AIBU re child maintance?

[Jadetreesbringluck]

STBXH earns around 1300 per week. He works away mon-fri so has to pay for accommodation and now will have to rent someplace nearby ( hopefully soon I'm going mad) . He will have the children 2 weekends a month.

I want 300 a week. Im not working at the minute (covid) am part time self employed but now looking for a full time position so i can save for a mortgage.

2 kids. 1 with possible Adhd (currently being assessed) who is a lovely but hard work!

He wants to see a breakdown of costs to jusitfy the amount. I feel I dont want to do that. 300 is 20% of his wage.

Id take 250 plus half of all expences like xmas back to school clubs ect... but im not telling him that yet.

He has often been out of work alot over the 12 yrs we were together so im fully expecting in the not so distant future that he wilk be unemployed and Il probably get 7 quid or something.

I want to save some of this money while he has it so im not left struggling.

What do you think?

@nicky7654

Wow Never realised two kids cost that much a week!!! How about either working or claiming UC and ask ex for ,£100 a week to cover clothes and food. No need to be greedy !!!

Or how about a father who earns weekly what a lot of people earn monthly just pays a decent amount toward his own kids?

@arethereanyleftatall

Oh, and also *@nicky* you suggest the government (so, other people's taxes) should top up to help the op with universal credit, but not the father? Um, right.

Child maintenance isn't even taken into account. Op will still be able to claim a significant amount of Universal credit and the child maintenance on top until her savings reach 16k.

@nicky7654 she's not being greedy. The money is for the children to ensure they have the same standard of living their father has. Which will be good on his wage.

If you were earning £1300 a week surely you'd want to give your children a good lifestyle. My ex earns £4000 a month and I get £500pm for one child.

Some people are bitter because they don't get much from their ex. Just because you don't get much doesn't absolve high earning men from paying maintenance that is proportionate to their earnings.

OP, YANBU to ask him but unfortunately he is within his rights to say no according to CMS calculations.

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@nicky7654 she's not being greedy. The money is for the children to ensure they have the same standard of living their father has. Which will be good on his wage.

If you were earning £1300 a week surely you'd want to give your children a good lifestyle. My ex earns £4000 a month and I get £500pm for one child.

Some people are bitter because they don't get much from their ex. Just because you don't get much doesn't absolve high earning men from paying maintenance that is proportionate to their earnings.

OP, YANBU to ask him but unfortunately he is within his rights to say no according to CMS calculations.[/quote]
When this is the case I honestly think where a man can pay a significant amount for his kids, the amount of benefits that can be claimed should be reduced. Why should the state be paying when the parents can? I know it's never going to happen and people will say it's not guaranteed income but why should people get hundreds a month in benefits and then hundred more in CM ? Kids do not cost that much that both ex and the government have to pay for their upkeep. This is something I think really needs looking at.

When this is the case I honestly think where a man can pay a significant amount for his kids, the amount of benefits that can be claimed should be reduced. Why should the state be paying when the parents can? I know it's never going to happen and people will say it's not guaranteed income but why should people get hundreds a month in benefits and then hundred more in CM ? Kids do not cost that much that both ex and the government have to pay for their upkeep. This is something I think really needs looking at.

There are so few cases where people regularly get hundreds a month in maintenance that it would be a complete waste of time to look at it while the CMS system is absolutely shit.

It used to be the case that people on benefits only got to keep the first £20 a week of maintenance. The system was so shit they had to change that. Even though the rest of it went toward paying for benefits there still wasn't the political will to chase the payments.

There are much bigger fish to fry in the world of child maintenance than this one.

I would go through the CMS. Not that they are useful in any shape or form. But I live in hope the arrears
Might come my way.

2 children he should pay 16% of his wages before tax and NI. This is on a sliding scale depending on the number of over night he has.

My ex is also a contractor. So is self employed now. So I have no hope of getting the 16% minimum he should pay to support our children. Right now I would be grateful for anything as I haven't seen a penny in 2 years.

I would go through the CMS. Not that they are useful in any shape or form. But I live in hope the arrears
Might come my way.

2 children he should pay 16% of his wages before tax and NI. This is on a sliding scale depending on the number of over night he has.

My ex is also a contractor. So is self employed now. So I have no hope of getting the 16% minimum he should pay to support our children. Right now I would be grateful for anything as I haven't seen a penny in 2 years.

I have 2 children with my ex partner. He earns very similar to your ex.
He gives me £200 per week and also paid half their childcare bill when they were younger.
He has them every weekend and half of all school holidays.
He pays half of big expensss like school trips and uniforms etc.
We are very amicable though.

