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?

Are you asking whether it is ok for the NRP to not pay towards his/her children? No, of course they should contribute. The children are half theirs. Ideally the costs would be half theirs but even where that’s not feasible it should still at least be the CMS amount.

Why should a NRP only be responsible for paying for “essentials”? And who gets to decide what’s essential - ie how many pairs of shoes does a child need? Are swimming lessons for fun or an essential life skill etc?

NRP should pay AT LEAST the minimum amount set by CMS. If they can afford more then they absolutely should pay more, whether that’s directly to the resident parent or by taking up more of the slack on activities, clothes etc.

Any NRP who tries to wriggle out of supporting their DCs by moaning about how the RP spends it should be ashamed of themselves. Vanishingly few RPs would use the money for anything other than making sure their DC are ok.

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.

Agree. I would have found it much harder to split my time 50/50. I had a good relationship with my father, but was better off being with my mum more of the time and having her house as a "base" (EOW and one day a week with my dad).

NRP needs to pay regardless of the income of the RP in my view. What a bad message for his or her child if they don't pay any support.

This annoys me so much. He probably won't have to pay a penny. My ex hid all his earning via his Limited company. I got sweet FA.

Grinds my gears and something should be done about the policies and procedures.

Did make it easier that I earn well.. but feel more sorry for the people on benefits who's exs screw them over.

Maintenance is based on NRP income. In your case he has zero income. It's worth asking a lawyer if taking him to court will get you anywhere.

Of course. Parents should provide for their children. I don’t understand why anyone would question this.

RP's income is irrelevant. Maintenance is about the child's non-resident parent supporting the child - as a parent.

I always thought the RP contributes through the childcare so the NRP contributes financially. If shared care both parents provide for child when child is with them but surely all activities, (not childcare), and school trips etc should be paid half each by both parents.

I think children have one life that they live 100% of the time, and which costs money 100% of the time. This is regardless of what the contact arrangements are. Too many people seem to only focus on the % of the children’s lives that is relevant to their particular argument.

NRP should always contribute. If they work there should be a maintenance payment.

But I do agree that there should be consideration to situations where the RP is a higher earner or has significant assets / capital or has perhaps kept the family home and is finically healthy etc. - if the NRP is a lower earner who had to leave the family home and now has to rent and support a house on a reduced wage I definitely feel like there’s a case to look at the whole picture and not just one income bracket.
I don’t believe in black and white, so there should be processes in place for situations which don’t follow the more common narrative.

The whole maintenance governance needs looking at - loop holes need to be closed and cracked down on because it’s mostly men taking the piss but there also has to be an admission that some NPRs are at a distinct disadvantage when they have to leave the family home and provide another home for the children whilst also paying maintenance to a RP who doesn’t work, claims benefits and top ups etc.

it doesn't matter if the RP is a millionaire - it doesn't absolve the NRP of responsibility for their children. Ever.

I am a teacher so not wealthy but have 'enough' to provide for DC. I get £29 a month as ex claims UC, despite owning a business but all cash in hand and never paid tax so CMS dont do anything. He was taken to court by them in 2019 but still not seen a penny. He has openly said to me he wont pay them off and CMS wont do anything cause of the UC. I make sacrifices and go without to ensure I can pay for clubs, uniform, holidays, etc. He has another kid on the way so I'm sure pathetic amount will reduce even more.

Absolutely agree with the pp who said why does cms only cover 'essentials'? All that does it leave it up to the RP in many cases to provide all the many many many things that most decent parents would want for their kids, like hobbies and clubs and bikes. These are a normal part of childhood but not quite 'essentials'. Also, the nrps costs are laughable in comparison to the RP if its an eow type arrangement.. They need a fraction of the clothes, toys, general stuff AND most crucially, they are not subject o the hidden costs of bring restricted by childcare needs. I can't seek a promotion, take on more shifts etc because I have the children and can't have a live in nanny. My ex could, if he wanted to, double his income because he doesn't have those constraints. It's v v complex and really the solution would be an enormous injection of funding to staff the cms properly so each case COULD be assessed more fairly and accurately. At present, the 'banding' of nos of nights works v much against me as ex has them just over 52 so gets to pay the lower rate. 52-103 makes it look like he has them up to 3 nights a week but he doesn't. It's 4 a month plus half holidays when he doesnt work. If he actually had them 3 nights a week, he could conceivably be facilitating and paying for hobbies etc but it's not that, so the rate should be more variable, but that takes manpower and proper caseworkers.

If you have children you should pay towards their upkeep.

Heck he sounds like a great role model. Sounds like you are better off that he doesn't want to spend time with the kids. Yes, all parents should contribute towards their kids no matter who earns what. I dont think you would necessarily get anywhere taking him to court with how he has organised his finances so maybe ask someone knowledgeable first. BUT I would ensure that a case is open with the agency as if and when he does start earning a wage they can get him to pay and also back pay. Some wrongly think that once the child turns 18 they are not chased and earnings start to appear. But the agency will make them pay and give the parent back pay. Someone I know had this happen. He had always been self employed, once the child turned 22 his earnings significantly increased and they got him to backpay the parent (she was surprised as was not told it was coming and gave it to the child/adult).

