Child maintenance

[Orinoco82]

Hi all, this is my first post on here, feels a bit strange as I’m a bloke posting on Mumsnet but there we are!

I’m basically just after some advice and other folks opinion on an issue I’m having with my daughters mum regarding the maintenance that I pay to her monthly.

I’ll try not to go on too much so here goes.

I have a daughter who is 5 years old and lives with her mum. Her mum and I separated before she was born but I have been there since day one and have always paid maintenance on time and every time without fail and I have even given extra money and lent money (which I never got back) on occasion.

I normally pay just under £500 per month maintenance to my ex but when this Coronavirus crap first hit earlier this year and the country went into the first lock down, the company I work for basically cancelled all overtime and call out which would have a substantial impact on my earnings (approx down £1200-1500 per month). As soon as I found out my earnings were going to cut, I thought it only fair that I tell my ex that her maintenance will be reducing which, although not what she wanted, she didn’t give me too hard a hard time over. I normally do a lot of overtime as I have debts that I’m trying desperately to clear and I want to provide for my daughter at the same time. I said I will give what I can and hopefully the overtime will come back and I can start giving the normal amount again. I managed to give £300 as that was all I could manage that month.

After a month or so, some overtime returned and I was able to give a little more so I raised it to £400 per month. I have also bought my daughter clothes, shoes and other bits and bobs as any parent would do.

My company has now again removed all the overtime due to this second lockdown so I thought it right that I should tell my ex straight away that again, my earnings will be going down. This time she absolutely lost the plot and went nuts at me down the phone saying that I don’t provide for my child, make no time for my child, I’m a hopeless father etc.......... none of which is true.

I love my daughter dearly, she is all I have in the world. She lives over an hours drive away from where I live and I always collect her and drop her home and I’m more than happy to do this, my ex has dropped her to me 3 times in 5 years and every time asked me for £50 fuel for doing so (which I refused). I make sure that I have at least 2 weekends off per month so I can have her and spend time with her. If I finish work on a Friday at a reasonable time, I’ll go and pick her up for the weekend. If I’m off during the week, I’ll drive all the way down to where she is to pick her up from school and take her to the park and out for some dinner then get her back home and drive home again. If she has a school play or sports day or whatever, I’ll go there, watch her and then go to work. I honestly do the best I can so I find it very hurtful when I get told that I’m a hopeless father and I don’t provide. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I may be wrong, who knows.

The other thing that has annoyed me hugely is that she borrowed a hefty (to me at least) amount of money from me and when I mentioned this to her the other day (she’s owed to me for over 2 years), she says that because I have been giving less maintenance, then I can basically go and whistle for my money which I think is wrong.

The maintenance that I give her was worked out using the CMS calculator but we haven’t involved the CMS but I have told her that I now want to go down this route as I am sick of being told I’m not giving enough so at least this way, there can be no dispute. She has told me that she doesn’t want me to do this though. Don’t know why as surely it won’t affect her.

She is always telling me how she has no money yet she refuses to look for work, has a partner that works, has another child (who she gets maintenance for also). Surely if you’re that hard up for money, you’d do everything you could to find a part time job?Maybe that’s just me?!

I could understand her being angry with me if I was giving her a pittance and driving around in a lovely car, living in a big house and wearing fancy clothes etc........ but I have none of that. Yes I’m really into my cars but I haven’t had anything nice for quite some time but that is literally my only vice. My current car is worth about £1500 tops.

I’m very sorry, I’ve been rambling (more getting things off my chest I guess). I guess the question I’m asking is, am I really in the wrong to adjust the amount of maintenance I give considering I’m now earning considerably less money? I fully intend to pay the normal amount once my earnings go back up so I’m not looking to get away with not paying it, I’m not that kind of person.

Thanks very much for taking the time to read.

There is real view in this thread that higher earners either don’t exist, or shouldn’t have to pay commensurate with their earnings.

Yes, it is a very odd view. People seem to think that, just because a high earner shouldn't "subsidise" their ex to live a good lifestyle and she should have to fend for herself, this should extend to the children as a sort of 'extension' of her. They should be forced to get by on UC and live a subsistence lifestyle just to ensure that the evil lazy ex isn't benefiting unfairly from the child maintenance.

Fact is, no child of a high earner on £50k plus should be scraping by, relying on the taxpayer to feed and clothe them. They should have a reasonable expectation of being able to attend swimming lessons and other activities, have days out and holidays occasionally and new clothes and school uniform when required, rather than the bare minimum. As well as living in a warm home with nutritious food.

In an ideal world, all children would have these things of course, but there is something particularly abhorrent about children going without when one of their parents is banking a fat pay check every month.

I have often wondered why there isn’t a system where when a baby is registered the parents NI number changes - maybe M1,F1, then M2,F2 and so on to keep a tally of the number rod children. Then in the event of a CM claim there’s no easy way to hide. The money is coming out of your wages, or if not it’s being paid against your points for your pension. If that means that someone has to work an extra few years before they get their pension well that’s just tough. They should have stumped up for their child when they were younger.

