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?

[GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing]

I have skin in this game! I earn well but exh earns a lot better. He got away with keeping our family home by EA and obstructing the sale, so yes I am going to make sure he keeps paying our court ordered maintenance (so above CSA minimum). I don’t really care if posters say I’m U though!

[AerisAsh]

I don't think it matters how much the RP earns or how much money they have. The NRP should pay towards their child regardless.

[rwalker]

Personally if I was RP and good income and standard of living, kids well provided for and didn't need CM .
I wouldn't claim CM and plunge NR into poverty .

[TheKeatingFive]

plunge NR into poverty

Why the dramatics? CM is calculated based on what the NRP can afford.

Personally I can’t even imagine not taking some financial responsibility for my children. Or facilitating the other parent to do so.

[MarkRuffaloCrumble]

@DrinkFeckArseBrick

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

Well whoever it was on that precious thread saying the dad was going his bit while the mum struggled clearly wasn’t a lone parent!

What sort of dad would Swan around in a private jet while his kid couldn’t even afford a bike? Some people FFs.

[MarkRuffaloCrumble]

Previous thread*


Arghhhhh!

[MarkRuffaloCrumble]

And *doing FFS I hate this phone

[TheLastLotus]

Both parents should be footing the cost of children equally. Just because RP can cover the cost doesn’t mean that NRP can get away scot free with not paying. As if you were both in the same house your joint money would pay for all, including child extras.
However if there’s a large disparity in favour of the RP - making NRP pay would

1. potentially reduce children’s standard of living when with NRP
   
2. not actually change the situation. If you were both still together richer RP would still be the one footing the bill as RP doesn’t magically have more money (except for maybe leftover from not having to rent on their own). If they weren’t pulling their financial weight when with you that’s not going to change when you’ve split up.

[flyingtartar]

My ex is 'poor' as he likes to tell the children and I earn well. I claim (and have finally started receiving about £120 per month for two kids after 5 years of nothing). I don't need it but it does help - I haven't got enough saved up for kids' uni fund and I will also need to pay ex £10k when ds2 is 21. This is the stuff that keeps me awake at nigh despite being comfortable from a monthly perspective. Ex wouldn't give a second thought to the kids' uni fund - he just assumes I'll sort it. Why should he waltz away with no financial responsibility?

Ex chooses to leave jobs when they piss him off, pisses money away on all sorts of pointless shit, smokes and drinks (quite a lot, though thankfully not around the kids) and is generally irresponsible. Why should I subsidise that shit more than I have to?

He has the dc about 8 nights per month but buys them NOTHING aside from the food they eat when with him. I've had phone calls to drop off pants when they are there despite him living opposite a supermarket.

I would not have put a claim in were it not for his refusal to discuss what sort of contribution he could make - his sense of entitlement pissed me off so much. I could never decide to leave my job as I've had enough the way he does. It's the sense of responsibility RPs have which is very hard to quantify, along with the hidden/minor but several costs that crop up here, there and everywhere.

And I can't believe the arrogance of the poster saying everyone should do 50/50 splits and the RP not be allowed to claim if not. Wtf? Children are not pay for view you know, as supporters of NRPs are so fond of crowing! Well, it works the other way too...

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

@CremeEggThief

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

No compromise even though it might hurt your children. Niiiice.

[bogoffmda]

For once the Americans have a better system than anywhere else.

Your child - you contribute to their upbringing - exactly like you would if you were a family.

[sampamsnan]

My dds NRP asked me recently if I really needed his maintenance and how much I have left over at the end of the month. Basically saying if there's anything left for anything other than food and basic clothes then I don't need it.

I disagree. Even if maintenance was a lot and the RP earns well, the money would mean the child's lifestyle could be dramatically improved. It doesn't matter if it's strictly needed or not, it's their duty (moral and legal) to pay an amount commensurate with their earnings towards their child no matter what the RP earns

[Empra123]

RP here and much the higher earner. There was never a suggestion that the NRP wouldn't pay. And to his credit he would never have thought of not paying - he has many faults but that's not one of them.

[Thatisnotwhatisaid]

Of course the NRP should ALWAYS pay maintenance unless they have 50:50 access. If you are not providing your child’s meals, electricity, water, gas, home, clothing, shoes, days out, school trips, childcare etc at least 50% of the time then yes, you need to give the RP maintenance. It’s literally the law, it doesn’t matter how much the NRP earns vs the RP. It’s also called being a parent? You should want to provide for your child, always.

