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?

[quote Loveacoseynightin]@OverTheRubicon is it very few men? Why should a man go to mediation and court just for 50/50 access that should be a given.

Again the reality is most women don't want the ex to have 50/50 as they wouldn't get any money and always come up with the excuse "50/50 isn't good for the child"

[/quote]
Many women aren't being given any money anyway, that's why there was the £4 billion pounds owed. Even for those who do pay, it's usually well under half the cost of raising a child. And while you may know lots of men desperate for more contact - well there are some, but just talk to the women of your local Gingerbread group or scan the lone parents or step parents boards here, or just chat to your separated friends to see what is much more common.

loveacosynight in - as to access -- sadly, I think many NRPs are perfectly happy with twice a month. Enough to keep up appearances and do some fun stuff but none of the boring and mindnumbing hassle.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

Why is it okay? Well 12% of someone's income might be a tiny bit or it might be well enough to raise a child on. I can't say it's enough because AGAIN I don't think the system is any good and it needs to be assessed on a case to case basis.

It is different in every case. You cannot blanket say it's not enough.
You just can't.

Oh, I think you can. Child benefit for one child on an 'average' £30,000 salary is going to be around £250 per month (assuming EOW contact). That's £3,000 per year.

Assuming both parents pay £6,000 per year and have their children for 4 nights a fortnight between them, that doesn't come close to the £8,400 average annual cost of raising a child and there is no one to look after the child for the other 8 days per fortnight.

Clearly one parent isn't pulling their weight in most cases. What would happen if both parents wanted to be NRP?

The average cost is a red herring. The average cost is meaningless. It needs to be based on the actual cost.

Well nobody is forced to parent their kids so in that case I imagine social services would get involved.

@HugeAckmansWife

getoffyourarse not sure why you're so determined to pick a fight with me. My ex, by the standard on here, is apparently great. He does EOW and pays the CMS amount so I should be v grateful. He does exactly what is deemed to be enough by many. But the brute fact is that the RP and NRP in situations like mine, which seem to be pretty standard, are vastly different in what they can do professionally. I don't really see how you can deny that. I'm not making any statement about ALL RPs or NRPs. As many have said, all situations and set ups are different. But an NRP who only sees their kids at the weekend has a massive advantage and is subsidized in doing that by the RP who is covering the childcare, either by doing it themselves or paying ££££.

As to choice, we used to split things pretty evenly - we both worked about the same amount and did childcare pick up etc. But he CHOSE to disappear and left it all to me. As I said upthread, I'd happily give him 50/50.

I'm not picking a fight with you, I just don't agree with you.

but funnily enough that doesn't happen does it? Because society in general expects and sees (mostly) men piss off when it all gets a bit dull and (mostly) women step up and do whatever it takes to secure the childrens' future. Whether its some natural maternal thing or women being brought up to make it unthinkable that they would neglect or abandon their kids, it just doesn't happen in statistically significant numbers - but men? No-one with a straight face could argue with the fact that a huge number of men seem to think its ok and that any attempt to call them up to plate is "crazy ex" territory

It needs to be based on the actual cost.

Well, in a world where a full-time nursery place costs over £12,000 per year, it's fair to say that £3,000 isn't going to scratch the surface in many cases.

Well nobody is forced to parent their kids so in that case I imagine social services would get involved.

Indeed. If RPs (mostly mums) stopped carrying NRPs, it would be interesting to see how quickly social services would be overwhelmed with unwanted children.

getoff what exactly don't you agree with though? Do you think its ok that my ex is doing 4 days a month and paying the cms mandated amount that is less than a 1/3 of my child related costs? Am I wrong to be hacked off about this?

