What would you think of a father in this situation? Is it the system or does it reflect more on the man?

[moralduty]

Man pays over £1000 per month for the lease hire of a luxury brand new car and pays a quarter of this for his two children with his ex. This is calculated by the CMS. He doesn't pay towards school uniform or any extras, just the calculated amount. How does this system work? Do they really think that teenagers cost less than £10 a day? Is it fair that a father can spend four times as much a month on his car than his children? I know that some don't give anything at all and that's worse but the system stinks.

[Jux]

Men need to shun men who behave like this. I have heard far too many men down the pub showing off how little they've got away with "paying the ex" while spending freely on themselves, and seen far too many other men laughing with them, as if it were a good thing.

MEN need to treat selfish bastards like pariahs.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

@DumplingsAndStew

I see from *@Loveacoseynightin* posting history that s/he has a real issue with NRPs contributing towards the financial upkeep of their children, with such gems as thinking RPs are "raking it in", NRPs shouldn't have to pay maintenance if the RP is receiving benefits as he is already paying tax, he shouldn't have to do both, and of course the good old line that RPs keep all the money for themselves and nothing is spent on the child.

I stopped reading after two threads, as the excuses for a man to reproduce then fuck off their financial responsibility sickens me.

Funny that because I looked at her posting history and on one thread she says she herself is receiving £400pm maintenance from her ex! The hypocrite.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

[quote Loveacoseynightin]@DumplingsAndStew what a load of tosh. The system is broken for all. The RP has the power and they use it to their advantage. If it wasn't about money most RPs would allow 50/50 but dress it up as "not in the child's interest".

I think people who don't provide for children should be called out for it but it is not black and white and nobody can answer what should a NRP pay for each child[/quote]
How many dads actually want 50/50? My ex certainly doesn't. He says he can't with his work.

And 50/50 actually is not always in the best interests of the child, especially younger children.

[angieloumc]

Pure greed on £400 a month? Hardly.
In a ideal world maybe 50/50 would be the way to go, however logistically speaking it's often impossible.
My DD's father travels for work, often overseas. She's 16 now but at the age of say 10 she could hardly be going if to the States with him in terms time just so he could have his 50/50.
Loveacosynightin you seem very bitter towards RP's, that's a shame as most RP's are doing the very best they can.

[BlackeyedSusan]

Things we have had to buy for our children: (ex is not a twat with money)
Beds
Mattresses
Wardrobe
Chest of drawers
Book case
Desk
Chairs
Computer monitor, mouse, keyboard, (printer, printer cartridges)
Pillows
Pillow cases
Duvet
Duvet covers
Sheets
Laundry liquid
Running the washing machine extra times
Extra washing up liquid and hot water
Extra cutlery and crockery
Food
Drinks
Soap
Shampoo
Conditioner
Hot water for shower
Combs
Hairbrush
Deodorant
Phones
Phone case
Screen protectors
Chargers
Charger cables
Headphones
Electricity to charge phones
School cost £400worth of equipment (cheapest) per child
Replacement pens,pencils,glue sticks,notebooks, ear buds, crayons, ruler, set squares calculators
Books
Replacement school shoes
Replacement trainers
Paper for homework
Extra electricity for lighting their rooms
Lamp
Bath mat as they are not as good at keeping water in the bath
Towels
Cost of extra rooms
Extra hoovering
Loo roll
Cleaning products to clean loo more often
Pocket money
Larger car to fit them in
Extra car tax
Petrol to transport them to school
Extra car insurance
More wear and tear and depreciation on the car
More wear and tear on fixtures and fittings in the house
Replacing white goods and appliances more often as they are used more often
Larger pans to cook bigger meals
Got an extra key cut
Extra heating ( I can manage without, kids can't)
Larger fridge/ freezer
Shopping more often: petrol or delivery charge
Hospital parking charges
Kids medicines
Clothing and shoes (even charity shop or supermarket can build up in cost)
Toys
School lunches or packed lunch items and lunch boxes
Food tech ingredients
Toothpaste and toothbrush
Vitamin d supplement

These are just the basic extras that children require.

Interestingly it costs more than a £1 a day on school costs without having to replace anything.

