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.

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.

@ChilledBee

Agreed!

If partner A’s career is prioritised by the couple for 10+ years whilst Partner B’s career comes second (often due to lack of flexibility on A’s part) then B is losing out over those 10 years in order for A to climb the ladder of success.

If after 10 years A decides he’s not ‘Not happy’ anymore and wants to divorce it’s not fair for him to expect to leave the marriage with his £100k PA salary whilst B struggles on £15k part time. His success is a product of 10+ years collaboration between A and B- therefore B should still profit from that.

I know alimony is huge in america but I think it should be bigger in the U.K. too!

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.

The fact there is a partner in the house could be set up to only affect the housing proportion of any welfare payments. When the RP fills out the relevant forms they'll say they are a working/unemployed RP of X kids partnered with someone who does not have parental obligations to the children (meaning they are not obliged to pay their share of housing). They'd go onto say what maintenance they receive from the person who does. Their allocated amount would be calculated based on that information.

Then, the assessment would calculate what housing benefits the partner would be entitled to based on their income and 50% of the rent if they are named as a tenant. Less percentage if they are officially living there but on the same basis as a lodger who happens to share their host's bed. This would take into account any dependents they have with them as the NRP. The sum would be then paid to them or to their landlord on their behalf.

Essentially, they claim as two individuals in the same address.

This way, the RP is acknowledged as someone who is in a relationship but not with the co-parent of at least some of their dependents. It would also generally allow for people who informally rent on a long term basis with friends/family (including adult children) who are not on the tenancy claim some housing costs. Often they arent not entitled to the housing costs proportion of UC/HB so have to pay rent out of money allocated for general living costs.

Unfortunately we’re already seeing a backslide into maintenance being included in benefits calculations. It’s not been widely publicised (are we really surprised at that?!) but a new rule has been brought in where if the nrp is not working/doesn’t have a taxable income and the RP is on uc then maintenance is deducted from that receiving parents uc. They’ve snuck this new rule in VERY quietly.

“And no one judges mums for having more kids, whether they can afford them or not.” Yes they bloody do! There’s several examples on this thread alone!

And yes as chilledbee says the 2 child cap on certain benefits mainly applies to women as they are usually the rp and it goes on how many children in a household so the same nrp/man who has 2 children in one relationship, leaves and has another 2 children in a 2nd relationship can claim for the 3rd and 4th children because he’s not living with dc 1&2 and potentially 5,6,7,8... children as long as he never lived with more than 2 he is never affected by the cap. The cap was ALWAYS a misogynistic and unfair rule!

I think discussion about luxuries for the children is detailing to be honest as at the moment nrps mostly don’t even cover 50% of the costs of basic NEEDS that has to be addressed first and I agree that childcare if both parents are working should be split 50/50, it’s a huge cost when children are small and is the responsibility of both parents.

I don’t think it would be that difficult to come up with a minimum amount that’s 50% of basic costs which includes:

Extra rent
Extra council tax
Extra utilities (gas, electric, water, basic tech like WiFi)
Furniture and furnishings
Food & other groceries
Clothes and shoes
School costs (not only uniform but stationery, books and equipment)
Toys, books and other reasonable costs for recreation/development
First aid and other medical purchases
Transport

At the very least.

To the pp who thought teenagers were cheaper - are you kidding?! I can only think you don’t yet possess one!

They eat you out of house and home and grow at a rate of knots so you’re constantly replacing clothes/shoes not to mention all the other additional costs of teens.

My dd is very very slim and not a big eater in comparison to her peers but she still eats a hell of a lot more than me just to maintain a healthy weight. I’ve friends with teen boys and the amount of food alone they go through is astounding and these are also slim, fit kids.

Teens need more calories than a grown adult I think (iirc) around 500 more cals a day?

My nieces/nephews are the same. Locusts. And slim as anything but if you want to encourage them to stay that way, you have to have healthy food on tap. They eat like stoners.

