AIBU to think that child maintenance is actually very unfair to the RP?

[ECJW]

Just a thought I had due to speaking to my ex about costs for our DD and it hit me, NRP only have to give up a certain % of their incomes a week even though they don’t have to think about or incur any of the day to day costs of having children...

AIBU to think that it’s unfair that RP gets the brunt of paying for most of these things?

It occurred to me that even if ex paid £180 a month that it would only be covering DD’s packed lunches and a couple of extra bits and that’s it... that’s without normal groceries for her, drinks, clothes she might need, shoes she might need, school costs, activities and everything else...

Just out of curiosity, what do you think is an appropriate amount of child maintenance for one child when NRP has no other children to support?

@5zeds

Alas no, my dd has been hospitalised twice in the last year and awaiting tribunal currently. Autism is hard to get benefits for unless they have other conditions. Not sure how old the op's dd is but we could get free nappy pants from 7 from the nhs not before.

My personal advice @ECJW is to get advice from a nutritionist and get to grips with the cost of her food, won't be easy but you are making a rod for your back. As she gets older it will get tougher to sort out, trust me! My DD's hospitalisations are for not eating.

@tattleandbagels

When my kids were younger they would have humous and salad wraps, couscous with chicken, pasta salad etc, I made flapjacks and wrapped up 10 each weekend, yogurts are 20p, grapes or a satsuma circa £1 per child per day (2016 prices). I make dp's now, his lunch costs circa £1.50.

I think it's possible to work out a "minimum acceptable" standard of living for a child. That should not be survival only (food, clothes, school uniform) but should include things like swimming lessons, an additional extracurricular activity a week, an allowance for school trips and trips out, birthday party costs etc. Also childcare... so the minimum acceptable would be a lot higher for under 5s and would include half of full-time nursery fees. For over 5s, half of afterschool club.

This should be an absolute amount that the NRP has to pay. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay it for them and the amount should be rolled up and docked from the NRP's state pension when they get to state pension age. If they're not entitled to a state pension, it should be written off.

This should be an absolute amount that the NRP has to pay. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay it for them and the amount should be rolled up and docked from the NRP's state pension when they get to state pension age. If they're not entitled to a state pension, it should be written off

And the same for the RP if they can’t afford their half?

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

I think it's possible to work out a "minimum acceptable" standard of living for a child. That should not be survival only (food, clothes, school uniform) but should include things like swimming lessons, an additional extracurricular activity a week, an allowance for school trips and trips out, birthday party costs etc. Also childcare... so the minimum acceptable would be a lot higher for under 5s and would include half of full-time nursery fees. For over 5s, half of afterschool club.

This should be an absolute amount that the NRP has to pay. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay it for them and the amount should be rolled up and docked from the NRP's state pension when they get to state pension age. If they're not entitled to a state pension, it should be written off.

Not all children want to go an extra curricular activity do they?! Agree about school trips - they should be 50/50.

Trips out? Nah. Each parent pays for their own. That way one parent doesn't get to book Alton towers every weekend while the other parent has no say but has to cough up.

Childcare? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. As above lots of parents would have their kids more but aren't allowed. Why should they then pay half of childcare for when they could have the child!

Also a lot of parents will get UC towards high childcare costs. How do you factor that in?!

I also disagree with leaving pensioners in poverty as well.

The amount should be an absolute amount calculated by the average cost of providing a decent childhood. What the RP chooses to spend it on to benefit the children is up to them. If the NRP has an issue with this, they can take the RP to court on the basis they're an unfit parent.

Rather pensioners in poverty than children. They at least had a chance to work themselves out of it.

UC would be a lot lower if child benefit was a guaranteed sum. NRPs shouldn't be able to offload their financial responsibilities onto the taxpayer.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

The amount should be an absolute amount calculated by the average cost of providing a decent childhood. What the RP chooses to spend it on to benefit the children is up to them. If the NRP has an issue with this, they can take the RP to court on the basis they're an unfit parent.

Rather pensioners in poverty than children. They at least had a chance to work themselves out of it.

There is no such thing. you can't average it because the cost of living is so vastly different around the country. You can expect someone living in hull to pay the same as someone in central London.

Work themselves out of it?

Your privilege is showing.

Someone has to do minimum wage jobs.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

UC would be a lot lower if child benefit was a guaranteed sum. NRPs shouldn't be able to offload their financial responsibilities onto the taxpayer.

It wouldn't because they don't take maintenance into account at all. Hth.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro. The reason child maintenance isn't taken into account is because the amounts are often so small and the payment of it so inconsistent that the children would end up in poverty.

People shouldn't have children and expect to be able to walk out and not pay for them. Doesn't matter how much they earn. Rent, bills, council tax are not optional costs. Children shouldn't be either.

[quote Jellybabiesforbreakfast]@Getyourarseofffthequattro. The reason child maintenance isn't taken into account is because the amounts are often so small and the payment of it so inconsistent that the children would end up in poverty.

People shouldn't have children and expect to be able to walk out and not pay for them. Doesn't matter how much they earn. Rent, bills, council tax are not optional costs. Children shouldn't be either.[/quote]
No I don't think they should either, but you'd just be giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Why don't you mention rp having to provide a minimum? Or do they not have to?

[quote AerisAsh]@Aalvarino

The CMS have got the powers to take the enforcement action.

