Child maintenance where the RP is earning well?

[forinborin]

Several threads here recently on the child maintenance topics, and I noticed that the same argument is presented on many of them, by different posters - the RP gets benefits, so that should pay for the basic living costs. If the RP does not get benefits, it means they earn well and they can pay for all these costs without a contribution from the NRP. Everything NRP pays should be, effectively, gratefully received as a "top-up", but not expected / relied on.

So I wanted to ask the MN audience about a specific case of the above - do you think it is morally right for the RP who earns well (not wealthy - just bringing in a good professional wage) to still demand maintenance from the NRP? Even if it won't be used towards "essential" costs of childrearing. Most likely it will pay for activities, holidays, private healthcare - so optional extras.

I will admit I have a skin in the game, I am taking my ex to court over maintenance - he has means to pay (assets and capital), but no regular income for CMS purposes, so there's a nil assessment (he pays £1). I've been called unreasonable about this before, and maybe I am?

Not sure what you mean by "earns well" but as RP I earn a decent amount but pay all the bills on my own, including nursery fees. No, I don't think he should stop the fifty quid a week he gives me to help provide for our child - why would I?

The RP's earnings are irrelevant. The NRP should provide for theor child according to their income and means.

RP's earnings are irrelevant. NRP still needs to contribute. You don't get to opt out of financially supporting your child.

As the RP I earn well but that doesn't aliviate her dad from his responsibilities. I use that money to pay my childcare and for her swimming lessons and other after school activities, things that if we were together she'd get to do so why should she not do them just because we're not together and they're "extras"?

So no I won't not take it, despite it being £70 a month I don't really need.

Several threads here recently on the child maintenance topics, and I noticed that the same argument is presented on many of them, by different posters - the RP gets benefits, so that should pay for the basic living costs. If the RP does not get benefits, it means they earn well and they can pay for all these costs without a contribution from the NRP. Everything NRP pays should be, effectively, gratefully received as a "top-up", but not expected / relied on.

This isn't an argument I come across often on MN tbh.

Child maintenance is supposed to balance out the costs of the children where the parents have different amounts of contact. So a NRP should be paying some level of maintenance to an RP regardless of the RP's income. Obviously they should.

And RPs should not be "grateful" for contributions from NRP either. It is a basic expectation.

I think it's shocking when NRPs don't pay and I really judge them. Its appalling how some quit jobs or find ways to minimise providing for their child. I luckily have no experience of this personally but would have no respect for someone who tried not to contribute. Good luck

Your issue will be that the maintenance system is based on taxable income. If your ex has none, then he'll be assessed as having to pay you nothing.

I assume the assets and capital were already divided up in a divorce settlement.

It's a hugely imperfect system but it's also hard to have a system that works for all scenarios.

Absolutely not. There is literally no moral case I think of where an NRP should not contribute unless they are on disability benefit and literally cannot. Very very few RPs would be in a position where they could say the money is completely unnecessary and if it is, it can be saved for the child to use for car / uni / House deposit. The money is theirs and actually it should not be the RPs place to turn it down.

I earn a decent wage and I don't rely on his money, but I will take what is due for our child. Just because he left, doesn't mean he doesn't have to give any money for our child.
I've seen posters ask before, why is the ex demanding maintenance when they have a good salary, but i always look and think what a disgusting way to think. The non resident parent should always pay towards their child.

Yes they should still pay maintenance!!

Of course the NRP should contribute according to their means. The child deserves the best efforts of both parents both emotionally and financially. If you work hard and bring in a good wage it definitely doesn't absolve the NRPs financial responsibility.

Well if you believe that a parent has no responsibility for their child maybe you have a point.

Don't think anyone would agree with you though!

The RP’s income is irrelevant. The NRP should contribute. I would claim maintenance even if only for 50p on principle.

Yes, I do think the rp should get maintenance from the nrp, regardless of what the rp earns.

Non resident parent should pay. If they have assets but no income, that’s more problematic . You would need advice on whether they could be forced to sell up. Sounds like a massive dodge of responsibilities to me though.

What do you think the courts can do?

Both parents should contribute to the costs of their child.

If I were a multimillionaire as the RP and the NRP ex was on benefits, then I would still chase the money as a matter of principle. And I personally know exactly what it's like living a life on benefits and being in situations where you wait at the bus stop in the cold for an extra 20 minutes for the bus that's 20p cheaper to show up.

I know it's not a popular opinion on here but I don't think the RP earnings should always be irrelevant.

If the RP is bringing in a large sum and the NRP is getting by on beans on toast I think that should be taken into account. Not because I don't think the NRP has a responsibility but because time and time again we hear the argument that high earning NRPs should pay large sums of maintenance to 'maintain the children's lifestyle' in the RPs home. I don't see why the same doesn't matter the other way around. I, as a high earning RP, would rather a low earning NRP have spare money to enjoy with the children during their time together than pay, what would be to me, a small amount of maintenance for the sake of making a point.

But I don't necessarily think that sounds like your situation so perhaps that's irrelevant!

It's not just about being able to manage without it. It's about the child being able to benefit from a reasonably similar standard of living to if the parents were still together and pooling income - like saving and paying for extra curricular activities.

@CremeEggThief

If I were a multimillionaire as the RP and the NRP ex was on benefits, then I would still chase the money as a matter of principle. And I personally know exactly what it's like living a life on benefits and being in situations where you wait at the bus stop in the cold for an extra 20 minutes for the bus that's 20p cheaper to show up.

I personally think that's wrong tbh.

I'd rather a NRP have money to enjoy doing things with our children than paying me, a multimillionaire (I'm not unfortunately but for the sake of argument) maintenance out of principle.

Your children have to spend time in the home of this NRP, why would you want to make their time there such a huge contrast to their life with you? The likelihood is going from a multimillionaire household to one living on benefits is going to be pretty miserable.

If not paying me £5 a week I don't need out of principle, meant he could buy them some ice creams at the park instead that week, I would prefer my kids get to have the ice-cream personally 🤷 (I'm referring to the multimillionaire RP situation here).

It is the principle. I have a friend who is very wealthy, she has a good job and family money. Her ex has a six figure salary and pays not one penny to her as ‘she doesn’t need it’. I think it’s disgusting. She may not need it but that’s not the point. He can afford it and should absolutely pay for those children.

My ex is an abysmal human and awful father but he sees his kids twice a week and pays over the recommended amount of maintenance without complaining. He could also get away with mating zero as he has no earned income but large trust fund. However he pays and pays well. I respect him for that (grudgingly)

NRP should always pay child maintenance - amount based on what they earn and after can still afford to live and pay bills.

It's not about who earns what. It's about taking responsibility for your child and contributing financially to their upbringing.

RP will have a lot more costs associated with having a child than the NRP.

RP income is irrelevant, the NRP should pay.