While doing genealogical research, I've come across cases in the 1800s and earlier that were held under what were known as 'b-stdardy boards', where any unmarried women found to be pregnant had to stand in front of a group of officials and explain who the father was. If they believed her that man was then tracked down and made to pay maintenance for her. Same with married men who deserted their wives and children.

These boards often went to great lengths to track down these men if they absconded, putting detailed adds in the papers for example to find their whereabouts, offering rewards and so on. Even if the fathers paid up straight away, they could find their names in the paper as the details of the cases were sometimes publicly reported.

I know it wasn't perfect and it was horrible for the women who had to do that, and I'm sure it wasn't always just, but at least they got something out of it and at least some effort was made to bring these men to account.

Nowadays you read so often on Mumsnet of men claiming to be scraping by self employed or not earning - which is clearly not possible - and getting away with paying nothing for their children when we have all the powers of DNA tests, sophisticated IT system and ways of finding people that the men of the b*stardy boards could only have dreamt off - and yet it seems that women and children are worse off then they were back then?

It seems totally bizarre.

You know that the NRP has to have a life too right?

People are so quick to judge. No two situations are the same. I have 40% custody of my ds and ex h has 60%. I have to pay him 152 a month and he uses it for takeaways. Sends me photographic evidence.

I think that the law should be changed so that the amount paid in child maintenance reflects the 'true' cost of the child(ren).
In some cases this will mean less is paid but I'm sure in many many others it will mean that more is paid (if that makes sense).
Sadly some mothers get very little / nothing and are left with the financial burden of the child(ren) in addition the the lions share of childcare and associated responsibilities which is grossly unfair. In others cases I'm aware of the amount paid is astronomical e.g. over £1000 pcm plus extras.
Clearly laws will never be fair to all but I think an overhaul is needed

Just don’t have children. If you don’t have kids your relationship is less likely to break down and if it does anyway at least you’re not the resident parent of a child.

@Hopingtobeamum you think £1000 a month is astronomical? Not only is it highly unusual, but even with my one 8 year old that doesn’t cover half his childcare costs, room in the house, food and utilities.

you think £1000 a month is astronomical?

This is part of the issue - there is no-once-size-fits-all, fair way to work it what CMS should be. To some people £1000 is astronomical, to some £1000 wouldn't even cover childcare fees. Some people could afford to hand over 40% of their salary, to others 40% would leave them destitute. Sometimes the RP has given up a career in order to focus on the children, sometimes the RP earns twice what the NRP does. Sometimes the RP covers 99% of the work/expenses and sometimes it's closer to 50:50. Sometimes the NRP doesn't give a crap and don't see their kids, and sometimes they are destroyed by not seeing their kids everyday anymore. What one person considers 'fair', another person might consider totally unreasonable.

How can one system, based on a single calculation, possibly work fairly for every scenario?

I don’t think any RP wants the NRP to hand over almost all of their salary and have nothing left to survive themselves but it cuts a bit to be paid £200 pcm for three children because the NRP chose to enter into a relationship with someone who already had two children literally moments after your marriage broke down. I’m massively projecting but you’ll never convince me that £200 a month is enough to cover the living costs of three children because it isn’t. My ex doesn’t pay a dime extra and never has, he’s never bought them a thing aside from a couple of Christmas/birthday presents he keeps at his house (for her children to play with). He sees them for six hours a week so not even over night because there’s no space for our DC in their small two bedroom home.

That’s shite parenting from him, I’ll never be convinced otherwise. He is subsidising someone else’s children over his own, that isn’t fair and CMS need to change this rule.

I’ve also dreaded the day he decides to procreate with her (amazed it hasn’t already happened) because I know damn well that will reduce the payment for our DC further. The older children get, the more they cost. £200 a month isn’t even enough maintenance for one child so it definitely isn’t for three.

@Whattodoabout

That's terrible. Just out of interest because I genuinely don't know, does anyone know what the deduction is for living with other children? Does he get a deduction for each child living there, e.g. do 2 stepchildren count for double the deduction that 1 stepchild would? My DH pays CM but it's by private arrangement so I don't know much about that side of things.

