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 understand what you mean @pinksauce.

I know it's an unpopular opinion but I do think there are a lot of RPs who would never be willing to agree to 50/50 care, and I do think if the other parent wanted that but you refused then it's a bit rich to complain that they don't pay 50/50 for their lives. In those circumstances (a common one) I think you shouldn't really feel indignant at being worse off. A lot of NRP would love to have them 50/50 but it is never considered.

This is the problem with a one size fits approach, in respect of all legislation.
It works for some and doesn't for others but that is the legal system for you!
For those of us that work in law, day in day out it's a massive frustration.
To work on a case by case basis is something that should be looked at, but as proved with the broader UK benefits system it ends up costing more in the long run, hence there is a broad brush approach.

If a NRP wants to hide their income the current system is extremely favourable towards that, you can go self employed, declare minimum income, pay yourself circa £8k+ pa then pay yourself dividends on top and have family members on the payroll of your company. In addition you can move funds from your company into a pension for example or 'loan' yourself money from the company.
There are multiple ways in the current system which allow you not only to dodge tax but also payments to ex partners etc.
Most people perhaps aren't savvy to this, the CMS most definitely are not, however I suspect that this is because their hands are tied due to legislation.
Many NRPs choose to go offshore' to countries which don't have a reciprocal agreement with the UK in respect of unpaid CMS.
Unless you have a good understanding of the law and the funds in which to bring a case to court most resident parents are on the back foot.
Please don't shoot me down for this, just trying to explain how things stand legally.

Your are probably right @Hopingtobeamum, but its the default and the aims that need to be moved on from the 1950’s.

If it was the aim to ensure that 50/50 care was normalised then all other society constructs would follow - we would not be discriminated against at work as much, as its very likely men would need shared care arrangements and time for school, doctors, shopping etc.

The default should not be we expect parent to care for and the other to provide, but that both parents fully care for the child. It should be jail if you won’t look after your child during your week, and haven’t arranged otherwise.

Difficulties arise when parents want to lead different lives - but if you have a child, then you should expect not to move towns etc. until you have worked out how you will offset that change - if you can.

I’m seeing more and more situations through work where contact and costs are 50/50 with neither parent paying maintenance and this makes more sense to me now one parent is no longer expected to stay home and care for the children etc. The maintenance thing gets complicated quickly when either party meets someone else and more children / step children are added to the mix. But if the other parent isn’t willing to parent 50/50 what else can you do.

What do people think of this, my ex has been in a bad accident and will never work again, therefore he will pay a flat rate of £7 a week for 2 children, based of his universal credit/PIP payments, however he will be awarded a lot of compensation, we are talking over the million mark, but he has already told me don't think you are entitled to any of that, Iv checked, your a money grabbing cow 😢

@pinksauce thank you for a sensible response which I whole heartedly agree with.
In an ideal world we would have that. In reality I suspect this is a long way off.
Pre-nups, although not legally binding are starting to carry more weight, particularly where they are properly put in place.
I could see this being stretched to include further provision for children in the future and an keeping tabs on this in terms of precident

Firstly, the government should establish what each child is worth, dependent on age and childcare costs.
Secondly, the government should pay that to the RP who pays the money out
Third all, they should recoup that amount from all NRP
Fourth, the amount should be enough that that the payers subsidise the non payers to a set amount per child.
This amount will vary due to age.
This amount will be reduced if the RP does not use the opportunity to get a job of any sort.
Every child should be worth a set amount.

Currently, my child is worth nothing, as her father would rather not work, not claim benefits, live off his mother on a pension, rather than work and pay any CB.
I am lucky, I have an okay job, with a DH who also has an okay job. But we still struggle.
BTW his families response is that he shouldn’t have to pay since I remarried. Yep- that’s the attitude.

@Ronnie27 - If the other parent isn't willing to parent, then this is neglect and should be considered very seriously. no different to neglecting a child when together.

