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?

l0veacoseynightin we've moved on from 'whatabouttery' with decent nrps and those who want to be more involved. We're talking about the majority who are v happy to keep 80% of their salary all to themselves and turn up a couple of weekends a month. In my calculations, I specifically excluded my housing and utilities as I'd be paying them anyway, as does my ex, though for many, that wouldn't be fair as an RP has to live close to the good schools and pays a premium to do so. Purely kids costs, not unreasonable or unusual hobbies, cms covers less than a third and ex is entirely free to pursue his work and social life 26 days of the month. The kids need a room at his, fine, but they just today were complaining there's nothing to do there. No bikes, scooters, trampoline, space even. A few books and games and a fuck off big TV is all. He doesn't want his house resembling a branch of ToysRUs as they're there so little so he doesn't have the same outlay.

I absolutely ended up taking a massive demotion and going part time so I could do pickups and drop offs. And work around school holidays.

I know for a fact in my case NRP hates having to pay the pittance he does for CM. He has called up CMS on each child’s sixteenth birthday to demand they stop taking CM, except DC are still in full time education.

I know ex will stop paying CM ASAP when he humanly can. And there is no way on earth he will financially support my DC at all after he can legally stop.

As for ‘choosing’ to leave a marriage. Shit happens. Ex was abusive so of course I divorced him and took my DC.

Financially supporting DC properly will never be a priority for men till it becomes as socially unacceptable for men to walk out and desert their DC as it is for a woman.
I’ve noticed on here how low the expectations are for men who’ve left their DC, the attitude towards women struggling to single handedly bring up DC is shocking. It’s a race to the bottom. Posters often berate a RP for complaining an ex hardly pays anything because they get nothing or £5 a week so the feckless father intermittently paying is something the RP should be grateful for.

In the end I was personally very lucky in that work prompted me and I found amazing childcare and just got on with it. I left a very sick DC with child carer several times because I simply had no other choice.

It’s really really been a traumatic and long and hard journey being a single parent with a shit ex. And he does pay an utter pittance, but I pursue it anyway because it’s my DC’s right to be financially supported by both their parents.

And CM is woeful.

Also why are we treating looking after the children as a business transaction
I don't think anyone is treating looking after the children as a business transaction here. Single parents with first hand experience of how much children actually cost are pointing that out, as well as that CMS standard rates are, in many cases, covering only a small fraction of it.

@HugeAckmansWife

l0veacoseynightin we've moved on from 'whatabouttery' with decent nrps and those who want to be more involved. We're talking about the majority who are v happy to keep 80% of their salary all to themselves and turn up a couple of weekends a month. In my calculations, I specifically excluded my housing and utilities as I'd be paying them anyway, as does my ex, though for many, that wouldn't be fair as an RP has to live close to the good schools and pays a premium to do so. Purely kids costs, not unreasonable or unusual hobbies, cms covers less than a third and ex is entirely free to pursue his work and social life 26 days of the month. The kids need a room at his, fine, but they just today were complaining there's nothing to do there. No bikes, scooters, trampoline, space even. A few books and games and a fuck off big TV is all. He doesn't want his house resembling a branch of ToysRUs as they're there so little so he doesn't have the same outlay.

Why can't toys like scooters and bikes be shared across both houses as after all they are the childrens?

Like I've said before what is a reasonable amount to pay

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

Legal obligation, maybe. But moral obligation? Nope. What if the RP can't afford to take the child to the dentist or the optician's. On your logic, the NRP's moral obligation to his child is met even if their teeth are rotting and they can't get contact lenses to play sport.

They can't be shared because they are not easily transportable and smaller things get lost, broken, forgotten etc. Again, it sounds petty but when you are the one replacing items repeatedly because the careless, negligent, incompetent ex just shrugs or blames a 4 year old for not remembering to pack items, you stop sending stuff. Cms is reduced from its already paltry amount to recognise the time they spend with the nrp, so he can bu his own scooters for them out of that.

I'm not taking sides here, but it seems wrong that a NRP should end up paying more than what it would cost to have their DC living with them full time. Equally, it seems lots of RPs end up paying for nearly everything. It seems well resourced RPs get a good deal via their solicitors etc. Less well resourced people get shafted and rely on tax credits. It's very complicated, not sure what the solution is.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

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

Legal obligation, maybe. But moral obligation? Nope. What if the RP can't afford to take the child to the dentist or the optician's. On your logic, the NRP's moral obligation to his child is met even if their teeth are rotting and they can't get contact lenses to play sport.

I thought dental care and opticians are free?

I thought dental care and opticians are free?

. I'm assuming you don't live in Plymouth or the like? The gap between theory and reality is an interesting thing. Theoretically, dentistry is free for under-18s. In reality, five year olds in many parts of the country who can't get onto the books of an NHS dentist are having their teeth extracted.

But of course it's the RP's role to square the gap between theory and reality when it comes to raising children. Theoretically, children are entitled to free eye tests and free glasses on the NHS. In reality, they may need contact lenses for sport or thinned lenses if they're very shortsighted and these costs need to be met by someone.

