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?

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

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.

I love that you ignored what I wrote and made up your own opinions for me.

I commented on government support only.

Nobody has called anyone a greedy bitch except you.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro.

But why is the mum's salary relevant to dad paying a fair share of the childcare costs?

Upthread, you said that most mums will get UC help with childcare - well, that's not the case if they have a fairly decent salary. Does that mean the dad shouldn't pay his share?

The reality is...NRPs get a very good 'deal' in terms of free childcare from the RP. Their monthly payments often don't even touch the sides of what commercial childcare costs.

[quote Jellybabiesforbreakfast]@Getyourarseofffthequattro.

But why is the mum's salary relevant to dad paying a fair share of the childcare costs?

Upthread, you said that most mums will get UC help with childcare - well, that's not the case if they have a fairly decent salary. Does that mean the dad shouldn't pay his share?

The reality is...NRPs get a very good 'deal' in terms of free childcare from the RP. Their monthly payments often don't even touch the sides of what commercial childcare costs.[/quote]
..... I didn't say it was? I specifically said I couldn't comment on the ex because I didn't know the circumstances.

getoff I think that's one of the reasons why every case needs to be handled individually. CMS is meant to be a contribution to essentials but they never actually define anywhere what that is, and most of us, I hope would agree that if you literally did only provide the essentials and no hobbies, sports, outings, treats, trips, additional clothes, books, just because they like the design or colour, mobiles (later on), pocket money or allowance, you'd be a pretty shit parent. Of course different demographics will have a different definition of essential - for some its private Mandarin tutoring and a pony, for others its monthly subs to a football club, for others is a £5 a week for Haribos. An individual assessment with annual reviews of the details, not just the NRPs wage would look at what was reasonable, what was average for the child's peers etc but would be time consuming and expensive. The gov much prefer to just fudge it, assume the RPs will pick up the slack and bung it all under UC so single (mothers) can be slagged off for being on benefits - and those of us who aren't because we do manage to just about hold down professional and well-ish paid jobs get to keep fuck all of it for ourselves, while the NRP gets 80% or more if he can do a minor bit of twiddling the figures or upping his pension pot.

I don't understand this whole 'child maintenance' shenanigans. The non-resident parent should pay half of all incidental costs and also pay a set fee that has been calculated to be his/her contribution towards rent/mortgage, bills food etc

@HugeAckmansWife

getoff I think that's one of the reasons why every case needs to be handled individually. CMS is meant to be a contribution to essentials but they never actually define anywhere what that is, and most of us, I hope would agree that if you literally did only provide the essentials and no hobbies, sports, outings, treats, trips, additional clothes, books, just because they like the design or colour, mobiles (later on), pocket money or allowance, you'd be a pretty shit parent. Of course different demographics will have a different definition of essential - for some its private Mandarin tutoring and a pony, for others its monthly subs to a football club, for others is a £5 a week for Haribos. An individual assessment with annual reviews of the details, not just the NRPs wage would look at what was reasonable, what was average for the child's peers etc but would be time consuming and expensive. The gov much prefer to just fudge it, assume the RPs will pick up the slack and bung it all under UC so single (mothers) can be slagged off for being on benefits - and those of us who aren't because we do manage to just about hold down professional and well-ish paid jobs get to keep fuck all of it for ourselves, while the NRP gets 80% or more if he can do a minor bit of twiddling the figures or upping his pension pot.

Yes I wholeheartedly agree with all of that. It's a shitty system.

Someone said up there about new partner's income..

There is absolutely no chance would I finance someone else's children 😂

Mumsnet is hilarious sometimes

I imagine you must have had a pretty well paid job?
Yes, close to the sacred MN six-numbers level. With a corresponding level of responsibility and pressure. And still out of ~5K net I paid 3K for childcare, which, as you might imagine, did not leave a lot behind - I had only recently paid off debts from that period (well, almost - last grand to go, covid disrupted the plans there - guess who could not work due to schools being closed?). I mentioned the courts etc as my ex was not expected to contribute to these childcare costs - by the child maintenance bureau, by the judge - by anyone, even by his family. He still isn't, and while childcare costs are lower, they haven't disappeared - around £1.2K/month now that they are both at school.