Is the salary you've quoted for him gross or net?

So you want £1200 a month for your children? Considering he is only responsible for paying for half of the children’s expenses, you’re basically saying that you need £2400 every month spent on your children, and that is clearly ridiculous unless you’re expecting them to live in paradise and bath in milk every night.

Your living expenses are your own to fund, not your ex’s.

The actual AMOUNT is not really relevant, it's the %. As someone said upthread.. A high earning nrp should still have to pay at least 20% because otherwise HIS (usually his not her) children aren't getting to benefit from his high earnings and children can cost as much as anybody likes.. Numerous activities, school fees, really good quality, ethically made clothes and food etc. They are not necessary but why are we thinking that the bare minimum is the baseline? Also let's not forget the RP is likely parenting 95% of the time allowing the nrp to work and earn the high salary whole her career, earnings and pension is stymied. A larger contribution would mean childcare was funded more evenly.

To the pp who said the got SM to supplement CM, I had that too in a consent order and budgeted accordingly, (I work full time by the way) then my ex got bored of paying it after a year and spend thousands taking me to court to get it removed. I'm now 10k in debt making up the difference and when I need to remortgage it's going to be an interesting conversation 😕.

@Babyroobs that did used to be the case where benefits were reduced as the maintenance went up. But it turned out to be a logistical nightmare, so it was changed.

It sounds like you want the maintenance to also go towards supporting you, hence his reaction.

You are right though to want to put some of it aside for when he is out of work. Kids don't cost half what you'll be getting if you contribute too, even when spoilt, unless you send then to private school.

Babyroobs
"When this is the case I honestly think where a man can pay a significant amount for his kids, the amount of benefits that can be claimed should be reduced. Why should the state be paying when the parents can? I know it's never going to happen and people will say it's not guaranteed income but why should people get hundreds a month in benefits and then hundred more in CM ? Kids do not cost that much that both ex and the government have to pay for their upkeep. This is something I think really needs looking at."

Completely disagree with this. CMS is a disgrace. If you deducted CMS payments from benefits, many single parents (mostly mothers) and their children would be left in dire poverty while non-resident parents (mostly fathers) failed to pay the maintenance they owed and CMS failed to enforce it.

Benefits are a bare minimum, and if single parents get some extra child maintenance to make life easier then all the better.

As a PP said it's very rare for someone to be on benefits and a lot of child maintenance, anyway. Mostly people on benefits get no CM or a small amount.

Completely disagree with this. CMS is a disgrace. If you deducted CMS payments from benefits, many single parents (mostly mothers) and their children would be left in dire poverty while non-resident parents (mostly fathers) failed to pay the maintenance they owed and CMS failed to enforce it.

That's exactly what happened to my Grandparents on the old system. My father was assessed as having to pay £67 a week. That was counted as income for benefits, which meant my GP (who'd just been landed with 4 kids) were £67 a week down.

When the system changed at least they were only £20 down as the rest that my father owed was owed to the Secretary of State. He died a couple of years ago and that was still one of the debts to his estate. Even though he'd lived in the same house the entire time so was easily traceable years ago!

I have an idea. Don’t break the cost down At all but actually list out everything it needs to cover ( make it a lengthy list including even tiny things like children’s toothpaste and also occasional purchases) tell him there’s are probably other things needed too but you haven’t put that much thought into it so that he can’t just cost up what you put down.

@lyralalala

When this is the case I honestly think where a man can pay a significant amount for his kids, the amount of benefits that can be claimed should be reduced. Why should the state be paying when the parents can? I know it's never going to happen and people will say it's not guaranteed income but why should people get hundreds a month in benefits and then hundred more in CM ? Kids do not cost that much that both ex and the government have to pay for their upkeep. This is something I think really needs looking at.

There are so few cases where people regularly get hundreds a month in maintenance that it would be a complete waste of time to look at it while the CMS system is absolutely shit.

It used to be the case that people on benefits only got to keep the first £20 a week of maintenance. The system was so shit they had to change that. Even though the rest of it went toward paying for benefits there still wasn't the political will to chase the payments.

There are much bigger fish to fry in the world of child maintenance than this one.

I have experienced the world of benefits when they used to reduce it by child maintenance. All the child maintenance - there was no keeping £20 or anything (I know because I lost the full £6 or £7 I got in maintenance). It was really terrible. It was a system that absolutely kept women and children in unnecessary poverty.

