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?

[Blakey24]

It really depends on circumstances but yes usually I would the nrp should still pay even if the rp earns a good wage particularly if they don’t have to provide during the week with food etc. School uniform, trips etc.

I’m not well off, far from it. But me and dp earn more than what my ex does. He still pays for DS (it’s a measly amount too) but he barely sees DS so doesn’t have to pay for food etc so yes he should.

[wineandsunshine]

Just out of interest op, how did you go about taking him to court re maintenance?

Private solicitor?

[JustLyra]

@TransplantedScouser

Probably because the way it’s set up now there’s no benefit to chasing it up.

If it reduced benefits paid to the RP I bet they would

I think it was liebour in the early 00s that changed the way it worked

If the rotors changed it now - as they should - they would be pilloried

That was also done before.

Governments of all colours have shown they have no inclination to chase non payers hard over the years.

The benefit to chasing it up now would be to the children, and to the coffers because of the fees. The will just isn’t there regardless of who the money is going to

[TransplantedScouser]

Probably because the way it’s set up now there’s no benefit to chasing it up.

If it reduced benefits paid to the RP I bet they would

I think it was liebour in the early 00s that changed the way it worked

If the rotors changed it now - as they should - they would be pilloried

[JustLyra]

@TransplantedScouser

They should have chased it and repaid the exchequer

They should have, but they didn’t bother.

The problem isn’t RP’s and their demands.

The problem is non paying NRPs, of which there is a lot, and a lack of political will to put any effort into chasing them down.

[TransplantedScouser]

They should have chased it and repaid the exchequer

[JustLyra]

@TransplantedScouser

What I find interesting is people have forgotten the original reason the CSA was set up.

Originally it was to cut the benefits bill - why was the tax payer paying benefits to RP's and the NRP not contributing anything. The NRP was made to pay so reducing the amount of benefits that needed paying.

Somehow it has morphed into the RP getting benefits, plus maintenance and the NRP not being allowed to take the payments into account when working out their own entitlement

If it went back to the original way of functioning then I think more NRP's would not mind. It is galling paying money over to give the RP a nice life plus benefits so that they don't actually have to go out and work themselves whilst doing everything they can to stop the NRP seeing their kids. This was the situation my DH was in until thankfully his kids turned 19.

The reason it changed its way was because of the lack of chasing payments from NRPs.

When RP’s on benefits were only entitled to take £20 a week and the rest was owed to the Secretary of State the debt owed to the SoS built to such a level that it was deemed that “something” had to be done. What was done was a trite “you can just keep it”.

NRP’s not paying was the sole reason it changed.

[TransplantedScouser]

“ The thing is that the system you are talking about did keep children in poverty. ”

The bigger crime is tax payers paying to keep others off spring. The original aim to reduce the benefits bill is the one I supported at the time.

What it has morphed into the originators of the csa would be devestated

Tax payer is on the hook for all benefits regardless of nrp contribution?

[bogoffmda]

OP -the RP does not demand maintenance. It is the Fathers responsibility to provide for 50% of his childs outgoings.

AM high earner and EX earns less than me and I do not need the maintenance- his first DP thought they should not pay but he did. Second lovely DP - totally gets he is responsible for 50% of their costs.

[PeterOhanrahahanrahan]

@SD1978

It's irrelevant if the RP earns well- the NRP should still be contributing as the child(ren) still have costs. Same as if NRP is a very high earner, they will be paying a percentage, but it's capped so won't be the same percentage as slower earning NRP.

I am the RP and a manager - not a huge salary but above average. NRP lives 200 miles away and works for the NHS. At CMS rates I could claim around £50 a week from her, but I don't because that would make it harder/impossible for her to buy a house, to run a car, to travel as frequently as possible, to have fun with them at hers. I don't see how making these things difficult for her by claiming at the CMS rate would be in the childrens' interest.

[SD1978]

It's irrelevant if the RP earns well- the NRP should still be contributing as the child(ren) still have costs. Same as if NRP is a very high earner, they will be paying a percentage, but it's capped so won't be the same percentage as slower earning NRP.

[Cheesypea]

I never chased the money as I wanted to put as much distance between us as possible. I decided to cut my losses, it was a tactical decision.

[PuttingOnTheKitsch]

@forinborin

I should have probably added in the OP that the situation is when it is affordable for the NRP to pay, they just don't want to. I don't know how the scenario turned to multimillionaire RP and disabled unemployed NRP in a bedsit who is prevented from seeing children.

In my case, the father quite explicitly states that since I have excess money for "hair and gin" (not exactly hair and gin, but similar), I have no moral right to ask him for any money for the children, as I am clearly driven by pure greed here. He also thinks we have an almost 50/50 care split, as he sees them for lunch + couple hours once or twice a month - as clearly only fun quality time counts as "care". Just saying this so I am not suspected of trying to push my ex into poverty.

Because there appears to be a few 2nd wives and possibly an NRP too, with an axe to grind on here.

Statistically women fare worse financially post-marital breakdown and there is a disgustingly high proportion of men who pay no money whatsoever towards their children. This website is absolutely full of such stories.

But no, let's all talk about the mythical dad on minimum wage and the millionaire ex-wife instead.

[FishyFriday]

@forinborin

I should have probably added in the OP that the situation is when it is affordable for the NRP to pay, they just don't want to. I don't know how the scenario turned to multimillionaire RP and disabled unemployed NRP in a bedsit who is prevented from seeing children.

In my case, the father quite explicitly states that since I have excess money for "hair and gin" (not exactly hair and gin, but similar), I have no moral right to ask him for any money for the children, as I am clearly driven by pure greed here. He also thinks we have an almost 50/50 care split, as he sees them for lunch + couple hours once or twice a month - as clearly only fun quality time counts as "care". Just saying this so I am not suspected of trying to push my ex into poverty.

