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.

Absolutely it should be reviewed and the amount increased. Feckless father’s paying very little but then going on to have more children.
Parents need to be held responsible for their children both in terms of behaviour and for finances.

I think as a first step there needs to be a change in thinking over it.

Too many people, male and female, see it as the ex living the high life off their money.

In turn CMS have no political will to actually chase it. People are always shocked by the powers CMS have and that’s because they never use them.

Get people paying first, then look at amounts and fair splits

lyralalala

I agree. And there needs to be more stigma around non-payment. Rather than a “well I’m sure she can get her nails done on the Child Benefit” view.

Maintenance should be at least 40% of the nrp net income. More if they are high earners. No parent should be spending much more than half their income on themselves.

I already know to many this will be unreasonable, but here is my stance on the child maintenance issue.

I was a single mum for six years, working 30 hours a week and private renting. My income, including tax credits and housing benefit came to a total of £2800 per month.

I have never asked for maintenance from my Ex as he earns only £1900. He pays for things if I ask him to help out, for example school uniforms, school trips and pocket money (hit and miss at times). But I have never expected money from him.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, When deciding on having a child in knew there was a one in two chance statistically it wouldn't work out. I still made the call to have a child knowing this.

Secondly, when deciding custody arrangements, it resulted that my daughter would spend far more time with me than him, he was not happy about this. Why would I then expect him to hand over money for his child to me? It is not my money to spend. If I needed the financial assistance then I would have opted for shared care (this was not within my daughters best interest for various reasons).

Thirdly, I wanted my child to have a nice home and to be able to do things with her dad when she was with him, this would not have been an option if I reduced his income. I could not, in good conscience have left him financially struggling when I was better off.

And finally, if you would like extra income then you need to work for it yourself. I went on to do a degree and a masters degree at university, whilst being a single parent due to the fact that I could receive government help. This is not something that would be afforded to my ex.

There are only a couple of circumstances in which feel child maintenance should be paid . these are if the NRP refuses shared care or is deemed unsafe.

If people are having babies and cant afford to look after them then the children should go to the other parent or share care. Not ideal but that is downside of splitting.

I do not for a minute think that the other parent should not contribute, but it is for them to contribute and not for the receiving parent to forcefully dictate how it is spent.

I know there are fathers that do not pay for there children and would not contribute, but again, is that not something we should be considering the risk of before having children?

I think single parents are given a lot of assistance in the UK, it is possible to improve your circumstances if you choose to do so. Hard work yes, but possible.

I really feel like parents should be taking responsibility for there own financial circumstances,especially seeing as resident parents have a safety net (Benefits).

Probably an unpopular opinion, but one i know that many of the other mothers i know agree with, roundabout.

Too many people, male and female, see it as the ex living the high life off their money.

To be honest, I don't know anyone who thinks this. And for what it's worth, I don't receive CM but my DH pays it for his DD (my DSD).

Agree though, the first thing that needs to be sorted are non-payers, or self employed NRPs paying a pittance. A friend receives something like £100 a month for her DS; the dad owns a mechanic garage, gets a new BMW every couple of years, has a huge new build house and goes to Dubai/New York/Marbella multiple times a year. It actually boggles my mind, surely anyone can see he obviously doesn't earn only £20k or whatever it is he's declaring

Dont get me started ds2 dad at one point was only paying me £7 a week yet he could afford to have another child so split 50/50 a grand total of £3.50 a week. That's tiny in comparison to what a child costs yet he can get away with paying that little. It was his choice to have another child not mine so why should I get less?
Let's not forget that's when he actually pays it. Cms aren't bothered though because on their system it says that he is willing to pay so that's what is happening

Emma861

Yup. If only I had used my crystal ball when I became pregnant then I could have foreseen that he wouldn’t contribute when we split up.
Great one.

@MyDcAreMarvel

Disagree with the 40% figure (although I've said before it should be higher). NRP still needs (in most cases anyway) a house for the children to live in, a car, money for themselves to live off etc. Also is 40% for one child? What about if it's 2, or 3. Or more?

To be honest, I don't know anyone who thinks this. And for what it's worth, I don't receive CM but my DH pays it for his DD (my DSD).

I’ve encountered a few. Men who say their ex is living the high life on his money. Plus a couple of new girlfriends who seem to think the ex is using all the maintenance for hair/nails/nights out.

I firmly believe that attitude is why it’s not socially shameful to not pay maintenance.

I think until it is socially shameful, similar to how drunk driving is seen more seriously now than years ago, nothing will change

I also think that for self employed people there should be a minimum payment assumption. If you claim benefits and are self employed they assume you earn at least minimum wage. So that should be the same for self employed people and maintenance - you should at least be assessed as earning a full time minimum wage.

I know there are fathers that do not pay for there children and would not contribute, but again, is that not something we should be considering the risk of before having children?

FFS. No, we should not be considering that the non-payment of maintenance is a ‘risk’ we take when getting pregnant. Children are a joint responsibility. You shouldn’t have to hope for financial support. It should be as unacceptable as drink driving or smoking whilst pregnant to not financially support your child. It shouldn’t be normalised and women (because it is mainly women) shouldn’t have to take responsibility for men’s inaction. Sadly, it seems to be the case that women hold each other accountable to impossible standards - our fault for not being more careful who we had children with, our fault for going out to work, our fault for not working, our fault for having some financial success, our fault for struggling to make ends meet,....we should be supportive of each other, not pretending we’re better ‘ os we think we made better choices,

I think it's a fucking disgrace that some "dad's " pay the legal minimum..wtf is that? There isn't a flying fuck given about the fact that it may not cover all the expenses and depending on circumstances may not cover anything but the basics so anything such as school trips/ outings/holidays are all subsidized by the resident parent. I mean how can you put your own children's needs on a legal scale and decide thats it. The current system is not working and is a tool to financially abuse the resident parent, usually the mother as I found. My ex stopped the month before the kids turned 18, never took them away, never gave pocket money, but had another 3!! I struggled to understand how he could have more kids whilst not contributing 50/50 to the expense of his first 2.
I was lucky enough to have a good job so I could get them "additonals" and now they have very little time for the asshole hut it should be 50/50. If then they decide to have more kids/ take on financial responsibility for other kids they need to work harder. It shouldn't be at the expense of the previous family.