For every woman receiving hundreds of pounds every month in maintenance, there were many having their already meagre income support reduced by the £7 or £14 a week their ex paid (directly to the government, so you never saw any of it anyway). It just meant that the kids benefitted in no way from having 2 parents, and the father was supporting the benefits system rather than the child(ren). Child poverty was (and still is) a big issue.

There is a very good reason that rule changed, and (as always in anything to do with benefits) the number of cases where maintenance is high are really quite unusual compared to all the people getting not much at all.

If it makes any difference we are in ireland so its 300€

Rent is 700 pm / 175 per week.

We don't live a life of luxury but the kids do have activities. Horse riding for instance is 25€ per week.
We don't have CMS system as far as I am aware.

I really feel this is a feminist issue. As someone kindly pointed out my stbex is earning as much as he does because I am facilitating it!!!! I have said that we can take 50/50 childcare and then no maintance is payable we would just split all costs down the middle. Now I don't actually want this as i dont think it would be good for the children....am just trying to drive home the point.

Im shocked that people think I should apply for benefits!!

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html, we have a maintenance system in Ireland you have to go to court though if maintenance can't be agreed on, all the information is in the link to citizens information

Definitely don't want to go to court. I want to remain as civil ad possible.

Can you a mediator? A solicitor will be able to recommend one they regularly use.

If it makes any difference we are in ireland

Yes it does as the law and applicable systems will be different!

My previous comment about disabled child maintenance might not be relevant now but you should definitely check out what the law is in Ireland around that.

I would call round a couple of solicitors, briefly explain your situation and see what you can find out - that's what I always do with this kind of thing.

My ex earns a similar amount. He has the children 2 nights. He pays:

Just over CMS amount for 3 kids if he had them 0 nights (about 18% of his gross salary, which is about 24% net)
Half the mortgage (still joint until divorce, etc sorted)
That totals about 26/7% of his gross salary and 35% of the net one
He has never asked me for a breakdown of how I use the money!!

Once the divorce is sorted and the children and I are living in a new place/the mortgage on our family home is in my sole name, then he will no longer pay pay half the mortgage. He has said he may increase the maintenance payments so that actually he will still be paying the same total amount as he is now. We will see - I cannot legally hold him to that but I believe he will stick to it. As he says, as long as he can afford it why wouldn't he want to support his children (not me) as much as possible. If my income goes up, he couldn't care less as it just means our children get a better standard of living, as it were. (If his income goes up, he will pay more, if it goes down of course he will pay less).

My ex is not an arse. In his view (and mine) the children are a joint responsibility in all ways and his financial contribution should not reduce to the bare minimum just because he no longer lives with them. He should still contribute as much as he can to give them the best standard of living, 24/7, as he can.

I cannot understand mothers who think differently from that and think it's okay for a father to only contribute the minimum required to keep kids fed, clothed, and housed regardless of his income. When the adult relationship ends the adult-child relationships do not end and neither do the adult to child responsibilities.

No decent father earning £1300 a week who lived with mum and his children would only put a tiny fraction of earnings into the family pot. A relationship where that happened would be clear financial abuse. When parents split up, finances need to be stretched further but that doesn't mean the NRP/father's financial responsibilities should become the bare minimum!

OP - I think your suggestion is fair but I guess he doesn't have to agree. I guess giving him a breakdown of food, activities, clothes, childcare, etc, every last little thing might make him more likely to agree if he has no idea whatsoever how much this all adds up to? I'd not be happy about having to do that but probably would as a compromise, as long as he wasn't going to keep requesting it/using it to try to check up on my spending in some way.

I would go to mediation (I am actually a mediator!) But hoping to sort it between ourselves if possible.

Its my decision to split. Hes devastated and saying he is really low. He keeps begging me to reconsider but I can't!!

Why is life so hard?!!

Also my son has possible ADHD which is nor a disability as far as I'm aware?

He’s earning £1300 a week but he’s not taking home that amount, he has to pay for petrol and accommodation for 4 nights a week, I’m assuming if he needs accommodation it’s far away so he’ll be paying a good amount in petrol, and food just for them 5 days so that takes his wage down to at least £950? Accommodation isn’t cheap neither is the food etc.Then he has to pay for rent and bills and food in his new place etc. If you go through cms he can ask for them to take into account his work expenses and it’s likely they will if he can prove he doesn’t take the mick. You say you’ll be paying your rent yourself but if you’re getting at least £1200 in cm you’re not paying it, he is , and you’ll still have £500 left over.