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.

[quote icecube12345]@lyralalala

The problem is that without enforcement, the issue will never be fixed.[/quote]
True, but without social pressure there will never be enforcement. And with social pressure there will be much less need for enforcement.

For example; how many more men would pay if not paying meant women avoided them like the plague?

How many more men would pay if all employers were like my ex’s unit and seen non-payment to the point of a DEO as a major character flaw that affected your chances of promotion?

If your Mum, Dad and mates were as mortified at you being revealed to be a non-payer as they would be if you were a drunk driver more men would pay.

While the “I’m not paying because she spends it on herself” bollocks is encouraged in society there will be no push for enforcement.

@lyralalala

Totally agree, it needs to become socially unacceptable.

She doesn't have a 32k salary though does she ?

@lyralalala

For example you could rock up tomorrow with a partner who has children - payments cut instantly. You and said partner could have a child - payments cut.

Okay, so here I'm showing my naivety, but do people really reduce their CM payments to their existing children because a partner with a child moves in, or they have another child?

That is a huge flaw in the system. Given the CM calculations are the minimum (and for the vast majority of RP's not enough) that should be paid, taking into account children after the split is just insane.

If you can't afford to maintain your existing children at the bare minimum expected, then you absolutely shouldn't be taking on more financial responsibility either through someone else's children or having more of your own!

[quote icecube12345]@SimonJT

I agree there is evidence to show this is some context. However the argument is flawed because if you are separated, but you both earn £100k, on "your" argument, that child is still disadvantaged so should be given exactly the same additional support in school as a child who's RP earns low enough to qualify for FSM, however they would not get anything.

I suspect the link is much more correlated to household income, rather than parent's relationship status.[/quote]
Parents having money does not prevent children suffering trauma.

@SimonJT

Exactly. Thus why would a child from a divorced family who's parents both earn £100k each be excluded from the additional support that another child who's parents didn't earn £100k each.

[quote icecube12345]@lyralalala

For example you could rock up tomorrow with a partner who has children - payments cut instantly. You and said partner could have a child - payments cut.

Okay, so here I'm showing my naivety, but do people really reduce their CM payments to their existing children because a partner with a child moves in, or they have another child?

That is a huge flaw in the system. Given the CM calculations are the minimum (and for the vast majority of RP's not enough) that should be paid, taking into account children after the split is just insane.

If you can't afford to maintain your existing children at the bare minimum expected, then you absolutely shouldn't be taking on more financial responsibility either through someone else's children or having more of your own![/quote]
Can I suggest you go and have a read about the CM system and how it actually works for the majority of people? I think you’ll completely change your views from your OP if you do.

Not only do payments go down if the NRP has another child, but they go down if the NRP moves in with someone who has children.

@lyralalala

Madness. I've just done some dummy calculations! It's not huge amounts but it's unbelievable that it goes down.

Clearly in all families things change when you have additional children, but that's a decision you make as a collective family. As a separated family, I don't see how anyone has the moral right to say "I'm going to have another child so I'm going to pay less to my existing children". The economies of scale don't work for separated families, quite the opposite.

That is very broken.

@icecube12345

There are lots of anomalies that don’t work.

A friend of mine has an ex who has, on paper, given up work to be a SAHD. That means he can just pay nothing.

Now in his case he’ll get busted at some point because it’s his wife that is the SAHP (he works for a family business), but it is a decision that is acceptable to be made without a single thought to the financial responsibility to his elder children.

(And before I get lambasted I don’t include people who give up work for health reasons or who switch SAHP for redundancy or Covid reasons - I mean the ones who use it as a simple chance to not give their ex money)

Can I suggest you go and have a read about the CM system and how it actually works for the majority of people? I think you’ll completely change your views from your OP if you do.

Not only do payments go down if the NRP has another child, but they go down if the NRP moves in with someone who has children

I agree. Your understanding would benefit, and it would make a lot more sense not to form any settled opinions about this area of policy until you understand both the legal position re maintenance and the reasons why it is what it is.

