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?

Providing basic child maintenance is literally the bare minimum any parent should do for a child they helped to create, regardless of how much RP earns.

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

I agree in this situation because the children could benefit even more from their parents pooled wealth.

I just don't agree that a multimillionaire RP who doesn't need £5 a week from their ex on benefits should always take it out of principle. At the end of the day, that could be the difference between your children having some additional at their NRPs when they visit them that they wouldn't otherwise have. If it didn't make any difference to your home and your children's lives with you, I personally wouldn't take it.

This is assuming it's a NRP that bothers to see their children of course, if he's an absent father that's very different.

It doesn't matter if the RP is a millionaire, for a NRP to not pay their due on CM is irresponsible and makes them the shiftiest of shitty people IMO

Beside the sad fact is that m the amount of millionaire RPs is basically negligible. It's almost always women RPs and non paying NRPs are almost exclusively men. Children in this country are owed £4billion by their NRPs and its men getting away with it because the CMS system is outdated and steeped in misogyny and SO many people (including women) are sheep and think 'poor men' at the thought of them having to fork out anything. They also think "what a great dad" at men who do the absolute bare minimum

Morally, yes I think it's right that the NRP pays maintenance.

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

This isn't always as true as people on MN seem to insist.

An RP will have a disproportionate share of the costs, yes. But the children are not 'free' to the NRP.

In many cases (not all, I'm aware) both parents have to house the children. This is a FT cost regardless of how often the children actually have contact. The NRP also needs to clothe the children and feed them and so on during contact. This can add up to considerable costs.

Maintenance is supposed to alleviate the imbalance where the RP is paying more for clothing and feeding and so on more of the time. And to cover the cost of things they may end up paying (like school uniform and trips), although some families do share those costs.

MN is not kind about NRPs who don't provide a 'home' (with bedrooms and clothes and toys etc) to their children from a previous relationship. But also seems to forget that it does constitute part of 'paying for your children'.

(For the record, I receive child maintenance. But I also know how much my husband pays in maintenance and what the costs we have for for housing/clothing/feeding/entertaining his children are. So I'm not trying to take an MRA type stance on this. I just think it's easy to miss the full picture on it.)

The earnings of the RP have no bearing on this. My dh is a high earner. My wage is pretty decent, but nowhere near the level of his. If we split and our kids went to live with him, and at the age they are they could very well choose to do just that, I would still pay whatever I could towards their upkeep. I don’t think DH would want it, he certainly wouldn’t need it, but I could not live with myself for not contributing towards my own dc.

I have zero respect for anyone who objects to contributing to their own dc’s upbringing for any reason, and I think it is a national disgrace that so many people get away with paying the frankly pitiful bare minimum.

*without even paying

I see it as - it should apply the same as if they were still one household. So if one parent earnt £100k and the other earnt £20k, the person with £20k would still be expected to chip into the family pot for food, bills etc - they don't just to keep it all as pocket money just because they're earning less (at least, that's not the normal approach for the vast majority). But this then needs to be balanced out with the fact the RP and NRP have the children for different amounts of time. So either way, the NRP should contribute to the raising of the children, with maintenance paid if the RP has the child for a lot more of the time than the NRP. YANBU. There's not some magic threshold where the NRP suddenly earns enough to pay - and it's the CMS' job to determine that anyway, it's not up to them.

In a fair world nrp should be paying 50% of the cost of raising their child (ren). If the rp is very wealthy and the nrp is really struggling then they can come up with a private agreement but nrp should be contributing if not with money, with time and ideally kids would have 2 parents who play active roles in their lives

Yes, of course, every parent should pay equitably towards their children. Dh and I are married, but I wouldn't expect either of us to not contribute to paying for the care of our children just because the other is earning well. I can't see how that would be any different if we were to divorce. If anything, it's more important because the RP, presumably, retains most of the costs but without the advantages of sharing household expenses with another working adult.

@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.

Same here. And if it meant he struggled... boo fucking hoo. It would make up for the years I've struggled* working full time, juggling dc, having to have plans a b and c in place because he's so flaky at turningupfor contact, and paying for everything without even a penny from him.

*actually it wouldn't "make up" for anything. But I'm that petty

My ex-'D'-H was very abusive. We split when DS was a pre-teen.

I think he was angry that I finally pressed charges and he was prosecuted. As soon as his suspended sentence was up, he moved country to return to his parents (no rent/bills).

He didn't / hasn't contributed a penny towards DS's upbringing. DS has never wanted to maintain contact, but he does speak on the phone most weeks to his grandmother (my ex-MIL). She sends DS £20-£30 for his birthday/Christmas. I don't know if she's embarrassed by her son's behaviour (he's never discussed), but I know I'd be mortified.

Thankfully I earn a good wage and have been able to provide DS with a very comfortable lifestyle by myself.

@FishyFriday

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.

Assets and capital appeared after the divorce here, there was nothing to divide at that time. Yes, that is exactly what the issue is here - he has no taxable income officially.

@HareNamedMare

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!

No, no, not multimillionaire territory here unfortunately. Ex pretty much decided to live the rest of his life as he wants to, which does not include paid work - but he does not have time to spend with the children either.

Assets and capital appeared after the divorce here, there was nothing to divide at that time. Yes, that is exactly what the issue is here - he has no taxable income officially.

Had he hidden them? Or was it an inheritance or something?

