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?

I think the individual earning of parents are irrelevant.

If they lived together the child would be raised with that joint income and all that comes with that opportunities wise.

And just because a RP can afford to live without maintenance the NRP is still a parent with responsibilities.

This is why if you can come up with a private agreement that allows both parties to provide equally for the children and have decent homes etc it's much better.

The issue is t always the capital - it's the NRP refusing to pay and demanding to dictate what money is spent on and especially in abusive relationships using it as a means of control.

Personally if you can do 50/50 or 60/40 amicably it's far better for the children.

*and the children would benefit more from it being with the NRP.

The money is for the children.

If there’s some issue about who it’s ‘with’ then create a separate fund for the things they need / treats / whatever.

Of course the NRP should still pay maintenance.

NRP is still a parent with responsibilities.

Quite

Yep, it’s for the children. So why not leave it with the NRP to use for the children instead of leaving it sat in the RP’s bank account being unused.

@TheKeatingFive

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.

Ah right, so it can work one way but not the other. Got it. I'll to save this post next time someone says the NRP should keep the kids in their previous lifestyle when they're with the RP. Because clearly, they should just do something about that themselves.

What is a reasonable a NRP should be paying to the RP? I've read on Mumsnet what people think maintenance should include and it is very laughable.

I think this is always about money and whatever the NRP pays will never be enough.

I think if there is no safeguarding issues starting point for access should be 50/50 .Finances should not be in place until an agreement is reached.

This eliminates the RP controlling when the children can be seen. Why is the number of nights a child gets to stay at the behest of the RP when it's in her interests to keep the relationship to the NRP at a minimum? Is that not a conflict of interest?

What also is always forgotten in these debates is the NRP home is also the child's home but for whatever reason the RP think this does not count towards paying for children. Wonder why

So why not leave it with the NRP to use for the children

Because, presumably, there’s no guarantees it would be used as such by them, particularly if the kids aren’t with them much.

Are you anti CM in general?

@TheKeatingFive

So why not leave it with the NRP to use for the children

Because, presumably, there’s no guarantees it would be used as such by them, particularly if the kids aren’t with them much.

Are you anti CM in general?

there's no guarantees the rp would use it for them either, surely?

If they lived together the child would be raised with that joint income and all that comes with that opportunities wise
Interesting point as I was thinking the well off parent would very likely have been paying more towards the kids when they were together.
And post split the poorer parent has to sort out suitable accommodation separately using their own money, not joint.
Assuming everyone has the same money coming in, and expenses have shot up because there’s now a second household to run, there’s actually more being spent on the children than previously by the NRP in this scenario (assuming proper shared care, regular contact, involvement etc) as well as by the pot of parental income overall.
It’s not black and white at all.

there's no guarantees the rp would use it for them either, surely?

CM is worked out based on time spent with the children and the income of the parents.

Are people against maintenance generally on here? I can’t tell anymore.

I can only go by what I do. I don’t take maintenance from dds dad on my say so. He pays huge private rent, earns less than me and is single. I’m mortgage free on 2 properties, one rented out, have a good wage coming in and a husband. My ex is a great dad and spoils dd when she’s there her 2 nights a week she benefits from the money. He keeps offering maintenance but I decline because he does spend it on her. I think it’s an individual case thing really I suppose.

If there’s some issue about who it’s ‘with’ then create a separate fund for the things they need / treats / whatever
Excellent idea. As I said severely pages ago, the money should be where it’s most beneficial to the children. Principles be damned.

@TheKeatingFive

there's no guarantees the rp would use it for them either, surely?

CM is worked out based on time spent with the children and the income of the parents.

Are people against maintenance generally on here? I can’t tell anymore.

No its not, it's worked out on NIGHTS spent with the children, and only the paying parents income.

No, i dont think anyone is anti CM, just saying there is a need for it to be taken a case by case basis, and sick to the back teeth of being deliberately misunderstood.

Because, presumably, there’s no guarantees it would be used as such by them, particularly if the kids aren’t with them much.

Oh that’s a bit rich. Is that the NRP version of, “It all gets spent on nails and hair gin? when people say the RP doesn’t spend the money on the children?

