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.

It’s a constant topic of discussion on mn for obvious reasons, there was also recently a guest post by baroness Stedman-Scott CLAIMING that there were improvements being made - just more bullshit from the govt to be honest.

IceCreamandCandyFloss has a particular viewpoint on benefits and single parents that most don’t agree with

FluffyMuggle for starters that money is for your dhs children NOT his ex, regardless of what the receiving parent earns the nrp is STILL responsible for half their joint child’s costs. And “he pays above what he should” is meaningless because the legal MINIMUM is pathetic and very rarely equates to a 50% portion of the child’s costs, unless you mean he is paying more than half the children’s costs. I very much doubt your husbands ex has 0 outgoings with children! As for the length of time - well he is supposed to AGAIN at a minimum pay cm until each child reaches adulthood. Which is the very least that should happen. I find it very hard to believe that you’d actually be fully privy to your dhs exes finances. Begrudging your step children a decent amount of cm isn’t a good look.

As to how to decide what constitutes reasonable costs a starting point would be how much was being spent on the child prior to the split, take inflation and average increase of costs as children age into account (teens are a damn sight more expensive than a bf baby!).

The current calculation is woefully inadequate I don’t know any resident parent that pays a mere 16% of their income on their child/ren.

No deductions for additional children ESPECIALLY step children - they are the fiscal responsibility of their biological parents.

All the loopholes for self employed, buggering off overseas etc need closed.

No reductions for overnight contact unless at least 2 nights a week. (But then I think the regulations around contact need massively overhauled too. The damage done to my dd by my ex due to his intermittent and unpredictable “efforts” at contact should never have happened and should be classed and treated as emotional abuse)

Enforcement needs to actually happen! That guest post that was one of the main issues she got a drubbing for!! My ex quickly figured out how to play the system with intermittent and under payments so he wasn’t paying properly but wasn’t being pursued by csa/cms

Emma861 not everyone is

1 fortunate enough not to need cm

2 able to work and earn

3 has an nrp that wants to even see their child regularly let alone take full residency of them

4 earns more than the nrp - that’s quite rare for a number of reasons

“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.” BOTH of you were responsible for deciding to start a family

“Why would I then expect him to hand over money for his child to me?” For the simple fact that as you had residency of the child you also had the majority of the costs, the money wasn’t for you it was for your child and yes I think you’re unreasonable to have refused money on their behalf when as you were receiving benefits you clearly were on a low income.

Was he really much worse off than you when you take into account you’d have had higher outgoings to cover your child’s costs? And he only had his own costs to cover?

“I think single parents are given a lot of assistance in the UK” exactly when did you stop being a single parent? Benefits claimant?

Are the mother’s you are mixing with low paid/non working single mothers or are they mc working mums with partners and husbands?

HollyGoLoudly your friends ex as I’m sure you already know is in a well known industry for cash/untaxed payments. I’d recommend she speaks to hmrc regarding he probably is tax dodging and she can also ask that cms do an investigation regarding whether his lifestyle matches his claimed income. It depends on how proactive the person she speaks to is unfortunately but this IS Something they can do.

I wonder if those posters defending non payment, low payments are aware that just as there is mn where advice is given on such matters that there are a number of forums frequented mainly by men where they advise each other on how to exploit the loopholes?

My ex has had 5 more dc with 2nd wife, has a very nice detached 4 bed house in the Home Counties, he and wife and now their eldest all have cars no more than 2 years old, they do a big holiday to America, Australia and similar every year plus several smaller holidays in Europe/uk every year, they all have the latest phones and iPads and the kids have games consoles and other tech, they’re all dressed in at the very least high end high street clothing but some of it is designer...

My dd is lucky if she gets a birthday card on time!

I was a sahm when we split but quickly found a job. I also had to find childcare and a home (ex was army so we’d been living in quarters), which I did but with absolutely zero help from him.

I worked full time the first year then went back to uni with the aim of retraining and increasing my earnings, got my degree but unfortunately was involved in a car accident shortly after which had long term effects. I worked full time for another 5 years after that but at that point the physics and mental effects of the car accident and all the other stressors I was dealing with hit hard and I had no choice but to stop working and rely on benefits. My ex’s entire contribution at this time was to tell me I was a shit mum and benefits scrounger!

I’ve raised my dd with very little input from him in any way.

But hey according to certain posters on here I’ve only myself to blame 🤨

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

Personally as I think I said on the guest thread I mentioned cm collection should be put back under the auspices of the hmrc, a decent realistic amount should be deducted at source in the same way as paye works, from the very first pay cheque from each employer (to avoid the job hopping loophole). That would at least free up cms people and resources to pursue the self employed and other cm dodgers who aren’t in the paye system. And they should pursue non AND irregular and under payers vigorously and use the enforcement tools they have at their disposal - which the baroness waffled on about but used vague and intended to mislead language showing they’re STILL not using the sanctions they have at their disposal. WHY aren’t they? Long term it HAS to be cheaper than keeping cases being dealt with at a low level with rps repeatedly calling in to chase?

