Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Free School Meals on £32k salary

196 replies

icecube12345 · 19/10/2020 11:49

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.

OP posts:
nosswith · 19/10/2020 13:52

There may be some children getting free school meals who are not the intended recipients because of loopholes or strange formulae. What we should be focusing on is the lack of such support for those on low incomes in school holidays.

Mintychoc1 · 19/10/2020 13:55

@ulanbatorismynextstop

All children of that age get free school meals regardless of family earnings.
No they don’t
Devlesko · 19/10/2020 13:55

33k not a high income, it's much higher than the majority earn. Shock

Bikingbear · 19/10/2020 14:19

Lots are missing the point why all KS1 children get FSM, because they are trying to change eating habits of a generation.

Packed lunches for many kids were nutritionally poor, bit of ham between two bits for bread and biscuit. Others were overloaded with sugar, yogurts, sweets etc.

Kids are more likely to try healthy different stuff if they see their pals eat it.
Its easier to manage allergies if young kids aren't bringing in as many lunch boxes filled with who knows what.

Inertia · 19/10/2020 14:28

She isn’t on a 32k salary though, is she? She doesn’t have that security. Many RPs have had the NRP refuse to pay child maintenance, or pay off and on, or simply use it as a way to control and punish the RP (and hence the children).

The system isn’t designed around you personally. It’s intended to best protect the largest number of qualifying children in the most efficient way possible. If admin staff had to be employed to tryack the changes/ delays/ outright refusal to pay CMS, the costs would far outweigh the cost of simply providing food to qualifying children irrespective of CMS.

And the meals aren’t for you to make use of, they are for your children. You can make packed lunches on your days if you like. The FSM qualification stands whether or not the lunch is taken every day. And as others have pointed out, the Pupil Premium attached to FSM is very significant- it allows the school to support children who might otherwise not be able to do activities incurring a cost, or to employ additional staff to close learning gaps for disadvantaged children.

jessstan1 · 19/10/2020 14:32

@Devlesko

33k not a high income, it's much higher than the majority earn. Shock
I did say it does depend where you live but in the London area, it wouldn't go far. However the person concerned doesn't have a £33k salary, it is made up or topped up with benefits and that does not mean security.
ladiessmock · 19/10/2020 14:36

At the moment (because of the introduction of UC) nobody is having their entitlement to FSM taken away, at least until 2022, even if their circumstances change. So actually, your wife could land a 100k job as a banker and your child would still qualify for at least the next couple of years.

Also, whoever said that FSM children needed to have a school dinner on Census day - this is incorrect. It doesn't make any difference whether they have a dinner or not (as long as the child is eligible as FSM or Ever6 on Census day).

C8H10N4O2 · 19/10/2020 14:42

Yet he's getting slammed for all the dads who aren't involved with their kids lives and aren't paying for them? Which wasn't even relevant to the thread?

No he is complaining about a system which arose entirely as a consequence of absent and non supporting fathers. If you want to actually change that you need to address the audience causing the problem.

If you just want to pontificate to a bunch of women - well here is the place but we are not exactly short of mansplainers.

if it was a genuine question about how FSM eligibility works there would be no need to virtue signal about paying more than the CMS minimum, it would simply be a question of how FSM eligibility works and is CMS included.

Cocomarine · 19/10/2020 15:03

@SchrodingersUnicorn non paying NRP absolutely is relevant to the OP’s thread, because it answers his question about why his children resident with XW are eligible for FSM despite the money going into that household.

I was the first one to raise it, I made sure to acknowledge that the OP was not one of the non payers, and OP appeared to take the information in with interest.

BoyTree · 19/10/2020 15:05

Seriously though, no but when I have a forum of mothers telling me that they don't believe me because what I've said about how I support my children is so unrealistic, then I do question my own sanity.

It's a damning indictment of the toothlessness of the CMS system in this country that a father who is supporting his child and maintaining his commitment to a family set-up that benefits that child is so rare as to be unbelievable.

The fact that you weren't previously aware of the fact that most single mothers get bugger all from their exes just shows what a shitty situation it is for those who are living like this that it's not headline news and it's not a national scandal. It's just something that is quietly accepted by successive governments because they would rather win votes than tackle the issues which have such a huge impact on the next generation.

I would love to live in a country where failing to support your own children is a criminal offence with attached social stigma, but we've been throwing mothers under the bus for so long that I fear it won't happen in my lifetime.

TheDuchessofMalfy · 19/10/2020 15:06

I don’t think OP is being slammed. I think people are explaining to him how it works and why.

CrappleUmble · 19/10/2020 15:23

[quote icecube12345]@C8H10N4O2

Maybe a solution would be whereby both parents have to state how much CM they have paid and received each year. This would help to ensure that in instances where it wasn't being paid, action could be taken (additional support etc), and where it was being paid, people weren't receiving benefits they did not need.