@HugeAckmansWife

but funnily enough that doesn't happen does it? Because society in general expects and sees (mostly) men piss off when it all gets a bit dull and (mostly) women step up and do whatever it takes to secure the childrens' future. Whether its some natural maternal thing or women being brought up to make it unthinkable that they would neglect or abandon their kids, it just doesn't happen in statistically significant numbers - but men? No-one with a straight face could argue with the fact that a huge number of men seem to think its ok and that any attempt to call them up to plate is "crazy ex" territory

Yes and this is what needs to change. I think we can all agree that the whole women's work thing needs to be left in the past. It needs to be expected that you will co parent your child equally from the word go. It needs to be the default, that when you split you have your child 50% of the time. It needs to be expected that both parents take time off work and employers need to accept that, because that's a big part of the problem.

I also think childcare should be better funded, cheaper at the point of access and accessible for parents. There needs to be a reason to go back to work full time. It should never be the case that someone goes part time because they have to

Until the whole of society resets their thinking, nothing will change.

And these threads always go the same way. Mum's time. Dad's money. It shouldn't be that, it should be equal from both. It should be okay for mum to work ft, and okay for dad to take time off with the kids but it isn't.

Dp was literally laughed at by his manager when he put in a flexible working request and was told no. I can guarantee that wouldn't have happened if he was a woman. I was asked if I felt guilty working ft after mat leave. he wasn't.

It is so ingrained in us all that mum does childcare and dad pays for it (together or not) that something big MUST happen to reset it all.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

It needs to be based on the actual cost.

Well, in a world where a full-time nursery place costs over £12,000 per year, it's fair to say that £3,000 isn't going to scratch the surface in many cases.

Well nobody is forced to parent their kids so in that case I imagine social services would get involved.

Indeed. If RPs (mostly mums) stopped carrying NRPs, it would be interesting to see how quickly social services would be overwhelmed with unwanted children.

Again, UC will generally help with sky high nursery bills so that isn't the actual cost a single parent would pay.

I agree that men should be present for their children. I don't think I have ever hinted that I don't.

@HugeAckmansWife

getoff what exactly don't you agree with though? Do you think its ok that my ex is doing 4 days a month and paying the cms mandated amount that is less than a 1/3 of my child related costs? Am I wrong to be hacked off about this?

No I think your ex is shit for doing 4 days a month. I can't comment on your maintenance because I don't know how much your child costs, again, everyones situation is different. You might have an "essential" cost for your child that I think is ridiculous and vice versa.

Again, UC will generally help with sky high nursery bills so that isn't the actual cost a single parent would pay.

You're assuming the RP will receive UC. Which they won't if they earn about a certain threshold. So that may be the actual cost that a single parent pays.

Also, UC for childcare costs is not helpful if you have more than one child - multiple children means working very quickly becomes unaffordable for a single parent even with UC.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

Again, UC will generally help with sky high nursery bills so that isn't the actual cost a single parent would pay.

You're assuming the RP will receive UC. Which they won't if they earn about a certain threshold. So that may be the actual cost that a single parent pays.

Also, UC for childcare costs is not helpful if you have more than one child - multiple children means working very quickly becomes unaffordable for a single parent even with UC.

It would have to be a pretty good wage to get nothing with a grands nursery bill every month.

Extra money isn't helpful if you have two children? Why?

They're only in ft childcare until 5.

I disagree that it should be default 50/50 split. There's so many factors like the age of the child, parents working situation.

50/50 would absolutely NOT have worked in our situation, DS was 10 months old when we split up and it is in no way in the best interests of a child that young to do 50/50. It's not an excuse, it's fact. Then there's the issue that my ex husband works 24/7 shifts, completely non negotiable in his line of work (transport) so he would have had to hire a live in nanny if we did 50/50. Pointless when I could just be the RP as I work office hours.

It's not about what is "fair" to the parents, it's about what is fair to the child. I'm a child of divorced parents myself and I would have hated spending 50% of time with my dad who I was never close to.

