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.

Completely agree with this. My exH shacked up with someone about a month after we split and because she has two children, he pays less. They’re not his children so shouldn’t be his responsibility imo but are viewed as such in the eyes of CMS. Never understood it, they have their own fathers and my DC get less money because of her kids.

My ex has never paid anywhere near enough and doesn’t buy extras either plus only sees them for six hours a week. I’ve given up being angry about it now, it’s not worth the energy.

Inliverpool1
No idea why parents can’t do this but I think if a non paying parent thought that the ability to get access to credit cards mortgages rentals and possibly affect jobs then they would probably pay up a damm sight quicker
Also it might make the new partners ( if there is one) give more incentive to encourage the NRP to pay up as the NRP lack of access to credit mortgages could affect them as well if they were to try and buy a place together or already have a place

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

Or maybe the second wives should have had a baby with someone who could afford one.

Benefits and child maintenance should never be linked while child maintenance is such a low priority to the government and society

Currently though this only works one way.

RP benefits are calculated not including maintenance. Fine.

But a nrp claiming UC the CM counts as income.

So perhaps, as people say, stop including stepkids in CM calculation. Instead deduct any CM paid from benefits calculations.

Friend of mine couldn’t claim TC because her partner earned exactly the limit. But their actual income, minus cm payments were significantly under.

And the same goes for the guy on NMW. If you are earning a grand a month and have split up with your co-parent, more babies aren't in your future.

maybe the second wives should have had a baby with someone who could afford one

You could say that about anyone who claims any sort of benefit. If you don’t earn enough to pay for your own kids don’t have any.

The logic don’t have more kids is flawed as many people have kids they can’t properly afford. Accidents happen. And no one judges mums for having more kids, whether they can afford them or not.

The canada thing was taking the household income into account- so even if the mum was financially independent and could afford the child- they’d take her money too.

We do say it about other benefits. CB is capped at 3 kids for RPs yet a NRP could continue to have CM reductions for 10 kids. And honestly, the CB cap does factor in to people's decision to have a 4th. Maybe if NRPs knew they'd have to continue to provide for their existing kids in the same way, they'd also reconsider putting themselves in a situation where conception could occur.

Lots of mums gets judged for having other kids in sticky circumstances. My friend received a lot of hate mail on her blog recently because she's dating to consider having another baby when she has a pre verbal autistic son who can lash out at times.

My exp has just moved to America and is therefore exempt from paying. CMS can only take money from him whilst he has a UK based pay cheque. I can take him to court but at my own expense which I now can’t afford as my income has significantly reduced without his contribution.

I won’t receive extra tax credits to replace his money, I simply have to manage without.

Meanwhile, he is able to walk away from his responsibilities without a word. I still need his permission to leave the country with dd and to change her name (at her request).

How is that fair?

There should be criminal charges against deadbeat NRPs. Take away driving licences etc..like they do in other countries.

Step and subsequent children shouldn't be taken into account as existing children should come first.

All i'm reading here is there is not enough money being paid by the NRP. How much is enough? You have to remember that the NRP has to live as well. There is no winners when a family split up. I agree non payers are the lowest of the low but what about the mothers who use the system for their own financial benefit?

I know my bf would like to see his dc more but the mother wont allow it as "she doesn't want the children living out of a suitcase" when in reality that means I dont want to lose out on money.

I think the default position should be 50/50 care (unless agreed due to jobs or domestic violence) and then work from there. My issue is what is classed as Child Maintenance is very flimsy and can be used quite easily to manipulate. I think Child Maintenance should be broken down and say 50% towards household running costs and then 50% for clothes etc. That way there is no "he/she is spending on nails"

I am also amazed at the contradiction on here when comes to a discount when moving in with new partner and kids. In one hand you want the money thrown in to join the household pot but if I was to move in with somebody and 2 kids my household bills will naturally go up.

