AIBU?
Child maintenance where the RP is earning well?
forinborin · 28/04/2021 12:37
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?
AnxiousAnxiousChild · 28/04/2021 14:36
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.
FishyFriday · 28/04/2021 14:37
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.
Wishitsnows · 28/04/2021 14:38
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
FishyFriday · 28/04/2021 14:39
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.
HugeAckmansWife · 28/04/2021 14:41
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.
anon12345678901 · 28/04/2021 14:42
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.
CremeEggThief · 28/04/2021 14:54
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.
HareNamedMare · 28/04/2021 14:57
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!
HareNamedMare · 28/04/2021 14:59
@CremeEggThief
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.
Iamuhtredsonofuhtred · 28/04/2021 15:02
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)
1122bucklemyshoe · 28/04/2021 15:02
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.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.