Free School Meals on £32k salary

[icecube12345]

I'm a divorced father of two children in KS1 + KS2.

Share exactly 50/50 custody.

Due to various reasons, my ex gets double the CMS calculated CM payments plus additional spousal maintenance. In total, she'd need a job paying about £33k/year for the equivalent net income.

AIBU to think that it's morally wrong that my eldest in KS2 qualifies for free school meals when his parents have significantly more income than the vast majority? I hope not to make use of the free meals as I don't agree with it, but I'm shocked he qualifies.

All children of that age get free school meals regardless of family earnings.

YABU = He should qualify for free meals
YANBU = He should not qualify for free meals.

@ulanbatorismynextstopallulanbatorismynextstop

Ks2 don't.. Only KS1.

To be fair the additional funding really helps schools. Dont knock it.

Only KS1 children get free meals across the board.

The school will also attract a premium for having a child with free school meal eligibility. So even if you choose not to take advantage of it, it can still benefit the school.

Mine qualify for free school meals because CMS is not included and that combined with my kids DLA means we have a decent income. I never claim any of the financial support offered by school, mine have packed lunches but I made sure to apply because it gives school more funding

What PP said about all KS2 children getting free meals - also, why are you paying any child maintenence if 50/50 custody?

@ulanbatorismynextstop

All children of that age get free school meals regardless of family earnings.

All KS1 get FSM, but KS2 don’t. It’s the KS2 that the OP is querying.

Sorry - misread. You're right, all KS2 don't get free meals, just KS1.

@WeakAsIAm

So if I tell the school he'll have packed lunch (which I think he wants generally anyway), they still get the money, thus have more money per meal for other children who do get free meals? That sounds like a good plan.

Are you begrudging your child being given food and prioritising point scoring over your ex? Lovely.

Presumably the CMS doesn't count as income, because it's to cover the kids costs, so if spousal maintenance doesn't reach the threshold and is her only income then they're entitled.

It also means your childs school is getting a little more funding, which can only be good for your kids overall, so I wouldn't knock it.

Why are you the one who gets to tell the school what will happen?

Have a google of Pupil Premium. Sod all to do with getting more money for school meals.

As a school regardless of if someone earning that much it is worth applying and taking it as schools are so underfunded the extra income will make a difference to your child!

@BrowncoatWaffles

This has nothing to do with my ex. It has to do with the system. Where did I mention that I had any issue with my ex?

Why do you care?
Why are you Getting involved?
Move on.

[quote icecube12345]@WeakAsIAm

So if I tell the school he'll have packed lunch (which I think he wants generally anyway), they still get the money, thus have more money per meal for other children who do get free meals? That sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
He just has to have a school lunch on census day, I think? Then can have cooked or packed the rest of the time.

They won't spend more money on other kids meals though as they get the same regardless of how many kids have them, it just gives more flexibility in the budget, as far as I understand it from our school

In some areas free school meals goes off last years earnings

In some it goes off what you have earned in a job this year (tax year) if she isn't working she qualifys

Thanks for the positive messages from the majority.

I hadn't realised that the school would still get the money if we opted out of the "free" lunch, so that's really positive for the school.

Still feels questionable as clearly my child isn't from a disadvantaged background even so on paper it would look that way, but as the school is really underfunded, any money they can get is definitely positive.

I’ll tell you what is morally wrong.

What is morally wrong is that the benefit system for something as critical as a FSM for a child, has to be calculated on the resident parent (usually mother’s) income - not the father’s, and not the CMS.

Why?

Because:
(1) so many no resident fathers (and it is usually fathers) don’t fucking pay their CMS, so that it can’t safely be included.
(2) the CMS calculation usually doesn’t touch the real cost of raising a child, and so many NRP fathers won’t pay a penny more.

So if you want to talk about what’s “morally wrong” start there.

You may pay a fair amount, consistently.

But until the law sorts the fuck out of non paying NRPs aggressively - then it is safer for the child to receive FSM based on excluding CMS.

Imho ALL children should get free school meals, just like in Sweden etc.

@Cocomarine

Totally agree. I guess a more fair way would be if you had to include all income received from CM/Spousal Maintenance etc, on your tax return so that it was tracked, but since that's probably never going to happen, I get why it would be excluded as you've said.

@Iggypoppie

Yes, they really should.

The reason why CMS isn’t taken into account is because so many NRPs use it as s means of control, will stop and start payments on a whim and generally behave like arses.