There is real view in this thread that higher earners either don’t exist, or shouldn’t have to pay commensurate with their earnings. On one hand we have people stressing the CMS is the bare minimum, this guy was paying CMS before he significantly dropped it (by much more than his earnings dropped) Yet everyone thinks he is paying too much

This. It's truly shocking how low CMS can go. However if a nrp is earning a lot, why wouldn't they share the benefits of that with their children, to allow them to have swimming lessons, nicer parties, a safer car or even to have a resident parent who can work fewer hours and be around more?

We'd all be very judgemental of a resident father who doubled his salary but didn't share any of the benefit with his children, so why should the children of separated parents have to live with the bare minimum just in case their mum might use the extra cash on herselfm?

I didn't chose 50/50 but still can't move.

@Busdriver81 Not true. Have you seen my previous post re my financial situation? I work ft but my earning potential is massively lower than my ex-husband's. And he refuses to pay for many things for the kids eg residentials and extracurricular activities. He lives in the former family home still, we're renting.

[quote MessAllOver]@LouJ85. Happy to agree to disagree and leave the point.

Your lived experiences have obviously given you a particular perspective on this. It's just that I think differently.

Best of luck to you and your lovely DC - they're lucky to have such a strong mum .[/quote]
Thank you! Strength and a determination to succeed are definitely the main qualities that have seen me through so far to where I am. I just hope I've done enough to instill those values in my daughter.

@LouJ85. I'm sure you have .

Forgive me my presumption (it comes from a well-meaning place and I genuinely don't mean any offence) - but please please teach her, as well as expecting a lot from herself, to expect a lot from her partner in life as well and not to settle for less than she deserves.

The message children receive when mum does 6/7 of the parenting and bears most of the financial burden is that caring is a woman's responsibility not a man's

So what about children raised solely by Dad ? That was my experience. I lost my mum in tragic circumstances aged 7. My dad was all my sisters and I had. So... by this logic, since my Dad did 100% of the care for most of my young life, I should have grown up receiving the message that women are useless and it's the man who bears the caring responsibilities. But I didn't. Several years later I became a mum myself and raised my daughter needing and wanting very little from her father.

Why doesn't it work the opposite way then?

@MessAllOver

Oh I don't need to worry about that I don't think - she currently thinks boys are stupid and would rather just be mates with them. She has about 3 or 4 boys chasing her at school and she just tells them all where to go. Hoping it lasts 😂

@HugeAckmansWife - How laughable - why use 300 p/c and not the child benefit rate ?

IMHO child maintenance should be focused more on clothes and food. The RP already benefits as they probably receive child benefit and universal credit if eligable

IMHO child maintenance should be focused more on clothes and food.

So children of divorce aren't entitled to days out, extracurricular activities, school trips and many of the things which make childhood special? Even if their parents have plenty of money?

@Busdriver81 50/50 and I receive nothing. He claims CB for one son (although over threshold so he should be paying it back to gov) and I get no UC as I work ft.

@LouJ85. I am so sorry for your loss. Your dad sounds fantastic.

Imo it is different to lose a much loved parent in tragic circumstances to having one who can't be bothered to contribute to your life. No less traumatic, though, I imagine.

I think there should be a minimum amount of at least £300 p/c with maybe an extra mandatory £150 per additional child (random numbers, insert whatever was deemed reasonable). If the NRP does not or cannot pay that, then the Gov does and it is racked up as a debt to the NRP
Do you pay this to the to though? From the age of 5, they too should bring in that much in addition to the minimal for herself (andg her other kids) or benefits become a loan?

Because both are responsible financially. Totally unworkable.

@HugeAckmansWife

I think there should be a minimum amount of at least £300 p/c with maybe an extra mandatory £150 per additional child (random numbers, insert whatever was deemed reasonable). If the NRP does not or cannot pay that, then the Gov does and it is racked up as a debt to the NRP. Where the CMS amount would be higher, that is the minimum amount owed and likewise paid by the Gov and chased by HMRC if the NRP fails to pay. Arrears should not be written off. That is money owed to the child. In a properly funded service individual cases of hardship could be properly assessed and the debt forgiven but the child still gets the funds. The money is FOR THE CHILD, not the RPs "lifestyle" as so many NRPs like to moan.

There has been some absolutely bonkers stuff on this thread but this deserves particular mention. You couldn't do this without accepting that the first £300/£450 etc of state support for any parent/person is a loan that is repayable, whatever the circumstances.

@HughAckmansWife. I agree with this:

I think there should be a minimum amount of at least £300 p/c with maybe an extra mandatory £150 per additional child (random numbers, insert whatever was deemed reasonable).

There is too much discussion here about what is "fair" to the parents and whether the RP should be working or not, and not enough discussion about ensuring that the children's reasonable needs are met.

If the RP is living in poverty, the children are too. There's no escaping that fact.

[quote MessAllOver]@HughAckmansWife. I agree with this:

I think there should be a minimum amount of at least £300 p/c with maybe an extra mandatory £150 per additional child (random numbers, insert whatever was deemed reasonable).