You can take him to court without money, I wiped the floor with my ex’s barrister because I was just right and he wasn’t. Google the forms

@OddshoesOddsocks reply above was for you

The issue with 50/50 is that most - I’m sorry but it is men - want to basically treat he ex like they are still married and also pay less.
It’s 50/50 unless something crops up at work then she bails him out time and time again

In one hand you want the money thrown in to join the household pot but if I was to move in with somebody and 2 kids my household bills will naturally go up.

I've lived with a friend and her child once for a year. We rented a 3 bed in both our names for a year (that was the plan). We simply split the costs 3 ways with her paying her third and half her daughter's third of the utilities and rent and me paying the other third. Her dad paid the other half of her third.

I worked a lot so ate breakfast and lunch out of the house most days but I paid for the Sky package and internet plus the odd takeaway for the 3 of us on weekends. In return, my friend would make sure there was a plate of dinner for me every night so I really only bought food that I specifically wanted like different cheeses and other luxury snack type stuff.

I moved in with my friend and her child, but we didn't combine finances in a way that meant I assumed half the living costs of maintaining her child. Yes, if I lived alone or in a normal houseshare, I'd maybe have paid slightly less in utilities than I did with her but the benefit for me is that I was sharing with less people in a more settled environment. But yes, my living costs likely did increase slightly but not as much as if I assumed a parental financial responsibility for her child which is what CM encourage people to do. A guy moving in with his new partner and her kid(s) could pay his way in the home without paying their way at the expense of his existing children..

I think childcare costs should be split 50/50 IF the RP is working during those times. I think the stickiest issue to solve is the luxuries argument - a lot of RP's will claim the NRP has "forced" them to foot the bill for dance lessons, designer clothes, days out etc, but tbh I think these things need to be agreed upon by both parents. As a few PPs have said, what one parent might choose to spend may not be the same as the other parent, and the NRP should not have to subsidize the RPs decision to live more expensively than they think is necessary for the child. School items are fair enough but I think beyond that you need a legal agreement from the NRP that they also consider those things a worthwhile investment before you insist they pay for half of them.

As many have said there is no straight forward answer, no one size fits all and whilst anyone can claim a system isnt fair will find a loop hole and way not to pay.
What about those who chose not to be fathers?
I repeatedly tell my son if he has a contraception failure he has no say if the girl then keeps the baby or not.
When I fell pregnant with him, it was not a stable relationship and I made it clear I was keeping the baby he chose if he stayed involved or not. He did, so I expected him to pay. I do think at that point there should be a legal agreement allowing the man to walk away. Controversial yes, but it also means in years to come men can't claim they were tricked and didnt want the baby and women can't get pregnant to 'trap' men. At this point - every child born, is either with a mother or 2 parents who have actively committed to having the baby.

There needs to be a fixed minimum lifestyle agreement for children. This stops men claiming the money doesnt go on children and goes on the Mums lifestyle because they can demonstrate the minimum requirements are met, I personally think this applies to all children not just those with separated parents. No more benefit bashing claiming money goes on cigarettes and alcohol - anyone breaking this minimum should be treated as child neglect.

A childs disability should be considered as part of CMS, a parent with a disabled child will have higher costs than one without, and whilst PIP is designed to help with this it should also be a consideration for the NRP.

I also agree with the many who have said that additional biological children can affect payments, but not that allows the minimum care level to be dropped, but step children should not unless they gain parental responsibility.

I wish the cms would specifically state what it is meant to cover. I think they deliberately leave it vague so as not to exclude things but it leads to real problems. 'A contribution towards essentials' is about as minimal a definition as you could give and assumes that decent nrps will do more, given that most people do give their kids more than the essentials, certainly rps do. But many nrps and 2nd wives on here see paying what they 'should' according to cms as being entirely sufficient.

@OddshoesOddsocks My exp has just moved to America and is therefore exempt from paying. CMS can only take money from him whilst he has a UK based pay cheque. I can take him to court but at my own expense which I now can’t afford as my income has significantly reduced without his contribution.

