To think child maintenance needs a re-think?

[GirlOnIt]

I know the biggest issue is actually getting nrp paying, but putting that aside.

Do others think the actual figures are ridiculously low? Granted I’ve only done rough figures but when my second Dc arrives imminently, with maintenance (basic that he has to pay) my wage, universal credit and child benefit. I’ll be getting more than £100 less a week than what my ex ends up with. But his contribution to his children is supposedly complete, well except one evening meal and one breakfast for the eldest a week.
That’s based on my full pay and not my reduced mat pay and when I’m back at work I’ve childcare to pay too.

I know all circumstances are very different and routinely taking more could mean than nrp struggle to afford to live (in particular in high housing cost areas).
But I wonder how other countries manage it and if there’s a better system that would make it fairer.
And it definitely needs a way to stop the self employed loop-hole many seem to take advantage of.

They need to stop taking step kids into account too imo.

My ex claims he is 'financially responsible'for his girlfriend's kids, who then get tax credits and maintenence as well, so my kids get screwed over, and they get supported by 3 adults. It's crap.

I think it’s disgusting that childcare bills aren’t automatically 50/50. Why should the nonresident parent say they can only have the kids at weekends because of work, thereby having free childcare provided by the resident parent. But if then the resident parent also wants to work, she gets lumbered with the full childcare bill.

Agree with PP above. Plus savings, dividends, assets, retirement income, and capital should be taken into account plus better scrutiny of self-employment earnings. A lot of RPs get screwed over by NRPs having no or low 'wages' but have a high amount of the above. Not a fair system. Stricter penalties needed too-in some countries, you can go to prison for not paying child support.

Yes I don't understand that @DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult. If I moved another partner in, my ex wouldn't pay less for our children, but if my partner had children he could then pay less for them. It doesn't make sense.

I think the same if they have another child themselves too though. Why should money from existing children be taken if he decides to have another child.

My husband currently pay £72 a week for two children and that's it. It sucks that he chose to walk away and leave. He doesn't pay for anything else and doesn't have them overnight. He is correct when he says legally he doesn't have to contribute to school books and trips but morally I thought he would have. He's living elsewhere and chipping in with food but nothing else so is paying £20 a week for that.

I'm luckier than most that I don't need child care and my salary covers things but it's a hard pill to swallow when none of the situation is my choice

Childcare is what got me thinking about it @AngelsSins. I'm lucky my mum helps with Ds but when I go back after this mat leave, I'll need them both in one day. I'm looking at £100 a week for that one day.
So then he'd be £200 a week up compared to me.

I think the whole system needs an overhaul. Costs of a child should fall 50/50 to each parent and not the state. Plenty pay little or no child support but likewise plenty of resident parents are providing either as they don’t work or do part time.

There should be harsh penalties for failure to support a child by a parent. It may make people think twice before committing to such a huge financial commitment.

It should be split 50/50 without any exception. If the nrp isn’t working then their benefits need to be reduced and paid automatically to the child.

I also think stepkids should not be taken into consideration.

YANBU.
I’ve had nothing in my DD’s life. Apparently he doesn’t pay tax or claim benefits. He must be supporting himself somehow.
The whole thing needs knocking on the head and starting again.

but likewise plenty of resident parents are providing either as they don’t work or do part time

A resident parent is indeed providing if they work part-time. You should try what some resident parents have to manage to actually get to work - children in different schools or nurseries, public transport, not early/late enough opening hours for nurseries and schools, lack of childminders (or ones who don't work early/late enough), a requirement to be available 24/7 7 days a week, the difficulties of managing 0 hour contracts in paying for childcare, paying up front for nursery or childcare fees when on Universal Credit etc. etc. etc. Not to mention being the only person doing everything in the home - particularly when children are young - and trying to take children to clubs or activities on top of everything else. Sometimes, 2 people struggle to manage it.

Please stop with undermining the single parent who works at least part time in an attempt to juggle everything. And I say that as a full time single parent teacher, with additional jobs on the side (exam marking, tutoring).