It is just to explain the reality of a single parent working and earning enough not to rely on welfare, as so many posters brought it up.

I see. On the face of it, no that does not sound fair. I suppose this is why every individual situation needs assessing (although it sounds as if it was but not very well!)

Off topic but over a thousand pounds for two kids at school? That's crazy!

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast the@Waxonwaxoff0 @cadburyegg I totally agree - also am starting to realise that @Getyourarseofffthequattro either doesn't actually know any real single mums or people on UC, or is being deliberately obtuse.

Situation:
RP - on average London full time wage of wage of £38k, after tax salary £28k
DCs in the lower-priced local nursery and wraparound care (only just allowing for a full time day as wraparound is 8.30-5.30 only and less in holidays) - £500 a week average including school holiday care, i.e. over £20,000 UC: £240-odd total per week - maybe some more is renting but less if I RP has £6k savings while trying to save for a house or move

Total: £14,460 per year. But many places in London allow a work commute of under 30 mins but also allow you to live with 3 DCs for that? Rent on most decent studios tops £1000 a month.

But.. what about about NRP, also on £38k a year, so £28k after tax, seeing the DCs once a week?
Even if he's decent and pays his CMS it will be £118.65 weekly - which would drop to £100 if he moved in with his girlfriend and her 2 DCs under 18, even if that meant he's now sharing living costs

Total: £22k or more spending money left over, likely no major child expenses as he's not the one doing the clothes shops, food shops and more.

Yet the RP has very little opportunity to stretch at work to take a new promotion, will be responsible for the cleaning, the cooking, the sick days, and any extra savings to try and buy a house, for example, will serve to reduce her UC. Or she could sack it all off and go on full time benefits while DCs are young, and get £15k a year in different credits plus and be better off (even with the 3 child cap) £6k in CM and much more able to move away. Not better in the long term for her or society, with no pension or NI or career history, but maybe in the short term happier all round. Even then she'll still be worse off than the NRP due to all the extra child costs, though.

If you want single parents to have more aspiration, it's not about them leaning in or trying to tell them to think about promotions. It's about getting people out of poverty traps through properly subsidised childcare, forcing NRPs to contribute properly (whether through shared care or meaningful financial input) or best of all both.

I'm starting to realise @OverTheRubicon can't read or is just being goady for the sake of it.

I don't understand this whole 'child maintenance' shenanigans. The non-resident parent should pay half of all incidental costs and also pay a set fee that has been calculated to be his/her contribution towards rent/mortgage, bills food etc

It can't work like that as the BOTH parents will have to pay bills and rent/ mortgage. With child or without child.

Often BOTH parents provide a fully furnished room for the child...

I don't think child maintenance will ever be fair. There will always be costs that won't be met.

It can't work like that as the BOTH parents will have to pay bills and rent/ mortgage. With child or without child.
Often BOTH parents provide a fully furnished room for the child...

I don't think child maintenance will ever be fair. There will always be costs that won't be met.

Well it could work like that. We could prioritise the home that the child actually lives in for most of their time. Child maintenance could be a debt that NRPs have to pay. If they can't or won't pay, the state pays for them and it's rolled up and deducted from their pension.

But that would require putting children before absent or non-contributing parents.

There's also a moral angle to it. Women whose relationships break down are viewed as somehow lesser or culpable for not 'hanging onto their man' and the subtext is that they deserve the situation they're in. Also, mothers are expected to suffer for their children.

I don't understand this whole 'child maintenance' shenanigans. The non-resident parent should pay half of all incidental costs and also pay a set fee that has been calculated to be his/her contribution towards rent/mortgage, bills food etc

I would say that would be very unfair if the parents have very different incomes. For example, the one with the bigger income may insist in private school and expensive holidays while the one with the lower income may be working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I see. On the face of it, no that does not sound fair. I suppose this is why every individual situation needs assessing (although it sounds as if it was but not very well!)

Off topic but over a thousand pounds for two kids at school? That's crazy!

I think it is more or less standard...