Have you spoken to your local magistrates court about a REMO application? The cost seems to vary around the country, but I know someone who did it and it was less then £70. Which I know can be a lot to pull together, but was worth it as it got the REMO process started and the money coming in (and in her case worked out really well as the country he lived in took money from him on their system as it was more - went down well with the NRP lol!).

I’ve actually always wondered why can’t people just take the none payer to the small claims court

Because it is not a small claims court issue. The only people who have the jurisdiction to take a non-paying NRP to court are the CMS themselves. Unless there is a court order in place but these are few and far between and are still not an issue for the small claims court. That’s just how it is, legally. What people don’t understand is that the CMS has tomrefer back to the courts to use most of their powers hence the delay in doing so (as it costs the Government). There is no political will to foolproof the system. Until there is, nothing will change.

But what do you all think the logic was in being able to claim SC as dependents? Why would they allow that? It isn't a loophole,they clearly think is the right thing to do.

I do think childcare should be split coat wise 50/50 (or nrp given option of arranging their half of morning/afternoon care) before maintenance payments are calculated.

OP, I don't think its helpful to compare how much you have compared to eh has - if one person out earns the other majorly its not about equality but ensuring they both pay adequately for the cost of bringing up a child.

No matter how much you earn children all cost pretty much the same minimum amount to bring up - i do think it would be helpful if some boffin could work out how much extra rent, bills, food it costs to have a child, how much basic clothes would coat etc so that we have a minimum payment all non resident parents parents should be paying. It should also be agreed that school trips, uniforms, extra curricular activities should be split 50/50 - within reason as just like in a marriage you decide between you if can afford a school trip or dancing lessons etc so it should still be the same.

I realise this isn't practical and getting money from nrp is in some cases almost impossible.

I have heard of cases where a very high earner ends up paying huge sums to xp so that they don't have to work or can work part time. Im not sure that is fair, both parents should be contributing to the financial up keep of their children so as much as there should be a minimum cost, there should be a maximum cost too.

I have heard of cases where a very high earner ends up paying huge sums to xp so that they don't have to work or can work part time. Im not sure that is fair, both parents should be contributing to the financial up keep of their children so as much as there should be a minimum cost, there should be a maximum cost too.

Sometimes that's happened because the parents has a shared value of a SAHP and one wouldn't be able to further their career without the other making their career less of a priority. That leaves them stuck at a potential wage bracket where working full time doesn't pay considering the loss of family time,price of childcare etc

Whether 40% is fair depends on salary. If you're earning (say for easy calculations) £1000 a month in a low paid job 40% deduction would leave you without enough to live on. If you're on £10,000 a month the £6000 you'd have left is a different matter in terms of being able to manage. As for step children that too is complicated because the government make step parents financially responsible. Their income is counted when working out tax credits etc for the household containing the RP and child(ren). The government can't say "you're not responsible for these children" and then take benefits away from the RP on grounds of your salary. Either you have a duty to your current household or you don't. The reality is that these situations aren't straight forward and a one size fits all system will never be easy to work. I'm not a step parent btw nor am I the partner of a NRP. I'm a lone parent of 2 and I get £20 a week from my ex as he can't afford more. I can manage so I'm not going to bleed him dry (however much he may deserve it) as it is in no ones interest to have unnecessary nastiness and conflict. Besides, I'd rather kill him with kindness and enjoy the cognitive dissonance.

But what do you all think the logic was in being able to claim SC as dependents? Why would they allow that? It isn't a loophole,they clearly think is the right thing to do

I’m very cynical, but I think it was at least partly to encourage widows and widowers to re-marry. The discount on maintenance would help offset the loss of the widowed parents allowance. Previously that lasted until the child was 18 (hence the recent slashing of) or until you remarried and many governments seem to have been of the thought that swathes if widows were not marrying because of the cash.

I agree. My stepdaughter moved in last September. We got £16 a week which is pathetic to start with (she has 5 other kids that she gets “credit” for) then because she has been on mat leave after having yet another baby she cannot support either emotionally or financial it has reduced to £9 a week.

It’s pathetic.