, please, your kids, future kids will benefit, I promise. Let’s genuinely be child centred.

OP posts:
BitchQueen90 · 25/07/2019 07:33

The resident parent's income is IRRELEVANT. Both parents are still obligated to financially support their children. You don't get to choose not to contribute just because you don't earn much. It needs to be based on the NRP's income and what percentage of the time they have the children. If care is 50/50 then I don't think any maintenance needs to be paid, providing both parents are contributing to things like clothing, extracurricular activities etc.

My ex earns fairly well, as does his partner. They earn close to 6 figures between them. I get £500pm from him, this is a private arrangement which we are both happy with and it's based on his income only, I wouldn't dream of expecting his partner to also contribute. He's certainly not being "punished" for having a good job as I do the majority of the day to day donkey work with DS, he and his partner have no children together and they are certainly not living a life of poverty.

Exh has DS roughly 3 or 4 nights a month. I'd be happy to accept reduced maintenance for more contact hours but it's just not possible due to his work. He works shifts which include nights and weekends.

hsegfiugseskufh · 25/07/2019 09:42

The resident parent's income is IRRELEVANT. Both parents are still obligated to financially support their children

I don't think it is irrelavent though,

lets say the rp is a high earner. They have the child 5 nights a week, and the nrp 2 nights

the nrp pays maintenance but also has to rent a house big enough for said child to stay overnight - they manage this but don't have much left

the child has a much better quality of life with the rp and the nrp is literally on their arse - how is that benefitting the child at all?

whothedaddy · 25/07/2019 11:47

I split with my daughters father when she was 18 months old. She is 10 in September. He was abusive and controlling then- he still uses maintenance as his last resort of trying to control me.

It doesn't work.

I send him a statement each month of what is outstanding/overdue but i never beg.

It must kill him every time he bothers to see his daughter and she talks about how she gets to do X,Y and Z clubs, do you like my new shoes/dress/whatever, We are going to France/Spain/California this summer.
All paid for by me and my partner with no contribution at all from him because I don't need his money to raise my child- I still send the statement though out of princepal. Anything I do receive goes into DD savings.

Ex is self employed, when he wasn't he would quit jobs whenever CSA/CMS caught up with him. He is a tosser. He is only hurting himself and damaging the opinion his daughter has of him.

CanILeavenowplease · 25/07/2019 15:19

the child has a much better quality of life with the rp and the nrp is literally on their arse - how is that benefitting the child at all?

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable point.

But why should one parent get to walk away from the financial responsibility of a child because they earn less than the other parent? I am not ‘rich’ or even ‘well off’ but I can support my children myself. There are many reasons for that - inheritance and investments have helped and I work 3 jobs - but I have major concerns about my future from a pension point of view and my house needs some major work (some of it urgent). If my ex paid even a small amount, the quality of my life (through not having to worry) would be greatly improved. I didn’t have my children on my own, they shouldn’t be my sole responsibility just because I am able to support them. The stakes are bigger and long term.

hsegfiugseskufh · 25/07/2019 15:28

But why should one parent get to walk away from the financial responsibility of a child because they earn less than the other parent? I am not ‘rich’ or even ‘well off’ but I can support my children myself. There are many reasons for that - inheritance and investments have helped and I work 3 jobs - but I have major concerns about my future from a pension point of view and my house needs some major work (some of it urgent). If my ex paid even a small amount, the quality of my life (through not having to worry) would be greatly improved. I didn’t have my children on my own, they shouldn’t be my sole responsibility just because I am able to support them. The stakes are bigger and long term

im not saying anyone should be able to walk away from their financial responsibility - but in that scenario - paying maintenance doesn't make an awful lot of sense when you consider how it directly benefits the child.

there is too much focus on "its unfair" from the perspective of parents, that they forget what maintenance is actually for.

Pankhurst09 · 30/07/2019 22:48

I still think there is something missing from this discussion as well and that’s maternal instinct and intuition. Although this thread started off as being centred around maintenance payments, we all know that’s not just the issue. It’s wrapped up in so many other issues. For me, as the resident parent it comes down to control from the non resident parent, and from what I’ve read in this thread that’s a similar experience for many others. A system that is truly child centred would be set up to not just limit control but not allow it, full stop. We talk of 50/50 care, and the poor NRP not being able to do this or that, etc... etc... but my point is... the child?

I just find it frustrating that all this back and forth ‘debating’ goes on, when, if, we were truly being child centred it wouldn’t be an issue.

I’m going to throw it out there as well that we are doing every child a disservice by not acknowledging the importance of a mother’s instinct and intuition. It’s what keeps our children safe. My child was recently in hospital, and while I was internally falling apart, but externally doing every last check to ensure her safety, “have you washed your hands?” (Because not everyone does) “Can you explain why?” Etc... while researching every last piece of information. While knowing the rhythm of her breathing, while never ever leaving her side. While her dad was on the golf course. I’m not saying all dad’s are the same. I’m just saying it’s important not to lose sight of how important a mother’s instincts are when it comes to times like this, and that’s why I truly believe ‘most’ mums are best placed for resident care and 50/50 is not child centred. And in an ideal word fathers would man up, support their children, and have the same level of desire to make the child the centre of everything, because that is what they deserve.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page