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?

If they had a better system for insuring NRPs paid, then they could take away benefits but as it is, there seems to be no proper policing off payment so it's too unreliable.

TrustTheGeneGenie

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.

Provide less than what? He provides fuck all anyway. If its their money why don't they cms make him pay it to them? Its money given to me too provide for them. If I didn't need this (hypothetical) money I'd put it into savings for them.

Problem is, they often DONT provide for the children when they're with them. Taking the money and putting it in the RPs household can assure the money gets spent on the kids, even if that is for perceived "extras"

@TheKeatingFive

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.

Surely a decent human being would not try to get in the way of a parent's relationship with their child. Not try to prevent overnights (which are important) because the think the money that goes to the RP is more important than time with the other parent.

Many NRP would love to have their children more often but are unable to for all sorts of reasons. In many cases the RP doesn't want them to.

There is a very good reason why maintenance and contact are treated separately in the UK. Children have a right to a proper relationship with both their parents. Financial responsibilities are separate from that (and there is no reason a child needs to know anything about maintenance - I'd never discuss that with my son because it's not relevant to his relationship with his father).

Both parents should always be contributing both financially and practically/emotionally to their children. Maintenance to a RP is not the only financial contribution a NRP makes. And it's certainly not more important than the relationship with the child.

It's actually a bit scary that some people really do think that maintenance is what NRPs are for. And contact is just something they can have if they've enough money left over to house the children when they're with them.

Both parents should always be contributing both financially and practically/emotionally to their children.

That much we agree on

Maintenance to a RP is not the only financial contribution a NRP makes. And it's certainly not more important than the relationship with the child.

It’s a basic parental responsibility and I can’t have any respect for anyone who wants to opt out. As I’ve said before, the decent human being who wants to be a good parent will get their shit together quickly and I don’t think facilitating them to not pay the minimal amount set help anyone in the long run.

It’s a basic parental responsibility and I can’t have any respect for anyone who wants to opt out. As I’ve said before, the decent human being who wants to be a good parent will get their shit together quickly and I don’t think facilitating them to not pay the minimal amount set help anyone in the long run.

If the NRP is struggling financially then maybe the residency arrangements could be reconsidered.

Tbh, it probably wouldn't go down well if they offered to provide the bulk of the care for the children rather than the money. Indeed, then the other parent would owe them maintenance.

As i said, maintenance is not the only contribution a parent can make.

It’s a basic parental responsibility and I can’t have any respect for anyone who wants to opt out
Nor can I. That’s not what this particular argument is about though.

I don’t earn well but my ex is suppose to pay £7 per week through cms. I am cancelling it as I don’t need it, regardless of not earning well £7 per week doesn’t pay for anything and doesn’t impact on our lives and it’s barely noticed if it gets paid or not as it makes so little difference. For me I don’t get claiming when it’s pennies “on principle” I would rather claim nothing on principle but that’s just me. My ex doesn’t see our kids anyway (his choice) so just feels a bit petty forcing him to pay £7 per week, I would rather have a clean break and claim nothing. Maybe I would feel different if it was a significant amount that did actually did make a difference.

My friend has stopped all maintenance off her ex as thanks to covid he's trying to pay all rent and bills with £200 a week. She'd rather he be able to feed them when he has them....... They do have a good relationship tho. And he's always worked his working ours around hers so they both have equal days off and childcare covered.

So if it's a short term agreement I'd be flexible in a situation like that. But in all other circumstances men should be paying their way. It shouldn't just be women losing out all the time.

Everyone who creates a child should pay 50% of rearing costs

@Wheelerdeeler

Everyone who creates a child should pay 50% of rearing costs

Is that just 50% of the costs from an RP's perspective though? Or even 50% of the RP's costs generally?

Because that is generally what people mean when they say this on MN.

My ex has significant costs as a parent (he provides a bedroom, clothes, food, entertainment, etc for our son) before we even think about my costs and the maintenance he pays me. It would be ridiculous to ignore the fact that we both pay for our son. I just have a slightly larger share of the costs for food and electricity and such like. And I pay for his sport and school uniform etc. That's really what the maintenance covers - his contribution to that.

So all the posters who think the Nrp should pay nothing if the Rp earns more. Do you think it should work in reverse? That the Rp goes through a hard time, loses job etc. Should the Nrp start paying more? So 30 percent of there wages instead of 12?

Tbh, it probably wouldn't go down well if they offered to provide the bulk of the care for the children rather than the money. Indeed, then the other parent would owe them maintenance.

Won't happen in my case because he's a deadbeat but I'd be far better off because my maintenance would be less than I pay in childcare and activities. More money and more free time.