Last time I took my kids to the opticians it cost me over £140 as both need glasses, one needs a spare pair, one needs lens thinning and ideally they'd have prescription sunglasses too. One of them is going to need braces on future. Could be thousands. Won't be covered by NHS and no obligation for nrp to contribute.
Re solicitors.. Regardless of what courts say, child maintenance specifically reverts to cms jurisdiction after 12 months unless you can get a spousal maintenance agreement which is increasingly rare. So you could spend £££ trying to get more nailed down in a consent order but it can be relatively easily overturned further down the line.. Been there 😕

@forinborin

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?

If you were married you’ll get a financial order, poss pension attachment and greater share of equity to reflect all of that.

Time and time again on this thread people seem to be trying to assert that child maintenance is the only recourse to the fathers assets. If the couple were married it clearly isn’t.

@alanrickmanspetcat

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

Me neither. It would make things difficult for my own DC who I actually birthed and who have all the costs incidental to children that everyone is listing on here...

The gov much prefer to just fudge it

The gov are stepping in where individuals can’t take responsibility themselves. Ideally, people wouldn’t have kids without being able to agree the notion of expenses and their costs.

I imagine the rise in the need for CMS is because of more children being born outside of marriage.

If you were married you’ll get a financial order, poss pension attachment and greater share of equity to reflect all of that.
Again, when RP is educated with a good job or even earning potential, this is not the case. The court will deviate from 50/50 only when there is no realistic chance the RP will be able to meet their needs.

@forinborin

If you were married you’ll get a financial order, poss pension attachment and greater share of equity to reflect all of that. Again, when RP is educated with a good job or even earning potential, this is not the case. The court will deviate from 50/50 only when there is no realistic chance the RP will be able to meet their needs.

Well they won’t be pushed into poverty then will then...? If there’s a huge disparity in wealth because the RP took time out to raise the kids that will be taken into account. If the RP didn’t take that time out and was able to maintain a career alongside their family then it’s a non issue.

Or is there an element of punishing men for being fathers and rewarding women for being mothers that you’d like to see?

Yep. So much ignorance on this thread from people about what ACTUALLY happens in most cases now. As for the 'the gov are stepping in' and 'individuals can't take responsibility'... Hm. My ex fucked off with an ow after being a lovely father for a few years, sharing the parenting and costs equally. Our childcare bill was as much as our mortgage. The equity split was almost even and I got about 6k extra to compensate for my slightly smaller pension. We were married but that isn't the path to security that people seem to think in the case of a split where both partners are working at a decent level. The problem is that the cost and logistics of childcare are incredibly difficult for one person alone to manage when the children were planned as a joint venture. My ex is the one dodging the responsibility but it's easier to provide some help via UC and slag of thr recipient than it is to chase and enforce proper support from the absent parent.

Well they won’t be pushed into poverty then will then...? If there’s a huge disparity in wealth because the RP took time out to raise the kids that will be taken into account. If the RP didn’t take that time out and was able to maintain a career alongside their family then it’s a non issue.
Ah see, this is exactly what I am confused about. Why the NRP is expected to contribute only if the alternative is poverty? What if the RP is just able to keep their head above the water? So the summary of the thread: if the RP is not self-sufficient, it is their fault and the government supports them so the NRP has no obligation to contribute; if they are self-sufficient, then they are not in poverty and therefore the NRP has no obligation to contribute. And the difference between the two scenarios are often childcare costs... but the NRP is not obliged to contribute to that either?

My comment re “the gov stepping in” wasn’t to say it was perfect but that it’s a sticking plaster. I don’t dispute it isn’t perfect and in many cases isn’t fair. And as for “not taking responsibility” are you disputing then that that wasn’t your ex? Cause it sounds like you have actually gone on to provide an example of my sentiment.

@forinborin

Well they won’t be pushed into poverty then will then...? If there’s a huge disparity in wealth because the RP took time out to raise the kids that will be taken into account. If the RP didn’t take that time out and was able to maintain a career alongside their family then it’s a non issue. Ah see, this is exactly what I am confused about. Why the NRP is expected to contribute only if the alternative is poverty? What if the RP is just able to keep their head above the water? So the summary of the thread: if the RP is not self-sufficient, it is their fault and the government supports them so the NRP has no obligation to contribute; if they are self-sufficient, then they are not in poverty and therefore the NRP has no obligation to contribute. And the difference between the two scenarios are often childcare costs... but the NRP is not obliged to contribute to that either?

None of that is what I said. I’ve said the RP and NRP should both take responsibility. But that a financial order does take each circumstance into account.

Well they won’t be pushed into poverty then will then...?

So men only have to contribute to their children if the alternative is poverty ?

Well put forinborn when we went o mediation, the mediator worked out our fixed household costs (the kids household). My entire salary fell short by about 20%. Ex thought it would be fair for him to make up the gap and that would be it. Couldn't comprehend the idea that I might be entitled to keep some of my salary for my own expenses or even (gasp) luxuries like new clothes, haircuts or holidays occasionally.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

Well they won’t be pushed into poverty then will then...?

So men only have to contribute to their children if the alternative is poverty ?

You’re all very good at taking things out of context to push your own view.

The problem is that the cost and logistics of childcare are incredibly difficult for one person alone to manage when the children were planned as a joint venture.

I can appreciate that, in which case the issue is time rather than just money.

@DinoHat I was married and got none of what you mentioned. Not everyone has assets.