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?

@TheKeatingFive

Go on then give us some creative ideas

Non traditional housing options, house shares, jobs with accommodation attached. In the longer term I would expect a NRP with very limited job prospects to skill up so that they can provide to a reasonable degree.

Non traditional housing options? like?

house shares where you cannot feasibly have your kids overnight? sounds like a brilliant idea.

I would expect anyone who was struggling to try and "skill up" but as we all know, it's not simple, or fast.

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

How would it punish them? And they aren't owed it. They haven't covered the shortfall in my income or gone without.

How would it punish them?

by ensuring their other parent has less money and so can provide less for them while you are just banking it?

it is their money - it is for them, not you.

@EnoughnowIthink

Go on then give us some creative ideas

@TrustTheGeneGenie

Wow. So men ((because it is mainly men) shouldn’t have to work out how to support their kids, but the women left without maintenance should have to make the money magically stretch. And then when she asks on here what to do about the la ck of stretch, she’ll be told to get a better paid job or just do something, anything.

Creative ideas? I teach. Full time. I tutor. I exam mark. I write for an educational publishing company. I teach summer school. In fact, I created a summer school so I had some additional income. I do surveys. I do some work for Appen. Why is doing all of that my responsibility whilst my poor ex gets to live on his £100k plus income and plead poverty? Sure, I have ‘enough’ money but on what basis should I have had to all that whilst he does nothing?

People like you are a massive part of the problem and are the reason why children grow up in poverty. Absolutely vile.

Sorry, what?

People like me? Go on, tell me what kind of person i am when i have said more than once that i DO think maintenance should be paid.

I just think there should be more consideration when there is a huge imbalance, as i have already said. Perhaps if you read it instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have got that.

I'm not saying anything is your responsibility and i am CLEARLY not talking about men who earn 100k a year and dont pay, i am talking about v poor NRP's who literally cannot afford to rent a flat that fits their children in, not ex's like yours.

This is half the issue, you cant have a conversation about this without being accused of being "the problem" and accused of supporting rich men who dont pay for their kids. That is NOT what i am doing.

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.

Money needs to be where the children are, that’s the short and long of it.
A pound spent on them is a pound spent on them, regardless of who earned it or who spent it.
This Genies point. Better the NRP has it to spend on them than the RP just stashes it and they go without.
Absolutely not a Dickheads Charter to just not provide for your kids, just an acknowledgment that “providing” doesn’t necessarily mean “give money to the RP”.

Non traditional housing options? like?

I know two or three people who’ve lived on boats, some with children. People live in mobile homes. There are alternatives out there. Think outside the box.

house shares where you cannot feasibly have your kids overnight? sounds like a brilliant idea.

If it’s literally the only way you can provide for your kids, then yes that’s a reasonable price to pay in my book.

Look, if you brought kids into the world and then you play to ‘wah, wah, can’t live on 85% of my income’ card, then you should be doing something to change that. It’s a pathetic position.

@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 thing is that the system you are talking about did keep children in poverty. The maintenance would go to the government and there'd be no real benefit to the child. It wasn't a great system.

The problem you're describing is one where the expectation is on the NRP to provide to make up for an RP who is relying on benefits. That's not a good situation and there needs to be much better support to help women who've been SAHMs retrain and get back into the workforce so that they don't need to rely on an ex. And there should be an expectation that childcare is always a shared expense.

That's not to say that child maintenance should not be paid where contact is not equal. Just that it is not a good situation where women are often struggling financially, unable to get back into the workforce and reliant on their ex for money (especially when the ex is a dick or unreliable).

Thing is, whatever the system is, it won't suit everyone. My husband's ex decided that she hated a proper 50-50 arrangement where she actually could have worked and only ever needed to use after school and breakfast childcare twice a week (and could use the childminder he was employing). She did not want to work. Does not want to work. She'd much rather have maintenance and not work. The ridiculous thing is that him paying her maintenance is cheaper than childcare was for the 50-50 was. It's not even that they'd had an agreement that she would just be a SAHM. She decided she didn't want to return to work or upskill (he offered to support her to do this) and he'd recognised he couldn't make her even when they were together.

