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.

The fact that a NR parent on benefits only has to pay a nominal maintenance payment. Exh gets £300 a week in benefits & should (in theory, I am still waiting) pay £7 a week maintenance. If he was working & earned £300 a week, he would pay £45 a week. £300 is the same if it comes from wages or benefits, ds doesn't stop growing & needing clothing & shoes just because his dad( I use this term very loosely as exh has gone NC) is on benefits. The child maintenance system fell apart when the CSA changed to CMS, more loan parents no longer get any maintenance now than when CSA did the job.

I get £7 a week for my Ds. Ex has never worked since he left me .

He is nc with Ds, my choices of work are limited. As my son gets older employers are requiring more flexibility I just can’t give .

I did previously have a nursing career but care are not 9-5 hours .

I am left unable to have the earning potential I did prior to been a mum.

Yes I think the cms should start using its powers not go go for easy pickings

Child maintenance in UK is ridiculously low.

Given that it's based on wages is it not that wages are ridiculously low?

Working 37.5hrs at NMW gives a monthly take home pay of £1,170 & a maintenance amount of £165 for one child with EOW contact.

This leaves approx £1,010 to cover every other bill including providing a home with a bedroom for contact.

Using my own costs for a 2 bed HA property:

Rent - 370
CT - 92
Utilities (inc mobile phone & net) - 125
Food - 151
Travel costs - 200 (not rural but public transport crap & expensive)
Insurances - 40
Car maintenance (inc RT) - 25

This leaves less than £10 a month for anything else - £84 a year for Christmas, birthdays, providing clothes for the DC when the RP refuses to send them... in situations like this it's not any easier being the NRP.

I think Mumsnet has a very south east centric view when it comes to maintenance & has the impression that NRP's are high earners, living the high life, moving into new relationships with more kids while paying the bare minimum for their children from the first marriage/relationship.

And while I'm aware that there are definitely cases like that the system to make those cases pay cannot penalise those cases where the NRP is barely making ends meet. Which is what most of the suggestions here would do.

As an example 40% of minimum wage is £468 this would leave the NRP £702 to cover everything - where would this be enough to provide a comfortable environment for the DC during contact? Meanwhile the RP working the same hours at NMW claiming in work benefits would have an income of £1,940 before the £468 so once that's added the RP's income is almost 3.5 times the NRP's.

It all comes back to the system being one size fits all but an individualised system would cost too much to implement & administer.

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

I'm quite a fair and just person, and can definitely see how frustrating situations like this are. My friend is in exactly the position now. However, she was very happy to live this lifestyle before the break up, claim tax credits to top up their minimal 'declared' wage and for her children to be receiving free school meals while all dripped in designer clothes and jetting off on these luxury holiday 3 or 4 times a year. Whilst he now sits on top of a 10+ house property empire, she has lost her family home. She did his books for him as her job. She knew the potential future pit falls when she had children with him and just blindly trusted that he would do the right thing. He pays £20 a week for both children but has just thrown his new partner a baby shower that must have cost thousands.

Is it an idea for an equal % of each income to be placed into a separate account for the child, accessible by both parents and traceable by both parents, to cover agreed necessities. Unfortunately necessities from one family to another will differ and that differentiation between swimming lessons and riding lessons will have to happen, perhaps through mediation.

Another friend of mine is being met with ex wife's demand for half the cost of thrice-weekly private tuition in dancing. He already foots the cost of half the generic dance bill-lessons, exams, dance wear etc- and doesn't agree that she needs these lessons.

I think maybe a good rule of thumb would be to agree to share cost equally on anything that existed at the time the relationship split up, sadly anything extra that the child takes on would need to either be agreed by both parents or, sadly, taken up on solely knowing that you have to foot the cost yourself.
Anything school related should always fall into the first category so trips, uniform etc should be 50%.

I think it needs to be dependent on age as at the risk of getting flamed I don’t really understand what DHs maintenance pays for at teenage DDs age; both us and mum need to have a bedroom for her so surely it’s not for rent and her mum tells us that she doesn’t use any of her own money to look after DSD and just uses maintenance then DH pays for a lot on top that her mum won’t buy her. However when she was younger I could see that her mum would have needed more for childcare costs (if she’d wanted to work)

My son was 10 months old when we split . He did water babies and jo jingles .ex said he couldn’t afford to pay for swimming . As he then gave up work ... so how would that work?

It’s really a whole attitude thing . People’s attitude to supporting children needs to change.

Jeremy Kyle used to say when nrp used to claim rp would spend money on themselves well put it in the bank for when they are older . This used to really annoy me . My ex wanted to do this not because I had anything but so he could have the glory of giving Ds a lump sum when older. Strangely when told he could do this but needed to pay maintenance aswell didn’t bother

There definitely needs to be some changes. Not allowing the NRP to reduce payments if they move in with someone who has kids would be a start. That really pisses me off. But actually, thinking about it, so does the NRP reducing what they pay because they’ve chosen to have another child with a new partner. Why should the child/children from their previous relationship(s) receive less because they’ve decided to have another child?