[sampamsnan]

The posters saying that CM can "plunge the NRP in to poverty"... it's 15% of salary... surely anyone with a child should be paying 15% of their salary towards their child? It's a percentage. The RP doesn't have a choice. Why should the NRP?

[Cocomarine]

I think there’s a case for a moral decision over a legal one.

My XH and I earn about the same.

We both have the same fixed housing costs, whether I have them more or not (I do).

We both buy clothes for them - it’s not about covering essential clothes, we both are lucky to be able to buy clothes they want not need. He actually spends more on their clothes because he cares about brands.

I pay more for activities - but, they’re activities I’ve chosen to allow. It’s not like he suggests football and then expects me to pay.

So overall, even though I’m owed maintenance (an appreciable sum!) I don’t think it’s relevant in our case. Yes, I could save it for them - but his mum has given them each a 5 figure sum, so “his side” have contributed more to savings than me.

I would never judge anyone for claiming, but I’m happy with my decision not to - and think the CMS calculation would actually be more than half of my spending on the kids.

[SirPhillipsgroupie]

If you contributed gametes you contribute cash. I don’t care how much anyone is earning!

[devastating]

My ex gives me £60 for three dc but would have given me nothing if I hadn’t insisted - his argument being that I get tax credits.

He also gives the two eldest money (or from when they are 16 anyway) which does save me money, and comes to my house (long story and annoying ) several days a week to cook food for them while I am at work so I guess all in all his contribution is more than £60 a week.

He very much wasn’t going to give me anything though until I forced the issue.

So yes I think the NRP should contribute regardless of what the RP earns.

[dattenboroughiskingoftheworld]

@sampamsnan

The posters saying that CM can "plunge the NRP in to poverty"... it's 15% of salary... surely anyone with a child should be paying 15% of their salary towards their child? It's a percentage. The RP doesn't have a choice. Why should the NRP?

Interestingly a non paying parent can I've up to 40% of their income taken if they are in arrears. I was told this by a CMS investigator who is currently looking into my ex's high profit company (but surprisingly little declared on HMRC tax returns each year...) that he runs alongside his very low PAYE job. He has an attachment to earnings for double the calculated amount due to his level of arrears. I'm not going to feel guilt about that. He didn't care if I had enough to provide for the children when he withheld payments. I was resourceful, worked overtime, managed my finances quite tightly and the children didn't notice a change to their lifestyle at all. Now that maintenance means I don't have to do the overtime so I get more time with my children. He in the other hand chooses not to see them

[rwalker]

@TheKeatingFive
Why the dramatics? CM is calculated based on what the NRP can afford.

No it's a % irrespective of outgoings if you live in an area with high rent
there screwed a NR parent wouldn't be entitled to any benefits they can't afford to live there is no benefit safety net

[PheasantPlucker1]

rwalker the NRP only has to pay 15%

It amazes me the NRPs crying they cant survive on 85% of their wage never seem concerned with who should pay for the child to survive.

[TheKeatingFive]

No it's a % irrespective of outgoings if you live in an area with high rent

Well then they’ll need to get creative. The idea that they should be let off the hook of providing for their own child is sickening,

[themalamander]

Of course the NRP should contribute. If the resident parent earns enough to manage all the necessities and then the maintenance allows for fun extras, it means the child has a better quality of life. Similar to the quality they would have if they lived in a 2 parent household, and that's the point. Having a child isnt just about seeing the bare minimum provided and deciding that no more is needed. They need to pay, no matter what the RP earns.

[WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo]

My ex has never given a shit that I've been 'living in poverty' or that I've had to go without to make sure our dc don't. So I'll take every penny the CMS can get from him.
And before anyone says anything about them being "in poverty" at his house... he provides nothing for them there other than a toddler sized portion of lunch and dinner if they are lucky. On the rare occasion they sleep over i have to send everything. Even toothpaste and blankets.
So yea. If I won the lottery, or got a well paying job I'd pursue him for maintenance.

[TrustTheGeneGenie]

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

My ex has never given a shit that I've been 'living in poverty' or that I've had to go without to make sure our dc don't. So I'll take every penny the CMS can get from him.
And before anyone says anything about them being "in poverty" at his house... he provides nothing for them there other than a toddler sized portion of lunch and dinner if they are lucky. On the rare occasion they sleep over i have to send everything. Even toothpaste and blankets.
So yea. If I won the lottery, or got a well paying job I'd pursue him for maintenance.

More about getting revenge on your ex then?