The income of a second spouse shouldn't be considered, they're not her/his children.

The children from the first relationship/marriage should always come first, no exception.

What a ridiculous statement. No child should get priority. Its not the children's fault they were born of a second marriage.

It says a lot that the system used to be that if the RP was on benefits they only got to keep £20 a week of the maintenance and the rest went to the secretary of state to recoup the benefit payments and that was scrapped because too much debt was owed to the SoS. Not even when they money was going into the government pot was chasing down non payers a priority!

I agree. I dont think it takes into account disposable income enough. What I mean is that for low earners it actually seems like a reasonable amount, it's a high proportion of what's left over when you take into account average rent and bills.

If you're a medium earner though (not mega bucks but say 40,000) it doesnt even cover half of childcare bills if they are in full time nursery. That means the other parent has to give up work or struggle with the rest of the childcare plus every other expense for the child, food, clothes, activities, etc.

And for really high earners there is a cap, meaning their lifestyle will be much worse than the non resident parent.

My ex doesn’t pay any maintenance at all, and hasn’t in years. He doesn’t work or claim benefits so I’ve just had to accept that my 4 kids will get nothing and probably never will. It always makes me laugh when I see people on here saying “maintenance is a legal requirement” well it obviously isn’t as my ex manages to get away with nothing being done about it. It also annoys me the way people judge single mothers who aren’t working, I can’t work as my ex has left me to care for 4 children alone. 2 of which are disabled. I have no family support and im regularly called to pick up my child early from school (sometimes I get called twice in a week), she’s even been excluded several times. I literally feel like I am on stand by with the school. I couldn’t hold down a job as I don’t have any help with them. My ex is absent through choice. Sorry I didn’t predict that my ex would have a mental illness and disappear or that my children would be disabled.

And for really high earners there is a cap, meaning their lifestyle will be much worse than the non resident parent.

When the NRP is a really high earner maintenance can be done through court rather than CMS

CMS are meant to refer high income cases to court automatically, but they don't.

I think thankfully the law values all children. I think maintenance is about right, not forgetting that the non resident parent has to afford elsewhere to live and is unlikely to have access to any benefits that the resident parent will. Perhaps the real issue is that there is still a pay gap between men and women. A friend of mine is a female high earner, is resident parent for her DD and manages well without maintenance from her hapless ex. Though he and his mum helps out with childcare.

My Ex pays £240 pcm for 2 DCS. He is not poor.

My eldest has grown 7 inches since March and gone from a size 7 to a size 10.5 in footwear.

Footy boots, trainers and a pair of school shoes in January were too small by March, March were grown out of by June and again by September and I have just been told his current size 9s really hurt, re measured this weekend 10.5 -so far this year I have spent £650 on one childs footwear - none of it designer! This is a teen who plays sport 5 days per week.

£3.94 pr child per day from Ex - I match this £7.92 per day per child!!
Child care for youngest costs more than that!
School lunches!!!!
School clothes!!!!!
Other clothes
Electricity, gas, water
internet
Oh and bugger me food - eldest has this weekend eaten a loaf of bread 500gms of cheese, 2 huge bowls of porridge, 2 pork chops, 2 huge bowls of pasta, 2 pints of milk, all the ham, 4 bananas, 2 bags of crisps, most of the lasagna I made, 2 baguettes of garlic bread and a huge bowl of salad and a roast lunch - with 4 yorkshire puds, 4 roasties and various other bits. bit of chocolate and oh as of 20 mins ago was hungry!! And that is what I know about - god help me when i git the cupboards

i drove both to footy away matches in different places, picked them up, took them to friends, picked them up, took them swimming .......

Seriously CMS is a joke!

That works for you though @Emma861 and it sounds like you and your ex have a good arrangement.
But in my case, I have a degree already and a decent job. I've got a mortgage and so don't get housing benefits and get little in the way of tax credits, will I think get more when I've childcare to pay for two but it won't cover it all.

I didn't plan my dc and my ex was all for us having a baby, I had no reason to think he wouldn't be supportive even if we separated.
The children are with me more due to ages one only one and when baby arrives she'll obviously need to be with me predominately. I've also got maternity leave to cover and despite a good package it will reduce my income short term.

My ex earns more and has less outgoings. My ex to be fair is good and he gives more than the minimum, plus buys things for the Dc. The thing is I don't think what he does is anything special, he's just a reasonably decent father (for the most part) but he doesn't have to do what he does. That made me ask myself, why. Why, is the expected not higher/better??