There is too much discussion here about what is "fair" to the parents and whether the RP should be working or not, and not enough discussion about ensuring that the children's reasonable needs are met.

If the RP is living in poverty, the children are too. There's no escaping that fact.[/quote]
Just playing Devil's advocate - who would be ultimately responsible for determining what the child's reasonable needs and costs are each month? For example you mentioned earlier that children should be able to enjoy days out as these make childhood special. What if one parent thinks this, while the other disagrees that this is a necessity? This happens all the time in couples who are together - they disagree at points about what to spend the money on; what's a necessary expense and what isn't, etc. Who had the final say on the child's reasonable expenses if you moved away from calculating based solely on NRP's income?

I specifically said that those numbers were random to generate an example.. busdriver I earn about 5k less than my ex because he climbed the ladder when I was at home part time, he shares his bills with his now wife. I pay more than 2/3rds of our childrens' expenses. He simply does not see their sports clubs or music lessons as necessary, he has never done so much as buy them a new pencil case when I have spent hundreds on uniform and kit. CB helps but the clue is in the name, CHILD benefit. All my money goes in and out of one account.. I don't have time to parcel it up but I'm fairly sure any wine I buy comes out my earned money.. Is that OK? Or do I have to use 100% of my salary on the kids unlike the nrp that's gets to keep 80% of theirs?

I think a child who has a parent on £50k should have a lifestyle close to what they would have if they loved with that parent.

It will never fully match up, but I do think this child should have the basics met plus the extras they would expect.

There should be money for a few after school clubs, swimming lessons etc. The odd day out aswell. I am not talking an amusement park every month, but Occasional treats like days to trampoline parks, trips to cinemas, ice skating etc.

The resident parent should be worrying of they can afford to buy (Reasonable) gifts for the school mates birthday parties.

For a family with an earner on £50k plus this should be affordable.

Which is why the child support is linked to income.

The levels so nrp pay are shocking and this should be addressed. £23 a month is shocking.

[quote Busdriver81]@HugeAckmansWife - How laughable - why use 300 p/c and not the child benefit rate ?

IMHO child maintenance should be focused more on clothes and food. The RP already benefits as they probably receive child benefit and universal credit if eligable[/quote]
This is nonsense. There are plenty of single parents that earn just above benefit level. So the other parent shouldn’t pay due to their non existent benefit. The money is for the children, the majority of RP are not pissing money away going to Disney alone every year. I notice the threads here are all about rp not working etc but I don’t believe that is the norm.

Child benefit does not cover half the cost of bringing up a child. It is merely a top up.

Why should the NRP get to swan off and not contribute fairly to their child?

@Ideasplease322

So what about the parent who pays the amount calculated by CMS and not a penny more, but uses that extra income he has to take the child on days out himself, on his own contact time? Or treats them to nice meals out, new clothes etc, when he sees them on his own contact time? In those circumstances are you suggesting that extra money should be re distributed into mum's hands so she can decide how it's spent instead? Just trying to understand your perspective.

My partner fits into the category of being a higher earner ( not quite 50k but close). He does as I've described above - he pays what he is supposed to pay according to the CMS calculator, and with additional funds he treats his kids when he sees them with the extra money, so that he can enjoy that time with them. E.g. he took them on holiday this August with some of the extra money. Had he given that to their mum, he wouldn't have been able to do that himself.

So I'm just curious as to your views in that situation.

is that not contradictory? If your ex has them I assume he has to feed them etc? Which is why I advocate 50/50 then the costs are the same and neither parent are losing out financially

Ermmm...no. He has them every other weekend. I pay for everything. All he does is feed them 2 out of 14 days.

The RP already benefits as they probably receive child benefit and universal credit if eligable

What if you're not eligible? What then?

I notice the threads here are all about rp not working etc but I don’t believe that is the norm

The statistics on single parents working are that the majority are in work rather than not working. Obviously not all resident parents are single and not all single parents are resident parents.

As for 50/50 costing the same. Nope. Not in my experience. Not by a long shot.

I think if the RP is having to fund far more than 50% of the child's expenses so that the nrp can play Disney dad 4 days a month then that is not OK, especially if it means the RP can't treat them or even herself occasionally. Funnily enough, kids are a lot less excited about new school shoes than they are about days out and whilst they might eventually 'get it' when they are much older, it's not much consolation during the decade or so that nrp gets to have all the fun while the RP makes them eat their greens.

My comment was in defence of the cms payment increasing with earnings.

A lot of people on this thread have said OP is paying too much, Abut he is paying the cms calculated amount.

There were a lot of comments about how people get a lot less, so OP shouldnt pay four hundred odd pounds a month to the resident parent.

My point is the child of a higher Earner (and I realise £50k isn’t a huge salary) should have an everyday life that reflects their parents earning, not having to rely on benefits or free school meals.

Also it seems unfair that the resident parent would get a tiny amount from non resident parent to cover food and clothes and then have to rely on them to pay for after school activities, presents for birthday parties etc.

It must be lovely to be the parent who can treat the kids on the weekend, and this is fine as long as the resident parent can also afford to give a reasonable lifestyle. One parent can be roster than the other - that’s okay.