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

I’d imagine costs and court time would go through the roof. Plus It would have to be fair so include both RP and NRPs.

Harsher penalties that lead to personal responsibility would be better as people may think twice about having children. So many seem to not even consider the costs of them, both now and should life change.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss the thing is so what if the costs and time did. In no other aspect of life could someone owe you so much money and not pay. If it happened to me again I’d leave and pay child support myself. Far easier life

Just out of interest because I genuinely don't know, does anyone know what the deduction is for living with other children? Does he get a deduction for each child living there, e.g. do 2 stepchildren count for double the deduction that 1 stepchild would? My DH pays CM but it's by private arrangement so I don't know much about that side of things.

It's not quite double I believe, but there's a reduction for 1 child, 2 children or 3+ children.

Just out of interest because I genuinely don't know, does anyone know what the deduction is for living with other children? Does he get a deduction for each child living there, e.g. do 2 stepchildren count for double the deduction that 1 stepchild would? My DH pays CM but it's by private arrangement so I don't know much about that side of things.

The above is what annoys me. So the Nrp moves on with his life and moves in with new partner. Why should the children not be counted as they will contribute to higher household Bill's. The living costs will be more.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss

You’re saying that people should consider the cost of children if life changes.
What if you lose your job tomorrow as a single parent? You’ve fucked your theory there haven’t you.

Also, two parents with modest wages could afford to comfortably raise a child. Let’s say the man then runs off for the hills and never pays CSA. How COULD the woman have predicted and prevented that? Or are you saying women (because sole parents usually are women) should only have a child if they take home £30,000? (Working on the basis you don’t lose your job - hey - you should have considered it).

Your life could change in ways you didn’t predict too.

I’ve just realised I got you merged with an earlier poster, sorry.

But the majority of my sentiments still stand.

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

I understand this @siriusblackthemischieviouscat. I didn't actually earn that much less than my ex, although I've reduced my income with reducing my hours. He's not actually paying the minimum and he's still paying half of the mortgage, so this wasn't really about him. My calculations were based on if he did and I was shocked that I'd end up with more than £100 less a week than him before any of my costs including childcare etc are taken out. Yet legally he'd have paid everything he had to for his children.
If I had to pay childcare the days I work, I'd be paying around £300 a week.

"Equality will only be within sight when childcare costs are 50/50 between parents."
Agreed ......and when no-one is the PRP. Everyone should have to have their chidren for 50% of the time unless there is a very good reason not to share them (e.g. in abusive situations).

I wonder sometimes why people have children. As a child of separated parents, it really is depressing if the joy of having the children is not taken into account.

In my mind the basis should always be 50/50 shared parenting and no need to have any maintenance payments, each pay for their own share.

if both parents want this, then if for any reason the other parent gets the benefit of having the children stay with them more often, then in my mind they should pay for them more because they get the additional benefit of having the children.

It's only in the case that one parent doesn't want the children so often that maintenance should be paid.

I cannot see the reason why a persons income should be considered either way - a standard set fee should be payable that relates to the NMW - and beyond this parents should work it out themselves. If a parent cannot afford the % of NMW they should get into debt.

It's really not about the joy of the children @pinksauce. And I'm also the child of separated parents. My dad was useless, my mum amazing. I never felt unwanted by her but I don't think she was in the wrong to be mad that my dad didn't pay his share.

My Ds is one and I'm pregnant, I don't think 50/50 would be the best thing for my Ds and definitely not for a breast fed newborn.

@GirlOnIt - and as long as both parents agree with your analysis there wouldn't;t be an issue. on the other hand, if there is a disagreement, you shouldn't have the dominant say.

I would have preferred having equal access to my parents, but appreciate they organised themselves practically for a balance that worked.

nobody goes into having children hoping not to have them with them - so the most valuable part is having the children. The concept of rp and access is deeply flawed.

@inliverpool1 I guess that depends on individual circumstances. Without wanting to get into specifics if you pay half and he pays half what would your respective costs be?