[DumplingsAndStew]

Broken for all... except your partner's ex, who is "raking it in" 🙄

[Loveacoseynightin]

@DumplingsAndStew what a load of tosh. The system is broken for all. The RP has the power and they use it to their advantage. If it wasn't about money most RPs would allow 50/50 but dress it up as "not in the child's interest".

I think people who don't provide for children should be called out for it but it is not black and white and nobody can answer what should a NRP pay for each child

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

@forinborin

If they're earning enough to not be entitled to cb, over 50 grand, they're not destitute.
That is what always shocks me. Even if the mother is not destitute - by the way, she can be - in London 3K net salary a month will cover only basic housing at market rate and full-time childcare for one pre-schooler / wraparound and holiday care for two school age children without subsidy - with no money left for food, bills, commute costs, clothes or anything.

But why, why the father is not expected to contribute if the mother can afford it herself?

i didnt say theyre not expected to contribute

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

[quote rosemary35]@TrustTheGeneGenie That’s interesting, because I was actually imagining it as if the mum earns the same or more (my situation). Where in my post does it assume the mum earns bugger all?

So you think it’s inevitable that things change - mum suddenly has to cover full bills, full mortgage, full wrap around care etc on her salary, and dad only chucks a couple of hundred at them a month, so they have to give up their hobbies? I don’t think it’s fair that one parent (usually dad) can absolve themselves of responsibility for their children like that.[/quote]
mum suddenly has to cover a full mortgage and bills - and? so does dad presumably? unless he lives on the streets.

like i say in an ideal world everything is fairly shared but people don't always do that do they?

i dont think its fair one parent can absolve themselves of responsibility - but thats not what i was suggesting should happen anyway.

[DumplingsAndStew]

I see from @Loveacoseynightin posting history that s/he has a real issue with NRPs contributing towards the financial upkeep of their children, with such gems as thinking RPs are "raking it in", NRPs shouldn't have to pay maintenance if the RP is receiving benefits as he is already paying tax, he shouldn't have to do both, and of course the good old line that RPs keep all the money for themselves and nothing is spent on the child.

I stopped reading after two threads, as the excuses for a man to reproduce then fuck off their financial responsibility sickens me.

[DIshedUp]

@Loveacoseynightin sorry what? Why shouldn't a NRP pay for their child's clubs?

Why would you deny your child activities to spite your ex? Its such a nasty attitude

Yes if you can only afford £15 a week on food then it will have to do. But if you have the money why on earth would you deny your child normal activities like football, gym, dance? Its hardly like the RP benefits from brownies is it

[Loveacoseynightin]

[quote DumplingsAndStew]@Loveacoseynightin

This is the problem less money to cover 2 homes but the NRP payment of his home is never factored into paying for his children.

Don't be ridiculous. Do you know what percentage of a NRP income is expected to be paid for child maintenance if calculated via CMS? Between 12 and 19%. This is further reduced dependent on how many nights the NRP has the children, and how many other children they are 'responsible for. How is discounting a minimum of 81% of a NRPs income indicative of not allowing the NRP to pay for their own home?[/quote]
I understand that the NRP has 80 percent of wage available but that wasn't my point.

My point is when a RP says the NRP is only paying the minimum from Child Maintenance the reality is they are paying more but only the minimum to the mother(I'm not including them that don't want to see their children). For example my DP ex gets 400 a month but always want more. It is pure greed.

The NRP still has to provide a home for their children and still has to pay for stuff but that is never accounted for by the RP. They think they should have the money.

Ironically as well when SD leaves an item of clothing the mother is soon expecting the item of clothing "she brought" returned as a matter of urgency. Did she buy it or should that be my Dp contributed to it.

[DIshedUp]

Surely a decent parent wants their child to do after school activities? School trips? Warm home? Safe transport etc.

Yes maybe you wouldn't die on 15k a year, but its not going to be much of a life for a child. Why would you deny your child say ballet lessens when you are spending 1000s on a car?

I judge anyone who resents paying for their child tbh. Why should the NRP only pay for an absolute basic standard of living for their child if they can afford more? Why would you do that to your child?

[DumplingsAndStew]

@Thatisnotwhatisaid

I know someone who gives his ex £270 a month for three children so less than £100 per child per month. No extras at all and he barely sees them, certainly doesn’t have them overnight. He always sends his ex a text saying ‘the calculator said I only had to pay £210 but I’ve sent £270’ as if he’s doing her a favour... Wanker.