Just to add to my SAHD point - this is a man who is, on paper, a SAHD to his step-children and that allows him to forgo any financial responsibility to his own children.

That is a glitch that is ridiculous

@lyralalala

Your friend is an interesting situation that seems to slip through the net. I don't agree with that and it's very wrong.

I might get murdered for this:

However, would I (going by your logic) be reasonable to argue that my ex is similarly wrong because since our split, she's not gone and got a job? She could get a job and then her earning would offset my CM payments, and thus ultimately give our children more financial stability.

Is that a reasonable argument or not?

[quote icecube12345]@lyralalala

Your friend is an interesting situation that seems to slip through the net. I don't agree with that and it's very wrong.

I might get murdered for this:

However, would I (going by your logic) be reasonable to argue that my ex is similarly wrong because since our split, she's not gone and got a job? She could get a job and then her earning would offset my CM payments, and thus ultimately give our children more financial stability.

Is that a reasonable argument or not?[/quote]
Not reasonable.

You choose to pay more than you have too. That’s a choice.

Your actual CMS calculation wouldn’t change regardless if your ex earned 5k, 50k or 500k

What her choices do in terms of the impact on the children is a different argument, but in terms of maintenance her income is utterly irrelevant.

It’s also a very male level of whataboutery to liken minority RP’s (mostly female) with the majority of NRPs

@lyralalala

Surely at 50/50 if she was earning then she'd also perform a "Paying" CM calculation? Of course if she earned enough to provide an equivalent life to the children as I can, I would not pay CM and we'd be "equals".

[quote icecube12345]@lyralalala

Surely at 50/50 if she was earning then she'd also perform a "Paying" CM calculation? Of course if she earned enough to provide an equivalent life to the children as I can, I would not pay CM and we'd be "equals".[/quote]
You are really getting into individual cases.

The fact that you have to pay spousal support suggests you are a very high earner and therefore it’s unlikely, even if she had a job, you’d be not paying maintenance.

Your liability is solely based on your income.

You seem to think most men pay like you. This is not at all my experience. My own exH has avoided paying maintenance at all costs - out of 3.5 years he has paid around £600.00. He is also now refusing to pay a mortgage taken in both our names, but purely to pay off his historic personal debt. I am currently £600 pm down. He swaps jobs before CMS start enforcement and it all starts again. This is quite common.

I know many, many single mothers (not one resident parent father). Of all of these - and it spans several deccades of age of single mother - there was only one father who payed regularly (and that was because it was drugs money and he was worried his ex would report to the police).

From what I see around me, you are in the vast minority. Legislation should be based around what actually happens, not the perfect person. And what actually happens, is that single mothers don't have a hope in hell of relying on maintenance beibg payed (on time or at all). You are the anomaly; this is why it seems wierd to you. For most why this happens is painfully clear.

@Herja

Very insightful, thank you.

It would be great to do analysis of this. I guess there is a strong correlation between why these families are separated and the fact the fathers don't pay. It's not simply that "father's don't pay for their children". It's more likely to be something like "Men who are bad people get divorced thus they are already failing as a parent, and the non-payment is just an extension".

Would be interesting to see the reason for divorce correlated to the non-paying status.

I think you'd be very surprised at the number of "good" Dad's that walk away from their children, particularly financially, post divorce regardless of the reason for the split

OP yanbu but the premise of all such benefits is inclusion rather than exclusion. The aim is to guarantee none of the poorest children are missed, rather than ensuring all the richest children and definitely excluded but risking some disadvantaged children slipping through the net.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

That makes sense I suppose. I think you're maybe the only one who actually answered my question directly. Thanks!

Applying for FSM means that kids get what they call pupil premium. It's supposed to be to help that child in some way. What generally happens is the child is helped where needed but the rules are flexible enough that often a chunk of the grant is used for things that are helpful to more than just that one child like wages of a TA for the class.

My kids qualified and the pupil premium money funded school trips which was a massive massive help as we couldn't have afforded the residentials otherwise. It continues for a few years even after they
No longer qualify for the fsm as well so my youngest's school have had that funding through all their time there which was good for us and them.