He's not giving her more than the CMS rate though because it's nearly £700 a month anyway and she's entirely motivated by avoiding having to pay for herself in life. That £700 more than covers his half of the 20% difference in contact time between the parents. Let's face it, his children do not cost £7000 a month (based on scaling that contribution up to a FT rate with both parents providing equally) - plus the additional costs we have in providing bedrooms and clothes and food etc (and that's nearly £1000 a month, most of which is additional mortgage costs for the extra 2 bedrooms).

I think she's an unusual case though. Most women don't want to be financially dependent on their ex if they can avoid it.

But anyway, I don't think a return to the original CSA system is a great idea. There are much better ways to help alleviate child poverty. And, frankly, both parents should always be sharing the costs of their children. The issue is how to ensure this happens in a way that works for everyone.

Look, if you brought kids into the world and then you play to ‘wah, wah, can’t live on 85% of my income’ card, then you should be doing something to change that. It’s a pathetic position.

Does this only apply to NRPs?

Or should we tell all the RPs that they need to stop whining about their pathetic position and think creatively?

Sometimes life circumstances are much harder than you seem to imagine. There isn't the kind of support to help adults improve their earning potential as you seem to imagine their is. This is a big issue for society as a whole.

@Youseethethingis

Money needs to be where the children are, that’s the short and long of it. A pound spent on them is a pound spent on them, regardless of who earned it or who spent it. This Genies point. Better the NRP has it to spend on them than the RP just stashes it and they go without. Absolutely not a Dickheads Charter to just not provide for your kids, just an acknowledgment that “providing” doesn’t necessarily mean “give money to the RP”.

yes, thank you this is what i was trying to say, but you said it much more eloquently!

It doesn't matter if the RP is a millionaire. The child has 2 parents who should be responsible for him/her.

@TheKeatingFive

Non traditional housing options? like?

I know two or three people who’ve lived on boats, some with children. People live in mobile homes. There are alternatives out there. Think outside the box.

house shares where you cannot feasibly have your kids overnight? sounds like a brilliant idea.

If it’s literally the only way you can provide for your kids, then yes that’s a reasonable price to pay in my book.

Look, if you brought kids into the world and then you play to ‘wah, wah, can’t live on 85% of my income’ card, then you should be doing something to change that. It’s a pathetic position.

i can see the threads now lol "should i let my kids go stay with ex because he lives in a house boat and i am worried how safe they are"

"my ex lives on a caravan site and its freezing and whatever else should i let my kids stay"

i think this is what people dont think about, but it happens a LOT - there are threads on here a lot because kids dont have their own bedroom, or the ex sees the kids at their parents because they live in a shared house.

Its not easy starting again for either party, but we should acknowledge that and not just pretend it is only ever mum who has it hard.

What i think really WOULD help both parents is if there was more support for childcare, for everyone.

It would allow women to return to work more easily, they'd have better opportunities and there would be much less of this "i had to give up my career to raise kids and so he could better his" - nobody should NEED to do that. If you both agree that, fine, but it shouldn't be a situation you end up in because you're better off.

I also believe that there's an issue with men being seen as parents in general. For example dp put in a flexible working request and got denied - his employer could not grasp why on earth HE would need to pick up his child from school.

There needs to be better options - and better options for sorting out finances and contact because yes the CSA are shit, and going to court for access isnt much better imo.

The thing is there will always be arseholes in the world and i dont know that people like that ever change.

i think this is what people dont think about, but it happens a LOT - there are threads on here a lot because kids dont have their own bedroom, or the ex sees the kids at their parents because they live in a shared house.

Its not easy starting again for either party, but we should acknowledge that and not just pretend it is only ever mum who has it hard.

I completely agree with you.

And I can imagine the threads about the houseboat or shared accommodation. MN would be absolutely behind there being no overnight contact.

Earnings on either side are irrelevant. If you have a child, regardless of how you feel about the other parent, you should want to make sure your child is fed and well cared for with every fibre of your being. Those who don't regardless of how much they earn are spineless twats who quite honestly should be sterilised because they aren't fit to be parents. You should never be keeping anything from your child out of spite towards the other parent.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

What i think really WOULD help both parents is if there was more support for childcare, for everyone.

It would allow women to return to work more easily, they'd have better opportunities and there would be much less of this "i had to give up my career to raise kids and so he could better his" - nobody should NEED to do that. If you both agree that, fine, but it shouldn't be a situation you end up in because you're better off.

I also believe that there's an issue with men being seen as parents in general. For example dp put in a flexible working request and got denied - his employer could not grasp why on earth HE would need to pick up his child from school.