My ex owes my little boy thousands, it has taken 6 years but they have finally gone to court and are going to send bayliffs to his new address. Apparently if he sets up a new payment plan and doesn't pay he will lose his licence and passport and there will be a warrant out for his arrest.

I think it doesn't happen often enough because it takes so long before the CMS take action and they give the NRP too many chances. [/quote]
I'm pleased to see the CMS exercising their full powers for once. It should happen much more often and perhaps the message to non paying parents will get through and not be worth their while to avoid the relatively small amount they are compelled to pay

I can't see any way in which the RP would be providing less than a minimum if they are doing 80-90% of the day-to-day care and meeting 50% of the calculated expenses.

Really, the NRP should pay the RP a 'wage" on top of 50% of the child's expenses for covering 30-40% of the day-to-day care on their behalf.

RPs almost always are providing the massive lions share. That may be via UC until the children are old enough to access affordable childcare, or before and after school care, but they are caring for the child. They can't work, unlike the nrp who can do unsociable hours, two jobs, shift work etc. It's simply not the same.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

I can't see any way in which the RP would be providing less than a minimum if they are doing 80-90% of the day-to-day care and meeting 50% of the calculated expenses.

Really, the NRP should pay the RP a 'wage" on top of 50% of the child's expenses for covering 30-40% of the day-to-day care on their behalf.

If they don't work? If they work part time?

@ECJW Just out of curiosity, what do you think is an appropriate amount of child maintenance for one child when NRP has no other children to support
40% of net income. RP spend well over 50% of their income on their children.

@MyDcAreMarvel. That figure is closer to what non-separated families spend on their children. Men generally make money by leaving their children and their disposable income increases.

@motogogo my experience is the exact opposite. I would advise OP to apply for DLA. Selective/restricted diet isn’t something she can just manage away and I’m sure she’s tried.

@SkedaddIe special diets for fussy eaters etc are important but not essential. the op’s child is autistic not fussy. Would you say the same about a child who was a celiac for example?

The amount should be an absolute amount calculated by the average cost of providing a decent childhood

Define “decent” childhood? Own bedroom? Sharing a room? Basic beans or heinz?

What about non-separated parents who can’t afford “decent”, do they get top ups from the govt too?

Childcare? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. As above lots of parents would have their kids more but aren't allowed. Why should they then pay half of childcare for when they could have the child!

People always bring this up when help for childcare comes up. Yet in real life, 50/50 is the starting point in court and actually not that easy to argue against if the father really wants it, unless it's a breastfeeding baby or he has had absolutely minimal input etc. My friend's ex was convicted for hitting her in front of their child (it was the child who called the police), and a few years later he has still.gone back to significant residency.

But in reality relatively few men argue for it. Those that do, often end up dropping back significantly once the financial settlements are made and definitely once a new woman enters the picture.

All these women whose brothers / mates have been devastated by never seeing kids... Yes, I know there are some horrible mums out there too. But I also know that my sister's ex in laws would have said the same. In reality I have seen the texts from her ex suggesting that he should have one DC for one night each weekend, no overnights (so in total a bit over 5% of nights across 3 DCs) and pay minimal cm because she's the higher earner and he's self employed so his earnings can be whatever he wants. But his social media is full of pictures of his kids, talking about how he'd die for them etc etc.

@OverTheRubicon

Childcare? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. As above lots of parents would have their kids more but aren't allowed. Why should they then pay half of childcare for when they could have the child!

People always bring this up when help for childcare comes up. Yet in real life, 50/50 is the starting point in court and actually not that easy to argue against if the father really wants it, unless it's a breastfeeding baby or he has had absolutely minimal input etc. My friend's ex was convicted for hitting her in front of their child (it was the child who called the police), and a few years later he has still.gone back to significant residency.

But in reality relatively few men argue for it. Those that do, often end up dropping back significantly once the financial settlements are made and definitely once a new woman enters the picture.

All these women whose brothers / mates have been devastated by never seeing kids... Yes, I know there are some horrible mums out there too. But I also know that my sister's ex in laws would have said the same. In reality I have seen the texts from her ex suggesting that he should have one DC for one night each weekend, no overnights (so in total a bit over 5% of nights across 3 DCs) and pay minimal cm because she's the higher earner and he's self employed so his earnings can be whatever he wants. But his social media is full of pictures of his kids, talking about how he'd die for them etc etc.

You know court orders are barely possible to enforce, don't you?

Dp was threatened with never seeing his child again if he went to court. She'd have done it as well.

50/50 should be the starting point without going to court. Children aren't owned by their mothers but it's always dad's expected to take these women to court in order to see their own children.

@theceilingnerfgunblackdot

"I'm pleased to see the CMS exercising their full powers for once. It should happen much more often and perhaps the message to non paying parents will get through and not be worth their while to avoid the relatively small amount they are compelled to pay."

My ex has changed jobs for years so my little boy only got one or two payments a year, I can provide for him myself but his father should still pay.

I agree that enforcement should definitely happen a lot quicker than 6 years, it's a shame children have to wait so long and that the NRP gets used to providing for them by themselves.

@OverTheRubicon, I agree, it is very difficult for a mum to “block” contact if the dad wants it, even if the dad is abusive or violent towards her or the kids. But then it sounds much better to say “she doesn’t allow me to see the kids” than “I found spending time with the kids tedious and inconvenient so I chose not to see them any more”