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?

Of course no system can be truly fair but currently we have one where women are systemically and incontrovertibly disadvantaged, on the whole.

Time to start bringing our girls up to not rely on men and try that bit harder to succeed, and our boys, to check their privilege.

It really is more than a few. If it was only a few there would be a much better system in place. Or perhaps a better system would mean there were only a few. Whatabouttery doesn't help in threads like this. Noone posting thinks ONLY nrps are crap, or that all of them are. But pointing out that RPs can be crap too, and some nrps are great is not helpful in considering what can and should be done to rectify the most common scenario of nrps not contributing appropriately.

Thing is, everyone is looking at the superficial- forcing nrp pay, what is a fair payment etc.

When in reality what we need to address is much deeper within society. The gender pay gap that means women always tend to be the lower earner, the inequalities in many workplaces that don’t give men the same flexibility round childcare, the acceptance that women are somehow suited to the low pay caring roles, the glass ceiling, the idea that women must be neglectful of their children if they have a career, yet the same doesn’t apply to men. The judgement of women if they don’t take on all child related activities, and the lauding of men who “babysit” or engage with their children as amazing dads.

The whole nrp:rp thing won’t equal out until parenting generally equals out. But I do understand why women don’t want to relinquish that role- I certainly wouldn’t want to be nrp if we split, and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a woman who does. Most even don't want 50:50. Co-parenting is expensive, and difficult.

We just split everything down the middle 50/50, finances, childcare, everything, worked out well

@Aalvarino

Of course no system can be truly fair but currently we have one where women are systemically and incontrovertibly disadvantaged, on the whole.

Time to start bringing our girls up to not rely on men and try that bit harder to succeed, and our boys, to check their privilege.

Indeed.

@HugeAckmansWife

It really is more than a few. If it was only a few there would be a much better system in place. Or perhaps a better system would mean there were only a few. Whatabouttery doesn't help in threads like this. Noone posting thinks ONLY nrps are crap, or that all of them are. But pointing out that RPs can be crap too, and some nrps are great is not helpful in considering what can and should be done to rectify the most common scenario of nrps not contributing appropriately.

I think by pointing these things out it proves these ideas to rectify the system can't work and shouldn't be done.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro Could you run your home on 60% of your wage? yes I could live quite easily on 60% of my income if I didn’t have children.

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]**@Getyourarseofffthequattro* Could you run your home on 60% of your wage?* yes I could live quite easily on 60% of my income if I didn’t have children.[/quote]
Well done you. Most people couldn't.

Women should be able to rely on men to help raise kids 50/50 (or at least pay their share if that isn't possible).

We should not be bringing up our girls to think they have to bear the whole burden of caring for and paying for children themselves. Expecting the father of your children to support them is not 'relying on a man'.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

Women should be able to rely on men to help raise kids 50/50 (or at least pay their share if that isn't possible).

We should not be bringing up our girls to think they have to bear the whole burden of caring for and paying for children themselves. Expecting the father of your children to support them is not 'relying on a man'.

Expecting them to pay you 40% of their wages is, especially if you don't work or provide yourself.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

Women should be able to rely on men to help raise kids 50/50 (or at least pay their share if that isn't possible).

We should not be bringing up our girls to think they have to bear the whole burden of caring for and paying for children themselves. Expecting the father of your children to support them is not 'relying on a man'.

It is when the woman can’t support herself irrespective of children.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro you are making no sense. You expect a RP to spend circa 90% of their income on their child but a NRP 10/15%.

What would happen if maintenance stayed the same as now, but everyone paid more taxes so that nurseries and wrap around care was free at the point of use?

Would it let RPs all be able to afford to go back to work and be able to have more freedom like the NRP have?

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]@Getyourarseofffthequattro you are making no sense. You expect a RP to spend circa 90% of their income on their child but a NRP 10/15%.[/quote]
I haven't suggested a figure for either have I? No. You've made that up.

I'm saying most people cannot live on 60% of their wage. Which they can't.

A resident parent houses themselves and their child simultaneously. It's completely different.

I could house myself and my child on my own full wage.

I couldn't house myself whilst paying 40% of my wage to the other parent.

getoffyourarse you seem to be saying that no changes to the system would be fair to everyone so we should just leave it the broken sorry mess that it is, with the vast majority of those suffering being RPs and their kids. If it has to be unfair, I'd rather the balance was in favour of the RP and the child, not the nrp who can shift for themselves and work as much as they like unencumbered by childcare issues.

@HugeAckmansWife

getoffyourarse you seem to be saying that no changes to the system would be fair to everyone so we should just leave it the broken sorry mess that it is, with the vast majority of those suffering being RPs and their kids. If it has to be unfair, I'd rather the balance was in favour of the RP and the child, not the nrp who can shift for themselves and work as much as they like unencumbered by childcare issues.

Have I said that it have you made it up? Oh yes, you've made it up. I don't think the system should stay the way if is, no. Because it's shite.

However I don't agree that any of the suggestions so far are even remotely workable or fair.

In fact the only "fair" way to calculate it would be on a case by case basis taking many factors into account, but of course that will never happen.