There needs to be better options - and better options for sorting out finances and contact because yes the CSA are shit, and going to court for access isnt much better imo.

The thing is there will always be arseholes in the world and i dont know that people like that ever change.

I agree with this too. The system is not brilliant.

And there is little you can do about the total arseholes. Sadly it sounds like the OP is dealing with one of them. And the system isn't set up to do much about his behaviour.

@ClarkeGriffin

Earnings on either side are irrelevant. If you have a child, regardless of how you feel about the other parent, you should want to make sure your child is fed and well cared for with every fibre of your being. Those who don't regardless of how much they earn are spineless twats who quite honestly should be sterilised because they aren't fit to be parents. You should never be keeping anything from your child out of spite towards the other parent.

But if you're a millionaire, right, and your ex is skint, like properly skint, earns min wage rents etc, and you demand maintenance off them just because you can, which means your kids go without when they are with your ex, is that you making sure that your child is fed and well cared for with every fibre of your being? because in my book it is not.

Yes, the ex should work harder, do better, whatever else, but as we all know, that takes time. I would want my child to be comfortable when with my ex - and i wouldn't take maintenance if that meant that the ex could do nice things with the child when they had them, feed them properly, have the heating on etc.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

What makes you think that all NRPs have their children or spend time with their children?
Some do not support their children emotionally or on a daily basis like RPs so the least they can do is provide for them financially. They only have to pay a percentage if the go through the CMS so they still have enough money to live on.

I am better off than my ex and the CMS constantly have to chase and try to find him to get something set up for payment. He has not seen his son for years since he was tiny. Do you think because he's on minimum wage or renting that he should not contribute?

He has run up thousands not paying for his child and I expect every penny of it for my little boy.

“ house shares where you cannot feasibly have your kids overnight? sounds like a brilliant idea.

If it’s literally the only way you can provide for your kids, then yes that’s a reasonable price to pay in my book.”

And that sums up part of the problem. They would advocate a dad not being able to have his kids overnight if the payments made this happen. Money is more important than kids and dads relationship

[quote AerisAsh]@TrustTheGeneGenie

What makes you think that all NRPs have their children or spend time with their children?
Some do not support their children emotionally or on a daily basis like RPs so the least they can do is provide for them financially. They only have to pay a percentage if the go through the CMS so they still have enough money to live on.

I am better off than my ex and the CMS constantly have to chase and try to find him to get something set up for payment. He has not seen his son for years since he was tiny. Do you think because he's on minimum wage or renting that he should not contribute?

He has run up thousands not paying for his child and I expect every penny of it for my little boy.
[/quote]
What makes you think that i think that?

I don't think that, i have never said that i think that.

Again, your ex is not the kind of person i am talking about here, and i have made that very, very clear.

I am not sure why you have even suggested that i dont think your ex should pay. I would suggest you read my posts again.

But if you're a millionaire, right, and your ex is skint, like properly skint, earns min wage rents etc, and you demand maintenance off them just because you can, which means your kids go without when they are with your ex, is that you making sure that your child is fed and well cared for with every fibre of your being? because in my book it is not.

Yes, the ex should work harder, do better, whatever else, but as we all know, that takes time. I would want my child to be comfortable when with my ex - and i wouldn't take maintenance if that meant that the ex could do nice things with the child when they had them, feed them properly, have the heating on etc.

Yes they should still pay something, even if it's a small amount. If you feel you are competent enough to bring a child into the world, then you do not have the right to bugger off and leave the expense to someone else, even if they are a millionaire. They might not always be one. You help pay for the child, even if you are left with nothing at the end of the month.

And you have stated that the poorer parent shouldn't pay by what you said above. You wouldn't expect it, so you don't think anyone else should.

The kid however will find out about these things, and very rarely will they be that interested in that parents life when older. A parent who opts out for whatever reason, doesn't pay, doesn't spend time with the kid, they will likely end up abandoned by the kid. And I don't blame the child at all. If my parents did that to me, left my other parent in the lurch and left me without food or whatever, damn right I'd never speak to them again either. All it shows is they care more about themselves.

@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.

But the situation I was asking about in this topic is precisely where the RP does not get any benefits, and is working for income. Not a penny, not even child benefit or childcare subsidies, everything is paid out of that parent's salary income.