Are you anti CM in general?

No not at all. I just think common sense is important sometimes.

*hair and gin

and sick to the back teeth of being deliberately misunderstood.

Yep.

Do you know, I've never even checked to see if my ex pays the CMS minimum or not. (My husband is very irritated about this and insists it must be too little).

It just isn't important. I have a job. I can afford my life. The maintenance mostly pays for the sporting fees/equipment/competitions, school uniform, school trips etc. And the contact schedule is EOW, half the holidays and after school/dinner twice a week. It's not 50-50 in terms of where DS sleeps because DS wants to sleep mostly in one house (not in a different house every night). So I'm not convinced that the difference in our costs is significant (beyond that I pay for the big items, the one offs and the extracurricular stuff).

I'm not sure getting pedantic about whether it's the CMS minimum for his salary is reasonable. We are both providing for DS. That's what matters.

My DH is livid that I don't demand the calculation or an annual increase or whatever. But I'm not really interested in what my ex's salary is tbh.

@FishyFriday if your arrangement is through the CMS - they will recalculate annually, and they will tell you the figure per week that they calculate the payment from (which i dont agree with necessarily but they do!)

No its not, it's worked out on NIGHTS spent with the children, and only the paying parents income

So if the NRP has them a lot of the times and has a low income it won’t be very much then. So I don’t really understand why there’s such a resistance to them paying it.

If it works for the parents to put it in a fund for specific use for the kids then cool. It’s just about the NRP contributing what the system says is appropriate.

[quote TrustTheGeneGenie]@FishyFriday if your arrangement is through the CMS - they will recalculate annually, and they will tell you the figure per week that they calculate the payment from (which i dont agree with necessarily but they do!)[/quote]
It's not through the CMS. My ex and decided to do the radical thing and make an agreement that works for us and takes the full circumstances into account. You know, like adults who want to put our child's interests first.

@TheKeatingFive

No its not, it's worked out on NIGHTS spent with the children, and only the paying parents income

So if the NRP has them a lot of the times and has a low income it won’t be very much then. So I don’t really understand why there’s such a resistance to them paying it.

If it works for the parents to put it in a fund for specific use for the kids then cool. It’s just about the NRP contributing what the system says is appropriate.

Lots of nights, yes, but as well all know, its very often not their choice what contact they get.

The resistance is if it doesn't benefit the child, why would you do it?

People seem to be missing that this is for the benefit of the child, not some kind of weird tax to the other parent which is often what it is treated like.

I cannot imagine getting pissed about my ex not paying £20 a week for instance when i didnt need it, and it would benefit my child if my ex had that little bit more money to spend on them directly.

ah right @FishyFriday i see. Makes sense. I do think it is the better option, generally, if you can make an agreement between yourselves.

@3peassuit

The RP’s income is irrelevant. The NRP should contribute. I would claim maintenance even if only for 50p on principle.

I’m with you on the principle point. I also often read people getting the smallest amounts of CMS and refusing to claim. I can understand their frustration but I would still claim you never know if things would change further down the line.

@FishyFriday

Do you know, I've never even checked to see if my ex pays the CMS minimum or not. (My husband is very irritated about this and insists it must be too little).

It just isn't important. I have a job. I can afford my life. The maintenance mostly pays for the sporting fees/equipment/competitions, school uniform, school trips etc. And the contact schedule is EOW, half the holidays and after school/dinner twice a week. It's not 50-50 in terms of where DS sleeps because DS wants to sleep mostly in one house (not in a different house every night). So I'm not convinced that the difference in our costs is significant (beyond that I pay for the big items, the one offs and the extracurricular stuff).

I'm not sure getting pedantic about whether it's the CMS minimum for his salary is reasonable. We are both providing for DS. That's what matters.

My DH is livid that I don't demand the calculation or an annual increase or whatever. But I'm not really interested in what my ex's salary is tbh.

Maybe what your ex pays is a decent or reasonable amount though? And the term reasonable would vary for each person in terms of weather they think £150 a month for example is enough or not.

It’s not about you affording your life... it’s the principle why should you be the sole one to take responsibility? Why should any mother/parent for that matter.