Childminder as wraparound at £7.50 pH, four hours a day, times two children, so £60 / day. Breakfast / afterschool club combo comes out marginally cheaper at ~£50/day, but they can now accept only very low numbers due to bubble rules, so the waiting list is several miles long.

The other thing not taken into account is the long term impact on earnings being the rp. If you have to find a job which accommodates your child then your earning potential may be limited. The non resident parent may be paying a
token amount in maintenence but can continue to work full time, contribute to a pension, qualify for a mortgage etc. By the time the child is an adult the non resident parent may be in a significantly better position in terms of finances, housing, career and pension. Jone of these things are ever considered when calculating child maintenence. Not forgetting that the non resident parent can simply stop the maintenence virtually as soon as the child turns 18, yet the rp will continue supporting the child likely for a few more years with no financial assistance.

@forinborin has hit the nail on the head. What is always forgotten in these discussions is the NRP has to provide a house as well for the children and this is never included .

[quote Loveacoseynightin]@forinborin has hit the nail on the head. What is always forgotten in these discussions is the NRP has to provide a house as well for the children and this is never included .[/quote]
Eh, probably not me, I am team RP here

@MaryPat

The other thing not taken into account is the long term impact on earnings being the rp. If you have to find a job which accommodates your child then your earning potential may be limited. The non resident parent may be paying a token amount in maintenence but can continue to work full time, contribute to a pension, qualify for a mortgage etc. By the time the child is an adult the non resident parent may be in a significantly better position in terms of finances, housing, career and pension. Jone of these things are ever considered when calculating child maintenence. Not forgetting that the non resident parent can simply stop the maintenence virtually as soon as the child turns 18, yet the rp will continue supporting the child likely for a few more years with no financial assistance.

Surely that is just the way life is if you have chosen to split up?

The problem is the RP wants cake and eat it but you are also assuming the NRP won't help after they turn 18.

Surely that is just the way life is if you have chosen to split up?
What if you haven't chosen to split up, but it was the decision of the other party to the marriage?

@forinborin not standard for where I live. I pay 7.50 for after school club and £25 per day for holiday club. With tax free childcare I pay £120pm for one child!

Ultimately you can't have it both ways though. You are no longer in a relationship with the NRP but you expect that parent though to assist with Childcare costs to help you go to work. Why should the NRP do this ? Who has a say in which childcare setting the child goes to?

I feel for those where the NRP isn't involved but those where the father wants to be involved more but not allowed cos it affects the child maintenance payment is where it sucks

You are no longer in a relationship with the NRP but you expect that parent though to assist with Childcare costs to help you go to work. Why should the NRP do this ?
Is it a serious question? Because it is their child too and they have a moral obligation to meet 50% of the costs associated with having that child? And yes, not only ice-cream on weekends but boring things like dentists, shoes and childcare too?

@Loveacoseynightin

Ultimately you can't have it both ways though. You are no longer in a relationship with the NRP but you expect that parent though to assist with Childcare costs to help you go to work. Why should the NRP do this ? Who has a say in which childcare setting the child goes to?

I feel for those where the NRP isn't involved but those where the father wants to be involved more but not allowed cos it affects the child maintenance payment is where it sucks

Many many many actual single parent posters: child maintenance doesn't even cover half the childcare let alone half the costs of main residency, and even with state support (which often wouldn't even be necessary with proper sharing of costs), you end up far worse off.

Lots of other posters who've never been in the situation but have a brother or mate who has told them they've been screwed and how they'd love to do 50/50 but it's just not possible (even though any high street solicitor will tell you it's now the standard starting point) - 'ahh, but you guys are just doing it for the child maintenance'...

@forinborin

You are no longer in a relationship with the NRP but you expect that parent though to assist with Childcare costs to help you go to work. Why should the NRP do this ? Is it a serious question? Because it is their child too and they have a moral obligation to meet 50% of the costs associated with having that child? And yes, not only ice-cream on weekends but boring things like dentists, shoes and childcare too?

The obligation is being met if they are paying the CMS maintenance rate.

Everybody's morals are different. I've see on here that if the childcare is happening on the fathers contact time he should pay so why not the same for the RP?

Also why are we treating looking after the children as a business transaction