@ClarkeGriffin

But if you're a millionaire, right, and your ex is skint, like properly skint, earns min wage rents etc, and you demand maintenance off them just because you can, which means your kids go without when they are with your ex, is that you making sure that your child is fed and well cared for with every fibre of your being? because in my book it is not.

Yes, the ex should work harder, do better, whatever else, but as we all know, that takes time. I would want my child to be comfortable when with my ex - and i wouldn't take maintenance if that meant that the ex could do nice things with the child when they had them, feed them properly, have the heating on etc.

Yes they should still pay something, even if it's a small amount. If you feel you are competent enough to bring a child into the world, then you do not have the right to bugger off and leave the expense to someone else, even if they are a millionaire. They might not always be one. You help pay for the child, even if you are left with nothing at the end of the month.

And you have stated that the poorer parent shouldn't pay by what you said above. You wouldn't expect it, so you don't think anyone else should.

The kid however will find out about these things, and very rarely will they be that interested in that parents life when older. A parent who opts out for whatever reason, doesn't pay, doesn't spend time with the kid, they will likely end up abandoned by the kid. And I don't blame the child at all. If my parents did that to me, left my other parent in the lurch and left me without food or whatever, damn right I'd never speak to them again either. All it shows is they care more about themselves.

even if that small amount doesnt help the children at all, because it makes their life worse in one home? Thats what i dont get.

It doesnt benefit your child so why would you be happy with it?

The issue is that its seen as money owed to the other parent and not money to make the childs life as a whole better. You know when people say maintenance should keep the child in their prev lifestyle? well if thats the case, it ought to work both ways, no?

i am NOT saying that every poorer parent shouldnt pay, stop willfully misinterpreting what i am saying - but in circumstances WHERE IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CHILD - it should be considered.

as a child whos father did not pay, i am all too aware of how one might feel on learning that. However, "dad didnt pay because hes a selfish twat and spent all his money on holidays and coke" is quite one thing, and "dad didnt pay maintenance because mum had quite a bit more money than dad, and dads cash was better spent on ensuring that you had a lovely time when you saw him" are two very different things.

If you would happily explain both those scenarios to a child in the same way - then youre doing a disservice to your child.

with this bit

" If my parents did that to me, left my other parent in the lurch and left me without food or whatever, damn right I'd never speak to them again either. All it shows is they care more about themselves."

youre sort of agreeing with me.

If the richer parent demands money off the poorer parent. leaving the poorer parent unable to feed their child - thats the same isnt it?

but why are people saying its not? it is?

it seems like the childs welfare only matters in the RPs house? why is that?

TrustTheGeneGenie because it's a straw man argument. You need to look at why someone is in that position. Is it genuinely the best they can do. Lets be honest how many people does it actually affect. If the father is genuinely doing the best for the child then yes I and many others would have sympathy however it would be a very very rare situation that it would happen in that the nrp was a pauper without a spare penny no matter how carefully they budgeted and the rp was a millionaire. So rare that it sounds like a fantasy just to prove rp do not need or deserve maintenance.

@Justforphoto

TrustTheGeneGenie because it's a straw man argument. You need to look at why someone is in that position. Is it genuinely the best they can do. Lets be honest how many people does it actually affect. If the father is genuinely doing the best for the child then yes I and many others would have sympathy however it would be a very very rare situation that it would happen in that the nrp was a pauper without a spare penny no matter how carefully they budgeted and the rp was a millionaire. So rare that it sounds like a fantasy just to prove rp do not need or deserve maintenance.

Why they are in that position?

One big reason is because usually they move out of the family home and dont have very much to show for it.

It's absolutely not rare or a fantasy, and its extremely dismissive to even say that it is.

Maybe you have a very affluent circle of friends but MANY people have minimum wage jobs. Who do you actually think does them? Only people without children?

Maybe everyone you know has beautiful houses, and can sell and buy an adequate house for each parent. Again, not the reality for most people.

Its insane that in a time where people are losing their jobs left right and centre you actually cant imagine a situation where an NRP is really struggling.

Its funny because someone says an RP is struggling, it is believed without question. You say an NRP might be struggling, well how can they be, they should get a better job, do better etc etc.

Or should we tell all the RPs that they need to stop whining about their pathetic position and think creatively?

I think you’ll find they are thinking creatively, because the have to. They can’t just financially wash their hands of their kids.