Good grief, there’s some venom about tonight!
If the first child is an innocent and deserves to be supported by their father then so does the second and the third and the 10th.
Exactly zero blame for birth order can be laid at the door of any of these children.
And before any jumps in to attack me on this, my DH has always paid way more than the (woefully low I might say) CMS amount, even after our DS was born and taking a large wage drop after redundancy it has stayed at the same level.
But If the day came where we could not longer afford to pay this level then it would have to drop, just as we would be cutting the amount we spend on DS and other bills at that point.
But yes, the system is shit and I am shocked at the number of women who struggle to get pocket change out of feckless ex’s.

My friend pointed out to me that when a guy takes on SC as "dependents", he has no legal bind to them so he can walk out the next day with no consequences whatsoever. It isn't like walking away from a BC where you have a legal responsibility to provide for them. Therefore, unless you're willing to still provide for the children after a split (like you would have to do for BC), you shouldn't be able to claim them as dependents. Your CNBC only cease being dependents when they come of age/leave education or you relinquish your parental rights.

CNBC = BC

Exactly zero blame for birth order can be laid at the door of any of these children.

The same could be said for child benefit

It’s not about punishing children, but about making the feckless NRP (and we know there are many) have a bit of consideration for their first children before having more

What a ridiculous statement. No child should get priority. Its not the children's fault they were born of a second marriage.

I agree that it is sad for that child from the 2nd marriage,but having that time sets the tone that you can't take from one child to support another without agreement from the other co-parent.

That means that if you would need to reduce current maintenance to support another child, you'd have to be in an amicable enough relationship with your co-parent to get them to agree to it. They'd obviously have to be in a position where they can take they fall for you. If not, you'll have to plan another child with the assumption that you'll have to keep paying the same amount for the ones you have already.

I don't actually agree with the 3 child CB rule BUT I can't see how they could bring that in while allowing NRP's (read men) relief for having as many children (biological and step) as they choose. It is inconsistent from the message that society isn't there to pay for your endless amount of 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.

Those lovely tax credits you got are going or gone already. So is support for 'improving your circumstances' by further training if you are a lone parent now. The nice home you used housing benefit to pay towards? Poof, gone, too. It is all Universal Credit and loans and local housing allowance caps. They put the cart before the horse, kicked the ladder out from under many lone parents and counted on people who remember the Good Ol' Days to stand by and applaud. Worked a treat! Child poverty has increased.

It would be fair to split all the expenses 50/50. I disagree with the assumption it would always result in more money for a resident parent.
My DH's ex receives about 1000/month. She doesn't have even a part time job, only very occasional jobs like house sitting/cleaning.. The kids are 16 and 19 so no need for childcare.
She has no mental or physical illness preventing her from working.
Her accommodation costs are covered by the tax payers - she moved in with a partner who receives benefits.
DH pays for their phones, school trips, some clothes, take them on holidays etc on top of the child maintenance. Ex wife goes on exotic foreign holidays 3 times/year (without the children).
If the system would enforce 50/50 child costs split it would encourage both parents to provide equal financial support to their children.
As of now it enables deadbeat men to avoid paying child maintenance through the same loophole as putting all financial responsibilities to a NRP if the resident parent decided not to work

I definitely agree that cm is not enough and that defaulting payers are not treated seriously.

I don’t think that you can stop people having other children and available maintenance should be split between kids fairly.

And it’s all very well to say people can’t afford kids but once they are there, they are there.

In the USA if the absent parent does not pay and filed a tax return the money goes to the custodial parent also you can not renew your drivers license, get a passport if you are in the rears . The government keeps track of owed child support and they will freeze your bank account

My ex is self employed so I get £85pcm and not a bean more.
He stopped me moving away when we split and then moved himself 100miles away.
He sees her about 3 times a year in his mortgage free home.

Child maintenance in UK is ridiculously low. It sends a clear message the Mum’s life is to dedicate and fathers can share scraps. My two Canadian friends get so much more it is shocking to me, in addition to the maintenance portion all childcare and hobbies are split 50/50. So maintenance may be $1000/month and childcare contributions another $800 plus $75 for swim lessons and $100 for piano. Mutual friends on a similar wage here in UK get £300/month total (I think about $500). That’s a huge difference.

Maintenance should be paid like a pension to the resident parent, every child should attract a minimum amount, this would come from government not nrp so the child / nrp will always have that money.

A second payment would be calculated from the nrp's salary and again paid by government.

The NRP should be charged that amount plus interest
(ig the payment is late or not paid) in a similar way to the way student loans are paid, except the debt would never be cancelled.

The cumulative impact of being the RP when the NRP does the bare minimum is massive

• part time work means lower income and lower pension contributions. My pension pot is derisory.
• childcare often means having to make financially disadvantageous compromises like taking jobs with reliable hours v the better paid job which involves travel or late working.
• the RP will usually pick up all the unexpected costs and extras because they are the one who is on the spot when something needs replacing or an invitation comes up. And its harder to economise when you have children to feed and clothe.
• kids don’t stop costing money at 18. E.g. my ex contributes nothing to uni costs or anything else. My eldest is independent 6 years after turning 18. Still supporting the younger ones.

Definitely needs a rethink.