Your ex is just objectively a shit.

[forinborin]

@worriedatthemoment

Yes nrp should pay but if he doesn't have regular pay not sure how they can make him
Do you mean he has property that he could sell ?
Why does he not work though to contribute to his kids

He doesn't have to work, so he is doing something more interesting with his life now. He has capital in the bank, plus a house bought outright, and will start drawing a good private pension in approx 15-20 years.
We had mediation, that's pretty much his position - you're a capable mother, I am sure everyone will be fine, fed and clothed.

[FishyFriday]

Maybe what your ex pays is a decent or reasonable amount though? And the term reasonable would vary for each person in terms of weather they think £150 a month for example is enough or not.

I think it's fine really. It covers a lot of the extras and sporadic expenses. And it saves us having to split the bill for all sorts.

I just don't know if it's whatever percentage of his income based on DS sleeping here most nights (11/14 during term time). But I'm not sure that's the relevant metric anyway, since I don't feed him half the time. He at his dad's for dinner as often as he is here. I'm not sure the additional wear on my bedsheets or the toothpaste and breakfast use are that crucial as factors. 😂

It’s not about you affording your life... it’s the principle why should you be the sole one to take responsibility? Why should any mother/parent for that matter.

But I'm objectively not. My ex pays to house, clothe and feed DS in his contact time. He takes him to his training and any events during that time. He does things with him. That's taking responsibility. And he does pay me maintenance (it's an objectively decent amount - but he does have a good job and DS's sporting hobby is pretty expensive!).

It just doesn't matter in our situation whether it's the CMS minimum according to The Rules.

[worriedatthemoment]

Yes nrp should pay but if he doesn't have regular pay not sure how they can make him
Do you mean he has property that he could sell ?
Why does he not work though to contribute to his kids

[forinborin]

I should have probably added in the OP that the situation is when it is affordable for the NRP to pay, they just don't want to. I don't know how the scenario turned to multimillionaire RP and disabled unemployed NRP in a bedsit who is prevented from seeing children.

In my case, the father quite explicitly states that since I have excess money for "hair and gin" (not exactly hair and gin, but similar), I have no moral right to ask him for any money for the children, as I am clearly driven by pure greed here. He also thinks we have an almost 50/50 care split, as he sees them for lunch + couple hours once or twice a month - as clearly only fun quality time counts as "care". Just saying this so I am not suspected of trying to push my ex into poverty.

[Bul21ia]

@FishyFriday

Do you know, I've never even checked to see if my ex pays the CMS minimum or not. (My husband is very irritated about this and insists it must be too little).

It just isn't important. I have a job. I can afford my life. The maintenance mostly pays for the sporting fees/equipment/competitions, school uniform, school trips etc. And the contact schedule is EOW, half the holidays and after school/dinner twice a week. It's not 50-50 in terms of where DS sleeps because DS wants to sleep mostly in one house (not in a different house every night). So I'm not convinced that the difference in our costs is significant (beyond that I pay for the big items, the one offs and the extracurricular stuff).

I'm not sure getting pedantic about whether it's the CMS minimum for his salary is reasonable. We are both providing for DS. That's what matters.

My DH is livid that I don't demand the calculation or an annual increase or whatever. But I'm not really interested in what my ex's salary is tbh.

Maybe what your ex pays is a decent or reasonable amount though? And the term reasonable would vary for each person in terms of weather they think £150 a month for example is enough or not.

It’s not about you affording your life... it’s the principle why should you be the sole one to take responsibility? Why should any mother/parent for that matter.

[Bul21ia]

@3peassuit

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

I’m with you on the principle point. I also often read people getting the smallest amounts of CMS and refusing to claim. I can understand their frustration but I would still claim you never know if things would change further down the line.

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

ah right @FishyFriday i see. Makes sense. I do think it is the better option, generally, if you can make an agreement between yourselves.

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

@TheKeatingFive

No its not, it's worked out on NIGHTS spent with the children, and only the paying parents income

So if the NRP has them a lot of the times and has a low income it won’t be very much then. So I don’t really understand why there’s such a resistance to them paying it.

If it works for the parents to put it in a fund for specific use for the kids then cool. It’s just about the NRP contributing what the system says is appropriate.

Lots of nights, yes, but as well all know, its very often not their choice what contact they get.

The resistance is if it doesn't benefit the child, why would you do it?

People seem to be missing that this is for the benefit of the child, not some kind of weird tax to the other parent which is often what it is treated like.

I cannot imagine getting pissed about my ex not paying £20 a week for instance when i didnt need it, and it would benefit my child if my ex had that little bit more money to spend on them directly.

[FishyFriday]

[quote TrustTheGeneGenie]@FishyFriday if your arrangement is through the CMS - they will recalculate annually, and they will tell you the figure per week that they calculate the payment from (which i dont agree with necessarily but they do!)[/quote]
It's not through the CMS. My ex and decided to do the radical thing and make an agreement that works for us and takes the full circumstances into account. You know, like adults who want to put our child's interests first.

[TheKeatingFive]

No its not, it's worked out on NIGHTS spent with the children, and only the paying parents income

So if the NRP has them a lot of the times and has a low income it won’t be very much then. So I don’t really understand why there’s such a resistance to them paying it.

If it works for the parents to put it in a fund for specific use for the kids then cool. It’s just about the NRP contributing what the system says is appropriate.

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

@FishyFriday if your arrangement is through the CMS - they will recalculate annually, and they will tell you the figure per week that they calculate the payment from (which i dont agree with necessarily but they do!)