@FishyFriday

Assets and capital appeared after the divorce here, there was nothing to divide at that time. Yes, that is exactly what the issue is here - he has no taxable income officially.

Had he hidden them? Or was it an inheritance or something?

Yes, later inheritance (unexpected, not from parents).

@minniemomo

In a fair world nrp should be paying 50% of the cost of raising their child (ren). If the rp is very wealthy and the nrp is really struggling then they can come up with a private agreement but nrp should be contributing if not with money, with time and ideally kids would have 2 parents who play active roles in their lives

My DP has he children almost 45% of the time during which he supports them entirely, as he's technically NRP he has to pay maintenance that is realistically beyond what it costs he ex-wife to provide for the few extra days the children are with her. The combination of supporting the children while they live with him and maintenance paid to his ex-wife means he actually pays for more than 50% of the children's costs. This is despite his ex actually earning slightly more than him and him agreeing to give her the FMH. Sometimes the RP is actually getting more money than they need which then prevents the NRP from doing anything extra with the children. The whole system needs a rethink.

I don't understand this thread really,

A parent should financially support his or her child regardless if the RP earns well or not. It's not a choice to "opt out" just because the RP may be able to manage without their financial support. They brought the child into this world and they need to contribute to supporting that child.
If I was minted (which I'm not) and didn't need CM from my ex - I would still expect it to be paid, I'd probably put the money in a savings account for my child's future instead.

I don't take any payments off my ex. I can easily afford life and want him to be comfortable with his wage too for my daughter when he has her. I stopped taking it when my now husband moved in as I would literally be profiting off him and it didn't sit right for me. He has bills etc to pay. Has to have a big enough house for our daughter and doesn't get any support. If we are ever in a financial position to not be able to claim family allowance I would allow him to claim that too. I have a really good relationship with him though and want him to thrive not struggle. We split xmas/birthdays/clothes/uniform fairly though as well as any school costs. My daughter sees 2 people who get on and respect each other and to me that is more important. Also to note he earns more than me so is not like I am a big earner.

@thisisnotwhatisignedupfor I agree it needs reformed. For me NRP who want 50/50 should have it granted (unless there are safeguarding issues) if NRP don't want to do that much then they pay maintenance to support their children. If the RP refuses the 50/50 share they should not be able to claim maintenance. I cannot stand people using kids as pawns or being too selfish to share. Contact is for the children not the parents and I see too many cases of the RP not wanting to share and seeing the children as their possession and not a joined commitment.

I will be hated by many but I honestly think the system doesn't work for so many reasons. Non payment should have harsher punishments and refusal of access should also have the same repercussions!

Every year I wait with anticipation to discover how much nrp has managed to get the cm reduced by, strangely has never gone up inspite of promotions and adding £200 a month to the rent of the rental property he has. He feels obviously that the £5 per child a day is sufficient contribution. So far he has managed to get it reduced by £50 a month in past couple of years, he won't stop until it is as close to zero as he can make it, coz he is an absolute dick.

Also annoys me when people can't see the hidden costs to RP eg I dont pay childcare because i take/pick kids up from schools and clubs, but it does mean I can't work longer hours because kids can't do activities at weekend because ex won't take them so they all have to be on my days and at my expense both monetary and time wise. The activities are beneficial to the dc but not beneficial to my career/pension/income/outgoings.

I have two children with one ex, and two with another. My first ex used to make it his life's mission to get his payments reduced. It was actually worse when it was the CSA as they didn't use HMRC to confirm income but he tried anything and everything to get lower payments because he felt that as a high earner I didn't need the help. He worked full time and didn't earn much less than me and had the kids EOW to begin with. He's never not paid though and he has got better over the years at buying them things. Still wont split a single big expense with me, such as a school trip.

My second ex refused point blank to pay a single penny on the basis that he earned £20k less than me, and it took me ten months to get a DEO through CMS and they take it from his wages. What's amazing is that he works in social housing and spends all day advising people about priority debts. I have the kids 100% of the time, they haven't seen him since we split up and he feels therefore he has given up all responsibility and that raising them should be my financial burden which he shouldn't have to contribute to.

I have been fortunate in that I can provide for my children, but very unfortunate to have found two men who both believed that me earning more than them entitled them to either not pay or pay less. I think the amount of stories I read about NRP using all avenues to get out of supporting their children financially are disgusting quite frankly, and the RP earning more than them is just another excuse (millionaire RP's aside!)

[quote Qwertyyui]@thisisnotwhatisignedupfor I agree it needs reformed. For me NRP who want 50/50 should have it granted (unless there are safeguarding issues) if NRP don't want to do that much then they pay maintenance to support their children. If the RP refuses the 50/50 share they should not be able to claim maintenance. I cannot stand people using kids as pawns or being too selfish to share. Contact is for the children not the parents and I see too many cases of the RP not wanting to share and seeing the children as their possession and not a joined commitment.

I will be hated by many but I honestly think the system doesn't work for so many reasons. Non payment should have harsher punishments and refusal of access should also have the same repercussions![/quote]
50/50 isn't always in the best interests of the children though. It's not about what the parents want, it's about what is best for the child. I am a child of divorced parents and would have absolutely hated being forced to spend 50% of my time with my dad, I was never close to him, he's the type that would have forced it out of spite as well. Each individual case will be different and should be looked at on an individual basis.

Everyone who has a child, whether resident parent or non resident, should contribute towards the costs of raising their child. Regardless of whether the RP can afford to pay for everything.