With regards to UC paying for childcare, they will pay up to £646 for one child every month and up to £1108 for two children. That might be fine if you only use wraparound care but if you have one or more under 5s in nursery, the cost is probably a lot more than that, depending on where you live. I don’t even live in London and some nurseries here charge over £80 per day

@Waxonwaxoff0

I disagree that it should be default 50/50 split. There's so many factors like the age of the child, parents working situation.

50/50 would absolutely NOT have worked in our situation, DS was 10 months old when we split up and it is in no way in the best interests of a child that young to do 50/50. It's not an excuse, it's fact. Then there's the issue that my ex husband works 24/7 shifts, completely non negotiable in his line of work (transport) so he would have had to hire a live in nanny if we did 50/50. Pointless when I could just be the RP as I work office hours.

It's not about what is "fair" to the parents, it's about what is fair to the child. I'm a child of divorced parents myself and I would have hated spending 50% of time with my dad who I was never close to.

But what wouldn't work for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be the starting point does it?

@Chunkymonkey123

You’re not wrong. I worked out that if we spilt my DH would give £500 a month. Nursery is £54 per day and before/ after school club is £22. So I would be paying £380 a week in childcare and doing all drop offs etc when he would be free to do whatever.

Well that's a bit ridiculous. Why do you need maintenance to cover that? You should split the costs of raising your children with your ex.

No, but I don't even think it should be the default starting point. It was never even on the table for us. As I said, it is dependent on circumstances.

@Waxonwaxoff0

No, but I don't even think it should be the default starting point. It was never even on the table for us. As I said, it is dependent on circumstances.

What should the default starting point be then, and why?

Again, UC will generally help with sky high nursery bills so that isn't the actual cost a single parent would pay.
Not all single parents get welfare. I had childcare costs of around £3K/month for three years, and no, no help at all with them at all. Not from the government, not from the ex - not even when it went to the court, as full time employment was considered a lifestyle choice.

There should be no "default" starting point for all families because every situation is unique.

A 5 month old exclusively breastfed baby who'd spent the majority of time with mum on maternity leave would not benefit from 50/50 contact. A 12 year old child with flexibly working parents who both spend equal time with them would. It all depends on so many things.

@forinborin

Again, UC will generally help with sky high nursery bills so that isn't the actual cost a single parent would pay. Not all single parents get welfare. I had childcare costs of around £3K/month for three years, and no, no help at all with them at all. Not from the government, not from the ex - not even when it went to the court, as full time employment was considered a lifestyle choice.

I imagine you must have had a pretty well paid job?

I can't comment on your ex or court because I literally have no idea of the circumstances.

@Waxonwaxoff0

There should be no "default" starting point for all families because every situation is unique.

A 5 month old exclusively breastfed baby who'd spent the majority of time with mum on maternity leave would not benefit from 50/50 contact. A 12 year old child with flexibly working parents who both spend equal time with them would. It all depends on so many things.

Of course and this is all true, and in an ideal world everyone would come to the best conclusion for their own situation, but in rl this doesn't happen.

I just don't agree that one parent should hold all the cards and the other should have to take them to court to get equal access, or any access at all. A child does not belong to one parent over the other.

@ind1a the foster allowance you quote is from LA. I foster a SN child through an agency who has moderate learning disabilities and I get an allowance of £500 per week but that covers everything, savings for child, clothing, all activities, food, transporting him to school each day, birthday gifts and party, Xmas holidays. It does not cost that amount to look after a child and the remainder is a reward. It is hard to work outside of house though as you have to attend many training courses.

I imagine you must have had a pretty well paid job?

I love this attitude:

• An RP earning £45,000 per year has to pay £12,000-£13,000 for a full-time nursery place, plus other expenses from having the child 12/14 nights.
• An NRP earning £45,000 per year only has to pay £4,500 in child benefit, plus expenses from having the child 2/14 nights.

But since the RP's earning a good salary, she's a greedy bitch to think that her poor ex ought to contribute equally to their joint child.

Not at all. They get enough