At the moment though I do think we need to consider two cases separately, where both parents are willing to, and where they are not - its only where you have to unfairly take on the full burden that you don't want that needs to be addressed.

@gizmo79 your DCs father sounds like a total waste of space.
To enable what you've proposed would involve an overhaul of the whole parental/benefit system. As much as I'd love this to happen, I highly doubt it will.

It depends on lot on circumstances though, if they are low earners can they even afford more. I get zero benefits because I earn "too much" on basically min wage, h gives me £800 child maintenance and £700 spousal, he's still better off by a little than me but I have the nice house at least! He earns a lot though so can afford it (and still afford to spoil he gf)

@Gizmo79 - Your child is worth vastly more than nothing.

I understand what you mean, but the government has already determined this through benefits and the NMW.

The issue is we seem to have a system that believes in money rather than commitment, and doesn't force the full cost to be paid based on the reasonable additional burden or the government minimum.

I say reasonable additional burden, because if because the other parent refuses 50/50 care, and you need to pay for childcare for that, then this cost should be fully recouped.

Ps it's pretty rubbish in many countries, my friends ex pays zero maintenance for his 4 kids despite being on $500k a year from Microsoft! He "gave" my friend the family home and with that isn't expected to pay, she has to live somewhere and it's expensive in the Seattle area

There's a common theme in all comments here, and that is what is the 'true cost' of each of the children in question.
The true cost varies in every circumstance. So if a child costs £xx per week and the NRP has that child for one night if the week then the NRP should pay the majority share, with a factor applied to their weekly earnings.
Both parents have to have suitable accommodation for their child(ten), granted that the NRP may choose to lower the number of bedrooms if they only have the child(ren) one night a week, for example.
If you have one child, paying for your own two bedroom accommodation is not out of the ordinary.
Some perspective needs to be applied here

@Lorddenning1 any interest he makes on the million will count as income do you can claim that. Keep that one up your sleeve. If he doesn’t declare it repute him for tax evasion

@Inliverpool1 - i checked with Child maintenance service and they said lottery wins and compensation claims, are not classed as income (even though the compensation money, he will get more because he will never earn money again) I am hoping he will use the money to buy them nice things and treat them to clothes etc.

@lorddenning1 he won’t have to pay maintenance on his compensation but the interest he gets on his compensation will count as income. You will need to push the CMS hard on that one.

@Sotiredofthislife - I will do thanks :) once he gets the money i will give them a ring, can you earn alot of interest from a million, im clueless, can you tell?

What do people think about the idea of “clean break”?

Separating one family home and finances rarely leaves both parties with enough to set up again, two homes suitable for the kids, two cars, etc.

Apparently you can’t clean break for CM any more as the CMS can over ride a court order.

Just thinking as my dbro is in London. House prices being what they are they couldn’t afford to sell, and neither party could afford to buy the other out. He offered to sign the house and other assets over in return for no CM. Bearing in mind he’s not far off min wage the actual money paid would have worked out the same.

Because it’s not allowed any more it went to court- his ex had to take out the biggest mortgage she was allowed and dbro took a loss of about 100k on the house value. So Rp now has a huge mortgage, and nrp can’t afford to house himself locally as he’s lost his share of the house value, and can’t get a mortgage on his own salary minus CM payments.

If clean break were allowed his ex would still have a reasonable mortgage (pretty sure the increase in mortgage payments won’t be covered by CM) as she had to double the loan amount. Dbro would have 100% of his salary against a rent agreement or mortgage on a small flat.

Seems a no- brainer to me, especially where the house value is the main asset for a couple.

So why did they stop clean break and should they bring it back?

I think “clean break” is fine for a divorce where there are no children, totally unsuitable when there are.

Parents have an ongoing responsibility to their children. Clean break is the wrong mindset for that situation.

A child could become ill, have an accident and their needs become different than at the time a clean break settlement is made.

It’s too easy for clean break to become “wash hands of all future responsibility”.