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?

Not all men are poor contributors,
My friend works abroad for an airline so pays all school fees, activities and extra tuition for his daughter, pays the entire household expenses for her mum and flys back (covid permitting) often. His daughter has every second weekend at her paternal grandpatents and sees cousins often.
He is absent for periods obviously but he tries to give her ,at least money wise, the life she'd have had if he was still with the mum.

@Cancellingadvice

Probably missing the point here but how on earth do you spend £180 per month on packed lunches plus a couple of extra bits? Packed lunch is surely no more than £10 per week!

Can I see your shopping list for this?! Genuinely would like to know.

£180 a month isn’t much. It hardly touches housing/utilities/council tax.

habibibi that's great, but really, not relevant. We all know it's not all nrps. But this thread is about those who don't pay or pay the cms minimum and expect to be treated like a hero.

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

Except that having a resident child means you have a different need for a house.

When ex and I split, we looked at it and realised that as the RP I'd need to be in catchment for local schools, have at least 3 bedrooms (3 DC, job where I regularly work from home), and space for bike storage as I need me and the kids or I can't get them to 2 schools on time. He on the other hand has the DCs 1 night a week.

He's not a bastard, pays as he's supposed to and has gone with standard financial splits as would usually be decided in court. Yet in the financial settlement he still got a large share of our house, because I was the higher earner and he needed to be able to afford a similar/suitable place, even though in reality he has chosen to move to a luxury 2 bed flat where he has the kids on a sofa bed and his bed, but likes because it has a gym and pool (adults only). He also pays CMS, on time each month, but even though he's on a good wage the calculation doesn't even cover half the cost of the children's childcare.

I'm lucky because I earn well, but even in my very privileged setup, I'm so much financially worse off than the NRP. It's much harder for people with fewer choices.

@OverTheRubicon

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

Except that having a resident child means you have a different need for a house.

When ex and I split, we looked at it and realised that as the RP I'd need to be in catchment for local schools, have at least 3 bedrooms (3 DC, job where I regularly work from home), and space for bike storage as I need me and the kids or I can't get them to 2 schools on time. He on the other hand has the DCs 1 night a week.

He's not a bastard, pays as he's supposed to and has gone with standard financial splits as would usually be decided in court. Yet in the financial settlement he still got a large share of our house, because I was the higher earner and he needed to be able to afford a similar/suitable place, even though in reality he has chosen to move to a luxury 2 bed flat where he has the kids on a sofa bed and his bed, but likes because it has a gym and pool (adults only). He also pays CMS, on time each month, but even though he's on a good wage the calculation doesn't even cover half the cost of the children's childcare.

I'm lucky because I earn well, but even in my very privileged setup, I'm so much financially worse off than the NRP. It's much harder for people with fewer choices.

He'd get slated on here for not having a bedroom for each child and being close enough to school to drop off and pick up.

If you want shared care you need similar housing realistically.

@HugeAckmansWife

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.

You really don't get it do you?

Otoh, we were better off when dss lived with us. One size does not fit all.

And no I don't believe your ex is ever your responsibility.

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.

CMS is a poor, cheap substitute for financial orders on divorce. I don’t like to do the MN thing and say marriage is best, but clearly it’s benefit on divorce to have a financial order that actually requires full disclosure and looks at the particular circumstances.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro
He'd get slated on here for not having a bedroom for each child and being close enough to school to drop off and pick up. If you want shared care you need similar housing realistically

Well yes, that's the point though. You and a few others keep talking about reasons that NRPs can't always contribute more to RPs because they need to be able to survive, because they shouldn't have to pay for childcare when they don't 'get to' have the child much etc... But my point is that even when there is enough money or the RP is open to great shared care, many NRPs, and certain the vast majority of male NRPs I know, choose differently.

This is replicated around the world - money given to women via NGOs or benefits is much less likely to flow back to children (the book Invisible Woman has really well researched data on this, but there's a lot of data). Yet in the UK, they've chosen to go against this by implementing via UC a system where the highest earner in a household (usually the father) receives all benefits, and in single households, where they essentially trust that a NRP will prioritise paying for their child on their days via childcare, school kit, clothing, providing equal accommodation and more (when most don't), and also providing minimal consequences when they don't pay the often pitiful amounts expected. Of course there are lovely dads fleeced by horrible mothers - but the data is overwhelmingly shows that children are being shafted after parents separate, mostly by men underpaying. It's hurting children, and the outcomes are then hurting society.