@Oswin

So all the posters who think the Nrp should pay nothing if the Rp earns more. Do you think it should work in reverse? That the Rp goes through a hard time, loses job etc. Should the Nrp start paying more? So 30 percent of there wages instead of 12?

I don't think that generally an NRP should pay nothing. I think all parents should be contributing fully (financially, practically, emotionally) to their children.

In some (probably quite rare) cases it may be that paying maintenance to the RP is more detrimental to the children's quality of life during contact than not paying it would be to their time with the RP. But in an ideal world parents would consider this and make suitable arrangements. It's certainly not a basis for designing the child maintenance system.

And I do think that there may be cases where it's more appropriate to reconsider the residency arrangements because care and time are as important a contribution as money. I think the all too common assumption that mothers care and fathers pay is not helpful for anyone. But I think many women would be very unhappy at the prospect of less time with their children (I wouldn't like to see DS less, but I recognise that I'm not his only parent and his dad loves him just as much).

@Wtfdoipick

Tbh, it probably wouldn't go down well if they offered to provide the bulk of the care for the children rather than the money. Indeed, then the other parent would owe them maintenance.

Won't happen in my case because he's a deadbeat but I'd be far better off because my maintenance would be less than I pay in childcare and activities. More money and more free time.

That's a different issue. And one the OP has too.

I don't understand people who swan off and never see their kids. They're often most likely to complain about paying for them too. And they're not contributing anything - financial, practical, emotional. They're just shit really.

The resident parent’s income is neither here nor there when it comes to child support, the NRP should be paying at least the minimum amount of child support set by CMS. Any NRP who doesn’t is without exception, a shit parent.

What frustrates me about threads about child support is for example “OP: my ex earns £80k a year, sees our 2 kids 2 nights a month and only pays £200 a month”. Which is shit. At least one reply will be “you should be grateful you get £200 a month because I only receive a fiver a month”. Or something. It drives me batty that we (RP) compete as to who has the rougher deal, sneering at others for complaining when they get more than us, when what we should be doing is uniting and condemning all the shit NRP for not providing for their children the way they should be. Those parents are a disgrace and so are the people who defend them.

So all the posters who think the Nrp should pay nothing if the Rp earns more. Do you think it should work in reverse? That the Rp goes through a hard time, loses job etc. Should the Nrp start paying more? So 30 percent of there wages instead of 12?
My DH offered his ex more money when she was made redundant. For his child. Similarly, ex was prepared for the maintenance to drop when DH was made redundant not long before. Thanks COVID!
Both recognising the bigger picture for their child.

My DH offered his ex more money when she was made redundant. For his child. Similarly, ex was prepared for the maintenance to drop when DH was made redundant not long before. Thanks COVID!

That's reasonable and a short term issue and I would do the same however I don't think that should ever be a long term thing now matter how much rp earns or how little the nrp does.

@TheKeatingFive

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. 🤷‍♀️

Ah yes, ensuring your child is worse off in one household than another is definitely being a grown up (i mean, its bad if an NRP doesnt pay and does that, but not the other way round, clearly)

@Oswin

So all the posters who think the Nrp should pay nothing if the Rp earns more. Do you think it should work in reverse? That the Rp goes through a hard time, loses job etc. Should the Nrp start paying more? So 30 percent of there wages instead of 12?

I dont think anyone has said they should pay nothing if the RP earns more, just that it should be treated on a case by case basis.

And yes, if the NRP can contribute more and then RP falls on hard times then yes, however RP (because they are RP) will get benefits where an NRP would not.

Again, case by case.

Ah yes, ensuring your child is worse off in one household than another

Why is that the conclusion? The RP is probably providing clothes/toiletries/uniforms and all that stuff anyway. And if the NRP isn’t happy with the standard of living they can provide when then kids are there, then it’s up to them to do something about that, not be let off the hook by the other parent.

I agree about it being a case by case basis.

If I was earning good money or was very lucky to be a millionaire and my ex was earning minimum wage, then no I would not accept maintenance from him. I would want him to use that money to provide a better life for his children when they are with him. To be honest I think if an RP is very wealthy it starts to become a power trip if they take maintenance. It’s all about common sense sometimes.

But that’s just me. I know other people are just very black and white when it comes to maintenance.

RP millionaire, NRP minimum wage is a vanishingly unlikely scenario, so using that as a template seems a bit pointless.

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.

Yep. Power trip.
I actually feel sorry for those children with an RP who would take the money when the money won’t even be noticed and the children would benefit more from it being with the NRP. Oh well.

RP millionaire, NRP minimum wage is a vanishingly unlikely scenario, so using that as a template seems a bit pointless.

I didn’t say just a millionaire. I said “good money”.