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.

I think the point that the 'I feed my dc for 2p a day' brigade are missing, is that the father spends £1000 a month on a luxury car.
Of course we all have different spends for our children depending on each parents income. It's nonsense to say my child costs £x so everyone else's should. A child costs BETWEEN £x and £y.
I'm divorced and one of the things we both agreed on were that the children weren't going to be the ones who gave up their 'luxuries', but rather we were (first).

[quote GilbertsLuckySocks]@Susannahmoody Not facetious, no. I have a a teenager. She doesn’t cost me £10 a day.

Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit for one child is around £300 a month, so that helps towards the ‘£10 a day’ on top of the hundreds already received from the absent parent.[/quote]
Hundreds? It's £250 a month!
I'm fortunate that my DD's father (who is self employed and probably could wrangle less if going through CMS) isn't a dickhead when it comes to her. He pays a very good amount of £750, she gets spends off him and pays for extras.
We don't know OP's circumstances; I don't get CTC or CB so while I'm on a good salary I still expect her father to pay regardless.

@Waxonwaxoff0

I would struggle to feed DS on £15 a week and he's 7, let alone a teenager. School dinners alone cost me £11 a week and that's one meal.

Yep! I have a pre-teen boy who is shooting up and it's VERY hard to keep weight on him. People are so narrow-minded and can't see beyond their bubbles. My two wear adult sized clothing and shoes. The idea that children should be denied normalities of life because they have a parent who doesn't pay the best he/she can to support them is so mean-spirited, bitter, twisted and nasty it's fucking shamefully disgusting.

Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit for one child is around £300 a month, so that helps towards the ‘£10 a day’ on top of the hundreds already received from the absent parent.

What Child Tax Credit? That's a legacy benefit and has been for years now. It's UC now.

It's quite obvious from what the op has said that he's fiddling things to reduce his payment and that is what makes him a dead beat not the physical amount he pays. She says he's claiming he's paying maintenance for the children he lives with rather than getting his salary amount reduced, that would significantly affect how much he pays towards his eldest 2. If the car is paid via salary sacrifice that will reduce what he pays. It sounds like he's lying and doing everything possible to reduce his cms.

Everyone has different lifestyles and that's fine but I do get annoyed about the constant assumption that mothers get given benefits simply because they are a lone parent, it's stereotyping at its worst.

I'd judge the man very harshly indeed. Like I do with other men I know who don't pay proper child support and/or support their kids in other ways (parents eve/ taking to hobbies etc).

In my view we all need to get much more judgemental about this behaviour. Society should really recoil from men who do this. Plus the Gov getting tough tee like the US wouldn't go amiss either.

@HorridHamble - that's a massive loophole isn't it?! Ex-h moved himself from a decent salary to the absolute minimum and paid himself £££ dividends. Nothing anyone can do.

Fortunately now the DCs are adults they've got the measure of him but I really struggled while he lived the life of Riley and was 'too busy and important' to do 50-50. He chose to take them on amazing holidays once in a blue moon.

The system is hugely flawed.

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.

@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.

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.

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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%

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

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.

@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.

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.

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?

[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.

@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

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.

[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.

@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