How do you know the nrp I unencumbered by childcare issues? What if they have other children? I suppose it doesn't matter if they're negatively affected.

This I what I mean. There are so many factors at play and admittedly you're pretty much ignoring them all and settling on the answer that gives the most money.

The thing is, structural change isn't coming in any of our children's childhoods. So what does the current set of separated parents do?? What changes should we make to make things fairer to all in this situation right now?? We can't just kick it into the long grass and hope progress takes its course. That isn't considered appropriate for any other marginalised group.

getoffyourarse You said 'these ideas to rectify the system can't work'. If an NRP can't work more to support their existing children because of new children, we'll perhaps they shouldn't have had them. And they 100% x million should not get to reduce cms for step children. If they move in with an RP who loses benefits as a result, that's up to them to sort out but not at the expense of the existing children. It's completely different to a together couple deciding together to split the available pot more ways and have more kids. For an NRP to 'move on' and have more kids that means dropping their commitment to family #1, is reprehensible.

My ex pays nothing at all for our 4 children and has no over nights. He stopped paying at the start of the year as he believed he was giving money to me for my personal enjoyment. He is paid cash in hand so the csa would be a pointless route, even if it wasn’t fundamentally flawed. He doesn’t even provide nappies for our youngest whilst he is with him. I am actually surprised he doesn’t hand me a bill for their food.

Meanwhile I work 4 jobs and still can’t make ends meet. He tells anyone who will listen that I take all his money?! He is a waste of space and unfortunately our eldest is starting to see his dad for who he is. It is sad for my eldest but I am always going to be here to love and support him and his siblings. I am exhausted, depressed and stressed but I won’t let them suffer the way their dad would. My biggest worry is what will happen to them if anything happens to me. They would go to live with him straight away despite the fact that the local shops provide more for them, by the way of discount for me being a loyal customer. I hate how he can get away with it and the worst thing is how quick people are to believe his story about me taking everything! There is always a queue of people to believe that RPs are liars out to shaft their ex’s.

@HugeAckmansWife

getoffyourarse You said 'these ideas to rectify the system can't work'. If an NRP can't work more to support their existing children because of new children, we'll perhaps they shouldn't have had them. And they 100% x million should not get to reduce cms for step children. If they move in with an RP who loses benefits as a result, that's up to them to sort out but not at the expense of the existing children. It's completely different to a together couple deciding together to split the available pot more ways and have more kids. For an NRP to 'move on' and have more kids that means dropping their commitment to family #1, is reprehensible.

Well they can, currently can't they. But if it goes up to 40% many wouldn't be able to. So what do they do? Abandon the new children? Give them away?

Nobody is suggesting anyone dropping their commitment. Maybe read what I wrote.

majorlyoutnumbered I take all my hats off to you. I have 2 kids. My ex does pay cms and I get 4 whole days a month 'off' so in comparison I'm doing v well. I can't imagine the rage you must feel a a system that let's this happen. It is terribly sad that your kids will have to learn a truth that their 'father' is a self serving, spineless, lying twat but if they have you in their corner they'll get through it. But someone will be along in a minute to say he can't be blamed and must be allowed to look after himself first cos that's what RPs do..... Oh wait!

@HugeAckmansWife

majorlyoutnumbered I take all my hats off to you. I have 2 kids. My ex does pay cms and I get 4 whole days a month 'off' so in comparison I'm doing v well. I can't imagine the rage you must feel a a system that let's this happen. It is terribly sad that your kids will have to learn a truth that their 'father' is a self serving, spineless, lying twat but if they have you in their corner they'll get through it. But someone will be along in a minute to say he can't be blamed and must be allowed to look after himself first cos that's what RPs do..... Oh wait!

No they won't, because nobody is defending arseholes. Just you making things up again.

My child support ended when the kids left school. I continue to support the children. One has had health issues and can’t yet financially support themselves. Others went through uni. I’m left with a lifetime legacy of lost career opportunities, lower pension etc.

Child support isn’t enough in most cases unless the NRP is very wealthy.

However I think the issue is also lack of affordable housing, poorly thought out benefits etc.

@HugeAckmansWife thank you

OH scroll back
There's plenty on here defending nrps who pay cms or less on the basis that they have new families, or need to meet their own expenses. Newsflash... Kids ARE your own expenses. And possibly, the RP of those kids who can't work because they are caring for your kids is also at least partially your responsibility too. So suck it up, bollocking work and pay for them and stop bleating about how hard done by they are. If my kids went to live their dad, and I paid cms only like he does, I'd be about £800 pm richer. And I'm not stopping him, he doesn't want it.

[quote Tk5787338]@IND1A sorry but I’m not sure of your point; foster carers are paid that amount of money because they’re not expected to have to pay out of their own pocket for children they look after whereas a RP obviously needs to contribute to their own child and it’s not just up to the NRP[/quote]
My two kids are 16 and 17. So foster payments would be £226 per child per week. So total of £1,800 to raise two kids. So my ex and I should pay 50% each. Infact he pays £600. So I’m paying in effect £1,200. Which I am if I take into account my loss of income over the years from not working full time and therefore the hit on my pension. My ex therefore has a bargain.