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?

And lets remember, and NRP on minimum wage likely wont get any benefits and if they do it will be a pittance, because they're not classed as having dependents. They will be last on the list for council accommodation as a single (usually) man. They have to pay maintenance out of their wage - which if they're on minimum wage you've eradicated the chance of getting even a tiny mortgage.

They also have to provide somewhere that is safe for their children to visit and ideally stay overnight.

Its really not as easy as you think it is.

@TheKeatingFive

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.

Well perhaps those that need to are, but many get by just fine don't they?

Or are all RPs poor and creative?

but TrustTheGeneGenie the rp being a millionaire so not having to sacrifice anything at all for the children, not having to decide whether they will pay for this or that. I do understand that some nrp can struggle I'm not disputing that but it's the total and complete disparity that you are using, lets be honest if the rp is that wealthy then the nrp would have got more equity from the divorce and wouldn't have left it penniless.

Or are all RPs poor and creative?

Did I say that?

Of course not.

The point is that they don’t have the option of walking away in financial terms, so yes they get creative if they need to.

@Justforphoto

but TrustTheGeneGenie the rp being a millionaire so not having to sacrifice anything at all for the children, not having to decide whether they will pay for this or that. I do understand that some nrp can struggle I'm not disputing that but it's the total and complete disparity that you are using, lets be honest if the rp is that wealthy then the nrp would have got more equity from the divorce and wouldn't have left it penniless.

Yes i am sure millionaires are rare, but being well off enough that you don't have to sacrifice things is not as rare is it.

Well, if they were married, perhaps. If not who knows.

This is what i mean about a one size fits all system not working.

It needs to be more flexible - take every situation into account for the benefit of the child and not one parent or the other.

@TheKeatingFive

Or are all RPs poor and creative?

Did I say that?

Of course not.

The point is that they don’t have the option of walking away in financial terms, so yes they get creative if they need to.

I see. It's a bit different as the RP because presumably the other parent cant stop you seeing your children based on your "creative" housing situation.

because presumably the other parent cant stop you seeing your children based on your "creative" housing situation.

No one is being stopped from seeing their children.

They can see them without overnights. And if it means so much to them, they’ll find a way to provide for them and offer suitable accommodation.

@TheKeatingFive

because presumably the other parent cant stop you seeing your children based on your "creative" housing situation.

No one is being stopped from seeing their children.

They can see them without overnights. And if it means so much to them, they’ll find a way to provide for them and offer suitable accommodation.

But they are! as i said upthread we see threads here all the time regarding ex partners housing situations.

They'll find a way - right. So clearly money is much more important than parental relationships. Why am i surprised.

They can see them without overnights, but they get bitched at about that too - a man who only sees his kids 9-5 on a weekend and for tea would get the absolute shit ripped out of him on here.

Its like if an RP is in a shit financial situation its everyone elses fault but theres, and the other parent should pay for it, but the other way round, well fuck them its their own fault they dont have to have their kids overnight, they will find a way...

like seriously. Its actually embarrassing.

So clearly money is much more important than parental relationships. Why am i surprised.

Contributing financially to the child you brought into the world is a key defining characteristic of a decent human being, yes.

You don’t have to agree, but you aren’t changing my mind, so 🤷‍♀️

You can have a decent relationship with your children without overnights while you sort yourself out to offer more.

They can see them without overnights
Ever heard the phrase “might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb?”
Either a shit parent for not paying the other parent or a shit parent for not providing a suitable home. Either way the kids lose out and you’re shit.
And if it means so much to them, they’ll find a way to provide for them and offer suitable accommodation
Why does it mean so much to NRPs to take money they have said they don’t actually need, thus preventing their children from benefiting from that money during the portion of their lives spent with their NRP?

Contributing financially to the child you brought into the world is a key defining characteristic of a decent human being, yes
An NRP providing a home/food/clothes/transport is not getting these things for free. They are paid for. Financially. By that parent. So contributing financially to their child.
Maintenance is supposed to cover the difference for the parent who has them more. It does not (in the case of NRPs who provide the above) equal the beginning and end of their financial contribution to their child.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Why does it mean so much to NRPs to take money they have said they don’t actually need

It’s about the principles of taking responsibility, accepting consequences of actions and being a grown up.

Clearly some people don’t understand these. 🤷‍♀️

No, I don’t understand people who place their principles above the well-being of their children and I never will.

I don't know how you can say it's paying for extras. It's not. It's a financial contribution towards raising your child. The NRP has a responsibility to contribute to the costs of raising a child. It doesn't matter if the RP can afford it all by themselves - why should they? It's morally wrong to not contribute to the living costs of children you chose to rear

I am a grandparent carer who brings up the NRP's child and he does absolutely everything to avoid payment. Tbf, I am done with it all. It is with the fraud team for the second time.

Last year he said he was on benefits and clearly had applied but he was working. I simply rang his employer and asked to leave him a message they told me they would pass it on. I left the CMS number for him to call.

CMS refused to change the calculation as DWP said he was on benefits. Fraud team have now recalculated but he says he earns less as he is self employed.There are big arrears as well.

I have done my best for my gs but I have decided to call it a day. To be fair, the fraud team offered to try and negotiate a payment of the arrears and I agreed to take a lower figure. But he wont even do that.

It is the law that you support your child. What you earn as an RP should not come into it. I can manage but you have to remember others really need that money, not for themselves but for the children. Such a sad situation in this country where the organisation we rely upon to alleviate child poverty is so inept and so very slow. The staff seem very hardened in the job and a lot of them forget that their client base is children.

I don’t understand people who place their principles above the well-being of their children and I never will.

I don’t agree with this assessment of the situation and never will.

OP I absolutely agree with you and have been in a similar situation. I wish I had taken my ex to court. Am just finishing paying the parental contributions for my daughter's university costs, with not a penny contributed by her father. My ex also had 2 inheritances, has several houses, does not work etc. I hope it goes well for you. The strain on me has been immense over decades

I don’t agree with this assessment of the situation and never will
You can agree or not, but if you’re saying if you were in this situation that in principle you’d rather your ex’s money was in your bank account than paying for a home for your child I really can’t see what other conclusion there could be.
Let’s agree to disagree.

All parents should contribute to their child’s upbringing. End of discussion. It doesn’t matter if the RP is a billionaire. Your child should be provided for.

you’d rather your ex’s money was in your bank account than paying for a home for your child

Firstly, it would be ‘providing for our children’ rather than ‘in my bank account’ thanks. Interesting spin your wording puts on it.

Secondly, if he can’t pay minimal maintenance and maintain basic accommodation, my position is that he should be challenged to do better for his own children, not facilitated to think that’s ok.

I see it very differently to you.

Yes I do. And I don't agree with resident parents getting benefits when the other parent is well off. They should pay more and it should be means tested.

Absolutely the NRP needs to pay towards his / her child/children - the income of the RP shouldn't be relevant here.

It's both parents responsibility to pay for their children regardless of income.

Firstly, it would be ‘providing for our children’ rather than ‘in my bank account’ thanks. Interesting spin your wording puts on it
Not a spin, thought we were talking about people who’d said they’d just save the money because they didn’t need it. Even if it meant the kids were staying on a boat with their NRP
I guess I just think kids need provided for all the time, not just when they are with their RP. Who could morally think about doing better by their kids if this is their position as well as a worse off NRP think about earning more money.

I don’t think that I can have been reading the same threads that you have! I’ve only ever seen the opinion that NRP should pay CM based on their own income now the income of the RP.