Children only get more expensive as they get older. My older three DC are all in adult sized shoes now so their trainers and school shoes cost enough alone.

I receive £35 per week for two teenage children. They don't stay with him at all, but this is the same payment he made when they used to stay once a week (I think its been 3 years now) It's pitiful how little some parents pay for their children.

[DumplingsAndStew]

@Loveacoseynightin

This is the problem less money to cover 2 homes but the NRP payment of his home is never factored into paying for his children.

Don't be ridiculous. Do you know what percentage of a NRP income is expected to be paid for child maintenance if calculated via CMS? Between 12 and 19%. This is further reduced dependent on how many nights the NRP has the children, and how many other children they are 'responsible for. How is discounting a minimum of 81% of a NRPs income indicative of not allowing the NRP to pay for their own home?

[Thatisnotwhatisaid]

I know someone who gives his ex £270 a month for three children so less than £100 per child per month. No extras at all and he barely sees them, certainly doesn’t have them overnight. He always sends his ex a text saying ‘the calculator said I only had to pay £210 but I’ve sent £270’ as if he’s doing her a favour... Wanker.

Children only get more expensive as they get older. My older three DC are all in adult sized shoes now so their trainers and school shoes cost enough alone.

[BraveGoldie]

OP, you haven't said how much the kids are with him?

[WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo]

Because the clubs are for the kids not the ex. They aren't linked to access and neither should they be.

What about when the ex refuses to do more than 4 hours 'care' per week? Should he pay more than 50%

[arethereanyleftatall]

Well yes, rather obviously if it's 50/50 care, then it's 50/50 costs. That isn't what my post referred to. It's to all the posters suggesting 50/50 costs without knowing anything about who is looking after the children most of the time.

[Loveacoseynightin]

@arethereanyleftatall

All the posts about the resident parent should pay HALF the costs are only correct if the RP is not doing any more childcare than the NRP. If the RP has to work less due to childcare then the NRP needs to pay more than half.

Why should the NRP be at the mercy of what the RP chooses on what to do?

I'm a big advocate of 50/50 care for precisely this reason.

Why should a NRP pay for club activities etc when the mother won't allow 50/50 access. You cant have cake and eat it. This is the problem less money to cover 2 homes but the NRP payment of his home is never factored into paying for his children.

[arethereanyleftatall]

All the posts about the resident parent should pay HALF the costs are only correct if the RP is not doing any more childcare than the NRP. If the RP has to work less due to childcare then the NRP needs to pay more than half.

[forinborin]

If they're earning enough to not be entitled to cb, over 50 grand, they're not destitute.
That is what always shocks me. Even if the mother is not destitute - by the way, she can be - in London 3K net salary a month will cover only basic housing at market rate and full-time childcare for one pre-schooler / wraparound and holiday care for two school age children without subsidy - with no money left for food, bills, commute costs, clothes or anything.

But why, why the father is not expected to contribute if the mother can afford it herself?

[AerisAsh]

@Iwonder08

I judge both parents. I judge a father who is hiding money in dividends or deliberately choosing to become a stay at home parent to the new/step kids or choosing a low paid job when there are other options.
I also judge a mother who doesn't belive she should contribute financially their half for her own children. Quite a few choose not to work or have a little part time job.

Do you think all mothers choose to not work or work less?
Who will look after the children of the RP goes off doing what the NRP is doing?
Maybe they have to work less hours to look after their children.

[DumplingsAndStew]

@Iwonder08

I judge both parents. I judge a father who is hiding money in dividends or deliberately choosing to become a stay at home parent to the new/step kids or choosing a low paid job when there are other options.
I also judge a mother who doesn't belive she should contribute financially their half for her own children. Quite a few choose not to work or have a little part time job.

Where on earth does the OP suggest the mother doesn't feel she should contribute towards her children??

[Iwonder08]

I judge both parents. I judge a father who is hiding money in dividends or deliberately choosing to become a stay at home parent to the new/step kids or choosing a low paid job when there are other options.
I also judge a mother who doesn't belive she should contribute financially their half for her own children. Quite a few choose not to work or have a little part time job.