The highest earner receives all benefits? That isn't true

I'm not saying dad's shouldnt pay. They absolutely should, and yes I know the stats on dad's that don't pay. It's shit.

I've said it several times now but the only fair way to work it out is case by case.

I will never think 40% of income is fair because it's simply not.

I've said it several times now but the only fair way to work it out is case by case

This. Only it isn’t cost effective. More money spent doing the calculations than in CM.

Even if you did a % split like many couples do generally for bills- parent a earns 60k, parent b 40k, so each parent keeps 50% for living expenses, and the remaining is split according to weighting, so parent A pays 60%, parent b 40%- giving 18k + 8k = 26k for kids expenses, split according to % care.

Doesn’t stop those who really want to avoid paying avoiding it though. Either not working and claiming benefits, or hiding income.

@HugeAckmansWife why do you always complain about mothers only receiving the minimum amount of Child Maintenance?
Why would a NRP pay more which would then limit the money they have to be able to spend when they have the children themselves?

Had to laugh at the 40 percent claim where is the NRP supposed to live lol always the same.

50/50 should be the starting point and harsher penalties need to be applied to both parents for messing the children around

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

The highest earner receives all benefits? That isn't true

I'm not saying dad's shouldnt pay. They absolutely should, and yes I know the stats on dad's that don't pay. It's shit.

I've said it several times now but the only fair way to work it out is case by case.

I will never think 40% of income is fair because it's simply not.

Universal credit is paid out to one member of a household, unlike before when there were separate credits, often tagged with a specific goal (e.g. child tax credit). Again, this is not to say it's meant to be paid to the higher earner, but because it's generally paid to the main earner (generally the man), and because it's no longer specifically for the benefit of the family, evidence gathered in families in the UK, US and all around the world would suggest it's nearly guaranteed that this means less will be spent for the benefit of the children and family than before. www.understandinguniversalcredit.gov.uk/new-to-universal-credit/how-and-when-youll-be-paid/

Again obviously it would be better if it could be done case by case, but it's not possible. The issue is that there is far too low a 'floor' set for payments, which in no way reflects the actual costs of raising a child. It's not possible for both parents to plead poverty and pay £7 a month per child, so in the end what generally happens is that the RP steps up and either you have a family scraping by in poverty or a mother working multiple jobs or unsociable hours,.often relying on precarious or poor quality childcare, to ensure her children are cared for. Meanwhile huge numbers of men are dodging paying even the bare minimums, with no consequences.

Most people on this thread have not said that a standard 40% would work. What would work is a better reflection of minimum costs and political will to actually ensure payment.

Universal credit is paid out to one member of a household, unlike before when there were separate credits, often tagged with a specific goal (e.g. child tax credit). Again, this is not to say it's meant to be paid to the higher earner, but because it's generally paid to the main earner (generally the man), and because it's no longer specifically for the benefit of the family, evidence gathered in families in the UK

Is it paid to the main earner? In our house it’s paid to me, because I applied and I put my bank details down.

I complain about people paying the cms amount only because its a pathetic amount in many cases. My ex and I earn almost exactly the same. He has a wife who he can split his household bills with. What he pays me in cms is less than a 1/3 of what our kids cost me every month, and I haven't included mortgage, council tax or utilities in that. I've asked him to contribute to things like music lessons and sports, additional kit or equipment and he just blanks the request. He has a huge amount more of his income to spend on himself than I do, plus he can choose to go for promotions, say yes to every extra meeting or whatever, whilst I can't. It's not just about an adult being physically present, they need parenting, so I can't get promotion and just pay for childcare. And I would absolutely love it if he wanted 50/50 but he doesn't. He's never once taken up the opportunity to spend more time with them when it's been offered. So that's why I think paying cms only is pretty crap and nothing to boast about.

Why would a NRP pay more which would then limit the money they have to be able to spend when they have the children themselves?