According to the CMS the percentage paid does include uniforms, childcare etc. I honestly wish I’d given my ex the kids and paid 20% maintenance I’d be bloody loaded by now.

Australia accounts for both parents income when calculating the child support which doubly shafts women because many think it’s not worth working when every dollar they earn reduces what the other pays. And his new family reduces what he pays but she can’t afford more kids. And then one day it stops and they are really in the shit.

I think it would be ok if they stopped taking into account other people's children for example my ex is trying to get his girlfriends youngest children back for her as soon as they get them back he doesnt have to pay for his own children because he has hers but there dad will be expected to pay too so those children have three adults paying and mine have one...me it's unfair plus he has not paid for ages messed me about when he did he has been claiming benefits for years it should be automatically taken from his uc when he works automatically taken from his wages he shouldn't get to piss his kids around because he feels like it

And I could add that the more its deducted at the source and no real deductions made for subsequent children (after all they have two parents too) means they are less likely to have more children and abandon them in the future

YANBU definitely. I completely agree that children born in a new relationship and step-children should not be taken into account. The children from the first relationship/marriage should always come first, no exception.

I think that's what I think would be fairer, both households having a similar income vs expenditure.

But that's impossible - DS lives with his dad & stepmum, they both work full time & have a household income of around £65,000. They live in a 3 bedroom mortgaged property which they paid £210,000 for, run 2 cars & go on holiday abroad every year.

I'm a single parent with DD living at home & have a household income of £20,000 inc TC's & CB. I live in a 2 bed HA flat, & last went on holiday abroad 3 years ago which my parents paid for.

DD's father lives with his wife & their 2 kids in a 3 bed ex council house with no mortgage, both work full time with a household income of around £100,000 couldn't tell you bout cars/holidays as they have nothing to do with DD - he also has 2 other kids that he has to pay maintenance for.

There's no way our household incomes or expenditures would ever be the same.

CMS work out that I should pay around £150 in maintenance each month but to do so would leave me & DD without a penny spare each month & would mean that whilst with me DS wouldn't be able to do anything, I couldn't afford Christmas/birthday gifts etc. Thankfully DS's dad & I (& his lovely stepmother) put DS (& DD) first so we have a private arrangement but to think both households should have roughly the same income & expenditure is living in cloud cuckoo land as there are so many different factors involved.

And this is why CSA/CMS/whatever they're calling themselves this week doesn't work - it's a one size fits all system for a wide variety of situations. It's like trying to put the same outfit on an elephant & a mouse!

Sorry the Canadian system sounds no better - so if the RP works their arse off, covers all the child care etc etc and gross income is more, the NRP pays less especially if they are lazy workshy bastards.

I don’t even think it’s a case that the first children come first, but that the NRP should have to consider affordability of more children in the exact same way as the RP.

If the only way you can afford a child is to stop paying for the one you have then you can’t afford it.

And if someone wants a child then they should have a child with someone who can afford it. A new partner wanting children shouldn’t be an acceptable excuse for neglecting the child you already have

The maintenance payer that doesnt is basically defrauding their own kids - they make me sick. But also at the same time women are bringing these men (and women) up where is it going wrong?

@lyralalala there needs to be someway of enforcement though and given there’s no enforcement of even paying a penny never mind anything rely on a cocklodger to have a moral calculator to decide his children’s fate ain’t going to happen

Yanbu, I've had nothing because he stopped working and claims no benefits says he's looking after his 3 children pity he can't look after his eldest.

@Inliverpool1 This is the bit of CMS, and the CSA before them, that enrages me. All of the powers are there.

CMS can take money from a bank account, on a one off or on going basis, without even going to court. They have that power. Never once have I heard of them using it without the faff of court.

They also have a wide range of powers that they just have to go to court and prove the liability for. They can do everything from sending in baliffs to putting a charge on the house to removing driving licenses and prison.

Now I can understand why someone would be reluctant to send a non-payer to jail when prisons are so over crowded, or to remove a driving license and impact the earning potential of someone, however so so so many NRP's would pay up if they knew that CMS would go through the list one by one until they paid.

My ex is a prime example. Refused to pay. Ignored CMS. Ignored his children almost being homeless. However, as soon as I contacted the welfare office of his unit and he was told by someone senior in his regiment that if it got to DEO stage he'd be seen negatively and it would affect his promotion changes (and therefore his standard of living) he paid up. And has paid up every month since.

There needs to be proper repercussions for people who don't pay. Whilst they know CMS will just send letters every few months there's absolutely no incentive. That ineffectiveness also perpetuates the myth that it's not actually a big thing to skip your maintenance responsibilities.

My ex has the cms money taken from his account.

Take and pay it's called. They take 10% I think for facilitating this.

However, it took 12 Months for them to do that. After missed payments for about 8 months.

We are in court soon for the court to decide what he should be paying as the CMS investigated him incorrectly and wouldn't listen to what I was telling them. I had to appeal it and go to court for the court to tell them they were wrong and I was right.

The joke of this is that for 12 months he will have to pay what the court dictates but then after 12 months he can contest it again with his self employed earnings and the CMS will reduce it again. Back to square one. 🤷🏻‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️.