Clearly, no system will be perfect, and will always have issues, but given the scale of the problem with paying parents not paying, there must be a better way to track this.[/quote]
This is a terrible idea, and I notice with interest that although you're saying there must be a better way you've not come up with one.

Designing and administering systems is resource intensive. What you refer to here as mistakes means children who are entitled to FSM not getting them. How can you possibly think this is better than what will statistically be a pretty small cohort, given the problem we have with NRPs contributing nothing or very little, getting meals they could manage without? I get that you initially weren't aware of why the system is as it is, and from whose inadequacy this stems. Now that you are, there's really no excuse.

Original poster
icecube12345 · 19/10/2020 15:39

@C8H10N4O2

The reason I mentioned the double CM was that although I know CM is excluded from everything, I was not sure if only the amount of CM the CMS calculate is excluded - thus that's not CM it's really just "income". There is a clear definition of what is paid for CM and what is paid as Spousal Maintenance in my situation. I was also trying to explain how the amount of money was so high.

OP posts:
tttigress · 19/10/2020 15:49

People here seem to be interested in the school getting pupil premium.

But what happens when the whole Country goes broke due to overspending? If you think "this can't happen to a country like the UK", you would be wrong.

lyralalala · 19/10/2020 15:57

@tttigress

People here seem to be interested in the school getting pupil premium.

But what happens when the whole Country goes broke due to overspending? If you think "this can't happen to a country like the UK", you would be wrong.

The country is not going to go broke over the very few children getting pupil premium whose NRP pays more than they have to
CrappleUmble · 19/10/2020 16:04

@tttigress

People here seem to be interested in the school getting pupil premium.

But what happens when the whole Country goes broke due to overspending? If you think "this can't happen to a country like the UK", you would be wrong.

You've not considered whether changing the system as OP suggests would actually save any money. Designing and administering systems is not free.
knittingaddict · 19/10/2020 16:09

[quote icecube12345]@C8H10N4O2

The reason I mentioned the double CM was that although I know CM is excluded from everything, I was not sure if only the amount of CM the CMS calculate is excluded - thus that's not CM it's really just "income". There is a clear definition of what is paid for CM and what is paid as Spousal Maintenance in my situation. I was also trying to explain how the amount of money was so high.[/quote]
But the amount of CM calculated in your case would be zero, so not sure how that would change things.

GroundAlmonds · 19/10/2020 16:27

[quote icecube12345]@C8H10N4O2

The reason I mentioned the double CM was that although I know CM is excluded from everything, I was not sure if only the amount of CM the CMS calculate is excluded - thus that's not CM it's really just "income". There is a clear definition of what is paid for CM and what is paid as Spousal Maintenance in my situation. I was also trying to explain how the amount of money was so high.[/quote]
“thus that’s not CM it’s really just ‘income’”??

The CMEC calculated figure is the minimum acceptable CM. If something more realistic is agreed or paid, it doesn’t stop being CM and become “income” (isn’t CM a type of income anyway?). What a bizarre notion.

lyralalala · 19/10/2020 16:42

@knittingaddict 50:50 doesn’t automatically mean no maintenance, especially when there is a large disparity in income between the two parents.

jessstan1 · 19/10/2020 16:50

@tttigress

People here seem to be interested in the school getting pupil premium.

But what happens when the whole Country goes broke due to overspending? If you think "this can't happen to a country like the UK", you would be wrong.

We could be wrong but most of us have paid a lot of tax all our lives and are not bothered about a little bit going towards those who have less advantages, especially children and the chronically sick. In recent times the government have been excessively mean, especially with benefit cuts, so they must be sitting on a gold mine.
MitziK · 19/10/2020 17:11

[quote icecube12345]@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.[/quote]
The taxman has already taken his cut before it gets to the RP. Otherwise, they'd be raking £200 out of each thousand (for example) from the NRP and then taking a further £160 from the RP, meaning your £1000 earnings were being taxed at 36% and your children only saw £640 of the money, rather than the £800 they do now.

knittingaddict · 19/10/2020 17:24

[quote lyralalala]@knittingaddict 50:50 doesn’t automatically mean no maintenance, especially when there is a large disparity in income between the two parents.[/quote]
Can you send me a link to that? I thought it had changed and that if shared care is genuinely 50/50 then no maintenance is payable.

keeprocking · 19/10/2020 17:29

If you have 50/50 custody I don't see why you should have to subsidise your ex at all.

knittingaddict · 19/10/2020 17:29

I'm taking about the maintenance that CMS can administer, not voluntary CM.

alphabetsoup1980 · 19/10/2020 17:36

Nope. Only eyfs and ks1 are entitled to universal free school meals