Hmm, let's see. The NRP might pay more because it doesn't cost hundreds of pounds a month to take the kids out for pizza or to the zoo occasionally, whereas it does cost that to, you know, care for them and organise childcare for them. So the NRP might pay more because they care about their kids not spending 80% of their time living in pretty dire conditions. Put simply, an NRP might pay more because they care about their kids.

Put simply, an NRP might pay more because they care about their kids

Or they may pay less because they want to provide a home for their kids, and therefore be able to spend more time with them rather than handing over all their money, and only being able to afford a house share and occasional trip to the zoo.

Money isn’t always better than time.

@reallyreallyborednow. If the parents are doing 50/50 care and paying 50% of everything, the providing a home argument might work.

It doesn't work for a father doing EOW. If his children have a poor standard of living in their main home because (a) he chooses to pay the minimum and (b) he refuses to have the children for more time so their mother can work extra hours, then he's just a shit dad all round.

@reallyreallyborednow

Universal credit is paid out to one member of a household, unlike before when there were separate credits, often tagged with a specific goal (e.g. child tax credit). Again, this is not to say it's meant to be paid to the higher earner, but because it's generally paid to the main earner (generally the man), and because it's no longer specifically for the benefit of the family, evidence gathered in families in the UK

Is it paid to the main earner? In our house it’s paid to me, because I applied and I put my bank details down.

Because you're likely in a decent relationship. Unfortunately, a lot of people - including the women most at risk - are not.

@Tk5787338

I think it often depends; we would have more money if DSD lived with us as she doesn’t cost the amount of money DH pays in maintenance a month and we already pay the extra cost of having a house big enough for her. DSDs mum probably has more available cash than us a month despite not working and us both working full time. Although we also often end up paying for a lot more like shoes, activities, school trips as we don’t want her to miss out when her mum says no.

Yeah I'm in a very similar boat to you. We have 50/50 but DH still pays CM (not through CM, but separate agreement and we pay more than we're "told" we need to) - even though we have them the same number of nights and therefore have a similar food shop bill, utilities, rooms for each of them, all clothes etc here. We also pay for their uniforms and school trips.

That said, we may be in the minority, I know there are plenty of NRP who pay the bare minimum. If we didn't buy them their own clothes for here, or uniform, trips etc - the CM money wouldn't be enough to cover their growing needs at their DM. She struggles as it is, with the money we give.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast what if the NRP wants 50/50 but the RP won't allow it as it would affect her money, this happens?

What I find funny is that no amount will never be enough even if they give 600 a month I bet they still ask for 50% towards things.

Plus those RPs who won't allow their children to take clothes around to the NRP house cos "I brought them" did you really or did the NRP contribute?

[quote Loveacoseynightin]@Jellybabiesforbreakfast what if the NRP wants 50/50 but the RP won't allow it as it would affect her money, this happens?

What I find funny is that no amount will never be enough even if they give 600 a month I bet they still ask for 50% towards things.

Plus those RPs who won't allow their children to take clothes around to the NRP house cos "I brought them" did you really or did the NRP contribute?[/quote]
This happened to us once, DM asked for more money when we already contribute significantly more due to having them 50/50 - it was suggested we drop having them a few nights. Needless to say that didn't go down well!

My dad didnt want us to leave the family home when we was kids, so he paid the full mortgage and he had to rent somewhere himself, thankfully him and my mum had a good relationship after there divorce, my mum didnt ask too much from my dad in terms of maintenance because he was contributing quite alot with the mortgage, safe to say my mum wasnt skint all the time and my dad managed, and we had a happy life between both houses

its not the case that no amount would ever be enough. I have a figure that mine cost per month (food, clothes, activities, entertainment etc). If ex would contribute 50% of that, instead of about about 30% I'd be absolutely fine with it - even though it STILL leaves me in a worse position than him re opportunities to advance my career, have a social life etc, not to mention it always being me that has to run out of work or have days off for sick kids. As for clothes, I used to pack a bag but so much came back wrecked or not at all that I stopped. It sounds really petty arguing over a missing hairbrush or shoe but actually its pretty fucking inconvenient if you find out at 6pm on a Sunday that the only hairbrush they'll tolerate isn't in the bag, or the school shoes haven't come back and gets which parent has to somehow come up with a solution.