Working 37.5hrs at NMW gives a monthly take home pay of £1,170 & a maintenance amount of £165 for one child with EOW contact.

This does bring in the question of whether it is reasonable to have children when only earning NMW. I earned this for a few years and knew babies were out of the question then. Surely if you have babies in your later 20s/early 30s, and started to work at 22 at the latest, you should be in a position to earn a bit more than that by that time?

In terms of maintenance, it is a pointless debate. If both parents are on MNW, then clearly both are going to struggle especially if more than one child. They would have found it hard together, even more so separately.

I agree that it isn't right that step children should be taken into consideration, and at the same time that step father can find themselves in no choice but to support their step-children legally regardless of their relationship.

I also disagree that benefits don't take into account maintenance. At a time when UC can be worked out monthly based on hours work etc..., it should be able to cope with a chance depending on maintenance received. The problem is that you are left with some single mothers really struggling on benefits when they get no maintenance, whilst others are getting the same amount of benefits, getting an amount of maintenance much above what is needed for the children.

It is quite common in middle class families, especially when the mother has children from different dad. I know one who got more than £1200 for three kids from two well-off dads, yet still got maximum benefits.

When I signed on 12 years ago unless everyone you had to claim through csa. But many men refused to pay as it gave no better quality of life to children.

Also what about the nrp who withh payment, reduce for reasons they decide, Leaving rp on low income with even less.

The Dutch system is much better I think.

The idea is that the child gets to keep their lifestyle after the divorce. Both parents incomes are taken into account, lifestyle is based on the previous family income.

To change the amount the paying parent needs to go back to court. It seems that it's very easy in the UK to just change circumstances.

My father ended up paying 700 pounds per month for five children. He was also self-employed and that didn't make any difference whatsoever. When he started to lapse in his payments my mom set the Dutch CSA on him and it got sorted very quickly.

My father was very bitter about that maintenance by the way and would have done everything not to pay it, but he had no choice.

He believed my mom was living the life of Riley on the money. Of course now I am much older I recognise that it is a pittance for 5 children, especially if you take into account that my youngest brother was still a baby so mom's income potential was severely limited!

This does bring in the question of whether it is reasonable to have children when only earning NMW. I earned this for a few years and knew babies were out of the question then. Surely if you have babies in your later 20s/early 30s, and started to work at 22 at the latest, you should be in a position to earn a bit more than that by that time?

I had my eldest at 22 before the advent of minimum wage & at a time when it was possible to run a house on one wage so the sensible thing was for me to give up work & stay at home - I didn't know he would abandon DD once he met his new wife considering he'd been a doting father when we were married & for the few years after we split. However the fact that I gave up my full time job (with the DWP ironically) & worked part time when the kids were young & we first separated has meant that now at 40 my earning potential is limited by not only that but by the fact that NMW has actually allowed employers to pay less than the jobs are worth by using the "well we pay minimum wage" get out clause - I'm earning less now than I was 20 years ago for the same type of role & that's in the private sector!

There will always be people who earn NMW with no possibility of earning more - does that mean only those earning a high wage should have kids?

He's the system is illogical and unfair, but so many women here saying my ex never contributed and now he's living off another woman or, he had other children he didn't pay for, well maybe be a bit choosier over who you have children with. Funny how fine people have multiple contraception failures and many many others have none.

Why should the child/children from their previous relationship(s) receive less because they’ve decided to have another child

But if the "original" parents were still together and had had a 3rd child, there would then be less money for the first two children. Having more children is always going to mean less money in the pot to go round. I don't think it's that simple, though I don't know what the answer is.

However I think it does illustrate every clearly why mums should work and keep up their skillset so they are not dependent on a feckless male. If you earn a decent amount yourself you don't need the man (though that doesn't mean they shouldn't contribute to their children according to their income).

It's amazing to me that some men give up work to avoid paying maintenance and in so doing ruin their own quality of life, just to get at the ex. How pathetic.

I think it is the societal attitude that needs to be changed before the law. I am not British, and I was shocked how acceptable is it here for a man to openly admit that they are not paying for their children, as if it is some sort of achievement. And not some marginalised idiots - otherwise perfectly "nice" gentlemen, with education and careers. But the alimony from the minimum wage through their Ltd is calculated as £13.81 or some other precise and ridiculously low number like this - and they sigh and pay exactly that. Dura lex, all that.

On the subject of further children, it is different than if the 'original' family expanded because that is the contributing adults jointly deciding to do that and redistributing the available funds. If the nrp however, decides with his new partner to have another child, the rp has no say in that but will be affected by it. The nrp just assumes that the rp will make up the difference. Also i in 'original' families most siblings are born within a few years if eqch other so wouldnt notice any redistribution of funds but in a second family, there can be a significant gap and its going to be v hard to say to a tween or teen that they have to go without because their absent parent is playing happy families elsewhere.