Equality will only be within sight when childcare costs are 50/50 between parents.

I'd like to get something , ExP pays zero maintenance as he's a lazy cocklodger (lived off me for years, and now lives for free at new girlfriend's). He is self employed and earns peanuts, so no point me even going to cms. I know too that if he was instructed to pay something to me he just wouldn't. His life is one debt after another.

I think the same if they have another child themselves too though. Why should money from existing children be taken if he decides to have another child.

I agree about not calculating support for stepchildren but if you have another child the existing children will automatically get less, whether you are divorced or still married. That's a fact you have to consider before TTC, isn't it?

Totally agree with @GeorgiaGirl52

Yes but it would usually be discussed together @GeorgiaGirl52. My ex could have other children and reduce what he pays to ours, without a discussion or even any consideration to the effect to them financially. There's a lot more to consider when they live with you the majority of the time than if they don't.

I definitely think childcare is the big issue and the one that makes working full time so difficult for the resident parent. Before we split ex would have been doing nursery pick up on my long working days, now he can't do that anymore. So instead he gets to work more hours and earn more money, I work less and earn less.

I think the receiving parents financial status should be taken into consideration. My DH has been paying his ex for 7 years yet she still lives with her parents and doesn’t pay bills. He pays above what he should so she’s got it good

I think the receiving parents financial status should be taken into consideration

Absolutely not, why should me working harder and longer hours to provide more for my children mean that my ex should pay less of percentage of his wages towards our kids?

fluffymuggle

So if someone is financially stable then you think your DH shouldn’t have to pay his fair share of the child’s upbringing? Why wouldn’t pride alone make him want too? That’s ridiculous.

Don't you mean his children have it good @fluffymuggle? Wouldn't most parents want that for their children.

I've moved back to Canada, but collect maintenance from British XH.

Here the system is so vastly different. Maintenance is paid to the lower earner even if care is 50/50. Childcare, medical and educational necessities (for example orthodontic work or school uniforms if we had them) are split pro rata according to income. So if dad earns $50k and mum earns $25k, dad pays 2/3 nursery costs and mum 1/3.

I'm not sure about maintenance being paid for 50/50 being fair really but the courts want equal standards of living here for both houses for the children. So seems the system is more fair than the British one.

Also, having more kids does not reduce your owings, they dig deep when you claim self employed, and it is a crime not to pay it.

Does your ex live in the uk @Rtmhwales? Do you get maintenance based on the uk way or Canadian way?

I think that's what I think would be fairer, both households having a similar income vs expenditure. And definitely childcare, uniforms etc being taken into account.

I think the receiving parents financial status should be taken into consideration

I have supported my children for the last 10 years. My mum helped me out in emergencies. I don’t actually need money from my ex to manage. By your reckoning, I therefore shouldn’t expect my ex to financially contribute to the upbringing of his children because I can manage? Even if I were a millionaire, my ex should have both a legal and moral obligation to support his children. It should be more than just tokenism.

The Canadian way sounds good. I also agree that not paying maintenance should get you a criminal record as it’s basically child neglect.

Costs of a child should fall 50/50

Who decides what the costs are though? Food, clothing, activities, all reasonable costs... What if one parent wants to spend £100 a week in Waitrose, shop in Ted Baker and send the child to private horse riding lessons, while the other spends £50 in asda, gets the clothes from Primark and opts for a free after school football club? There scope for 'costs' is so wide, I don't see how that would ever be practical.

I think a % of income and based on contact split is fair In theory (I think current CMS in a shambles) HOWEVER:

• % should be higher
• no deduction for future children
• close all loopholes for self-employed etc.

I also think if the NRP doesn't have contact with the child (and therefore doesn't need to fund an extra bedroom in their home, furniture etc) that there should be an additional payment due. No idea what it would/should be though!

The Canadian system sounds more fair to me but I don't think such a drastic change will ever happen here. Far too sensible for Westminster