I find some of the attitudes on here odd. I read a thread once where a woman had got pregnant by a very high earner and he was paying the cms maximum but it was a fraction of what he earnt. Because she was still a student, it meant that they would still be living very frugally and she was going to struggle. The overwhelming response was at least he was paying and it was more than most people got. I still find it odd that people were ok with a father swanning around in his private jet to one of his 4 mansions while his child is brought up in a tiny flat. It just doesn't seem right to me.

I think non resident parents should contribute what they can afford to, whether the resident parent needs it or not

Yes but 'what they can afford' according o whom? My ex bought a fuck off big TV a month or so after he reduced his maintenance payments. I'm not saying all nrps should be on the bones of their arse but it's an almost impossible task to quantify what's 'affordable' just as its v difficult to arrive at an amount that should be a reasonable contribution. Even with reasonably amicable exes, it's v v difficult

I think non resident parents should contribute what they can afford to, whether the resident parent needs it or not
That seems like a contradiction. What if your example is switched and it the RP with the 4 mansions and the child is in a one bed flat eating beans on toast during their time with their NRP? Does the RP still take the maintenance on principle or do they look at their child’s life as a whole and say “my child needs that money in the NRPs home more than they need it in mine”?

@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.

Jesus Christ why?

In my mind you're essentially ensuring your child has a shit time with the other parent.

Unless it literally is a multimillionaire / penniless situation, it should still be paid, and if it just buys nice things well then that's a lucky child.

@Ohpulltheotherone

NRP should always contribute. If they work there should be a maintenance payment.

But I do agree that there should be consideration to situations where the RP is a higher earner or has significant assets / capital or has perhaps kept the family home and is finically healthy etc. - if the NRP is a lower earner who had to leave the family home and now has to rent and support a house on a reduced wage I definitely feel like there’s a case to look at the whole picture and not just one income bracket.
I don’t believe in black and white, so there should be processes in place for situations which don’t follow the more common narrative.

The whole maintenance governance needs looking at - loop holes need to be closed and cracked down on because it’s mostly men taking the piss but there also has to be an admission that some NPRs are at a distinct disadvantage when they have to leave the family home and provide another home for the children whilst also paying maintenance to a RP who doesn’t work, claims benefits and top ups etc.

All this.

I earn well and I also expect maintenance. I can easily live well without it, but that’s not the point. I also expect NRP to pay for half of costs for clubs, childcare uniform and shoes in addition to regular maintenance. He also earns well - why should he not foot the bill proportionately? She isn’t more my child than she is his child.

For the principle, TrusttheGeneGenie, and no other reason. It's an entirely hypothetical situation, but no compromise.

That's up to you then and you're entitled to your opinion, HareNamedMare. You certain won't change mine though!

@Youseethethingis

I think non resident parents should contribute what they can afford to, whether the resident parent needs it or not That seems like a contradiction. What if your example is switched and it the RP with the 4 mansions and the child is in a one bed flat eating beans on toast during their time with their NRP? Does the RP still take the maintenance on principle or do they look at their child’s life as a whole and say “my child needs that money in the NRPs home more than they need it in mine”?

I think the principle of children having an equal lifestyle across both parents only counts when the dad has to pay the mum. Plenty on here would have kids eating beans in a bed sit every other weekend to prove a point

I'm not convinced that child maintenance even should be about maintaining the lifestyle for the children that they'd had previously or across the two homes. In most cases, that's impossible anyway. The same money stretched across two homes will never maintain the same lifestyle.

What it should be doing is trying to balance out the costs of the children a bit. It's to cover the mismatch in contact time (and therefore the living expenses of the children). There are expenses FT for both households but also ones that vary and fall more to the parent with greater contact time. If a NRP has the children 40% of the time, the maintenance is really to cover their half of the additional 20% of time the RP has them. And also the more sporadic expenses that tend to fall to the RP - haircuts, etc.

In some cases, what might appear to be a 'more comfortable' lifestyle for the NRP comes from the efforts of a new partner. For example, my husband and I have a large house with a large bedroom each for his DC. This is only possible because I had assets and the equity from my previous house provided the deposit (and paid the various expenses like stamp duty) to buy this house. Plus I have a good job with a decent salary. He wouldn't be able to provide them with the lifestyle they have here without me. It's not my problem that their mother chooses not to work and cannot provide them with, for example, a bedroom each. Their father shouldn't need to make up for a disparity in lifestyles that's mostly due to my assets and income.

Let's face it, people would be up in arms if I took the (very weird) view that we should be matching the lifestyle they have at their mum's or that would be possible without my contributions. Just imagine if we decided they needed to share a bedroom while we could afford one each, and refused to take them abroad on holiday on that basis.