Non-payment= jail time

I think the whole system needs some serious scrutiny!

• NRP should NOT do financially better than their children! (It’s crazy that step children are taken into account).

-Any cost of childcare (enabling RP to work) should legally be a 50/50 split. -If a NRP ‘doesn’t work’ in order to be a SAHP to new partners children/any further children then new partners wage should face the same penalties as NRP’s would have!

Equally;

• It should NOT be financially detrimental to be your partner/spouse. Lots of young couples ‘lose out’ on £500+ per month simply for admitting they’re together. Lots falsely claim to be separated in order to financially manage.
• Families with one partner earning 50k should NOT lose out in comparison to two partners earning £25k each. (Families with ill/disabled children , elderly caring responsibilities or even parental disabilities are ROUTINELY discriminated against and shouldn’t be penalised for ‘household income’ or forced to structure their family life in the way GOV prefer.

There is so much wrong with the benefit system you could spend the next 10 years picking its inequalities and injustices apart!

It’s too complicated for a one size fits all.

50:50 Is all well and good, but what if there is a significant difference in earnings/income? For instance nrp is a low earner, a nurse or HCA who will never earn big money, and the RP remarries so their household income is 100k+.

So the kids now have designer clothes, violin lessons, school ski trips etc, and live in a big house with huge heating/council tax costs.

The nrp was a low earner when they married and had kids, where do you expect them to start funding 50% of their new lifestyle?

For those who mentioned the canadian system- i believe that was overhauled as years ago it was leaving second wives and their families in true poverty as it had no consideration on whether it left the nrp with any money at all.

I also disagree that benefits don't take into account maintenance. At a time when UC can be worked out monthly based on hours work etc..., it should be able to cope with a chance depending on maintenance received. The problem is that you are left with some single mothers really struggling on benefits when they get no maintenance, whilst others are getting the same amount of benefits, getting an amount of maintenance much above what is needed for the children.

Until CMS is fit for purpose that rule should never, ever change back.

When I was taken to live with my grandparents my father was supposed to pay £64 a week for us 4 kids. Benefits received by Grandparents (income support I believe at the time) took that £64 a week into account as income - even though CSA never actually got a penny from him. It left my GPs up shit creek with no paddle.

Even when the rule was that the RP only kept £20 a week if they were on benefits and the rest went to the government to offset said benefits they were so shit at collecting that the debt to the Secretary of State got so high that they scrapped the policy.

Benefits and child maintenance should never be linked while child maintenance is such a low priority to the government and society. That would just impact on the poorest kids who are already being let down by the NRP (especially in the UC system where small changes can cause huge knock on effects)

swingofthings

What’s the risk? That the father still provides his dues and the child is better off and bette provided for due to the mother having (semi-) sufficient benefits and the father also paying a share?
Lowering the mother’s benefits is of no positives other than to keep the children in poverty. It’s pointless.
And puts the father in a very powerful position.

Well if I was in charge of the CSA/ CMS
I would start with a CCJ on any parent that will not pay and keep issuing them every single year until they pay so it’s ongoing till they either pay or they die .Then I would aim to get it from their estate

They should issue CCJs within 3 months of non payment and if they pay once and then stop then a CCJ should be issued straight away

The ability not to get a mortgage, rent a property get any type of credit like loans and overdrafts and in some cases not get a job or affect promotions would probably be a swift kick up the ass for most people.
As it’s is you can’t do an awful lot without getting credit these days it would seriously fuck up most people way of living so it might make them think about not paying

Of course you will get the odd ones that don’t give a shit but when they can’t get a nice new house or car on credit and can’t get a credit card or a loan they might think about paying for there kids
There would be non of this shit that if you have more kids or have stepkids you can reduce the amount you pay -well maybe I would let them reduce it by a fiver for there own kids but no reductions for stepkids

And if the parent is on benefits there isn’t much you can do but I would be taking more than £7 a week of them

No more putting money into pensions to bring down wages to reduce CS
It would go on earnings after tax and normal pensions & NI reductions but any additional amounts paid into pensions would not be taken into account when working out payments

My EX got my payments reduced because of his girlfriend kid then they had two more so mine went to absolutely nothing
Luckily I have fabulous family support and had a good income and I am now long married and my child is grown up
My real bit of pleasure was when EX did the same to his wife but probably worse as they were living abroad and he had an affair she had to come back to the uk with no money and two kids and ex married ow and had a kid and as ow also had a kid his wife’s money went to 0 - karma I think😂

I always asked the question do you pay for your kids when I was dating men. My current partner could stitch up his ex by adding my child to his child support calculator but he won’t. If only women stuck together eh ?

I also think that maintenance should be a min set amount or an amount agreed between parents
And if the NRP can’t pay / won’t pay the government should pay it /top it up and pursue the NRP for the difference

@Itsjustmee I’ve actually always wondered why can’t people just take the none payer to the small claims court ?
What’s actually stopping them. Then go for a direct recovery order ie freeze their bank accounts