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 Waxonwaxoff0]@DinoHat I was married and got none of what you mentioned. Not everyone has assets.[/quote]
I suppose it can’t be magicked up.

@DinoHat

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

How about you take the gender out of it. It’s about a parent supporting their child and not about punishing or rewarding.

There are many NRP who don’t engage with the logistics of raising a child (dropping children off at school, picking them up, supervising them during the holidays, instrument lessons, swimming lessons etc) and also pay the minimum as maintenance. Currently the system punishes the mother (speaking generally) as you put it. I’m sure most people on this thread actually just want to even it out so the majority of the burden isn’t on one parent be that financial or logistical. If you can’t supply logistical support you should pay more.

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.
Okay, apologies for misunderstanding. So what should happen in a situation when both parents are earning the same amount - not millionaires, but say two salaries above the average, mortgage + childcare + other child rearing expenses are split equally (and consume the bulk of the income, as it happens) and then one of the parents just swans away with a new passion and decides to pay the CMS rate only. Now the other party is suddenly supposed to meet almost double the expenses they had before, and the contribution from the absent parent is negligible. The RP is unlikely to have £10000s required for full legal support in the court, most likely the assets will be split via mediation (ie what both parties agree to).
Because that's the most common situation I recognise around me, not the one with a scrounging taxpayer-supported RP. And quite honestly, that's the one pushing professional mothers out of workforce - which is a loss to the society as a whole.

Absolutely. With the added sentence that if you can't provide time, that's presumably because you are working so CAN provide money, at the very least in the form of childcare costs. Someone way upthread asked why on earth the nrp should contribute to costs incurred so the RP can work.. Mostly because nrps only choose o have contact when they are not working, the child fits round their life. Their freedom to work / play is facilitated by the RP who incurs huge costs, only some of which is reclaimable. The remainder should be shared.

@HugeAckmansWife

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.

Yes, this is, sadly, very common view. Look, she can afford haircuts, how about she spends that money on the children instead!

@DinoHat in cases without assets, as you say there's no money to be magicked up. In cases where both parents earn similarly split is often 50/50, or even in the father's favour if he's the lower earner, because the idea is having 2 similar residences etc for DCs... But that's also rubbish if it means you both have the same cash but (like my ex) he's only having the DCs once a week, so will not need to spend the extra for more storage space, suitable school catchments and all the costs of running a house for more people, plus then having to cover full childcare.

You also mention how you 'wouldn't want to pay for someone else's kids'... Absolutely fair enough, which is why it's ridiculous that under the current system, if my ex moves in with a woman with her own DCs, his CM to his own kids will reduce... however her kids will continue to get exactly the same CM from their own father? They'll likely end up better off, especially after shared bills, while his kids get less.

I think a lot of the criticism here is coming from people without inside experience of the system or who don't know many single mothers (or only some very fortunate ones)

Maybe the answer is that there needs to be less stigma to the mother walking away as well following a relationship break-down (90% of lone parents are female).

Only one parent can walk away at the moment. The other is trapped into caring for the children full-time at the expense of their career and finances. Maybe the answer is to make it possible to 'surrender' children to the state post-relationship breakdown (and remove any stigma around this). So both parents have the option to walk away with no expectation either parent will stay and care for the children. After all, very few people set out to be single parents...it's a very unenviable lifestyle choice.

We need to remove the narrative that a mother who did this would be a 'bad' mother. If it's an acceptable choice for a father to make, then it's an acceptable choice for the mother. No one should be forced to be the 'default' parent.

If this makes us uncomfortable, we need to think about why this is (and what we expect from mothers). And why mothers bear so much more responsibility than fathers in our eyes to care for and meet the needs of their children.

@HugeAckmansWife

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.

This all depends on what kind of person your ex is

Again you're tarring everyone with the same brush. No men return items. Therefore all men must pay out for duplicate items.

Obviously some people's exs are really shit but I honestly do not believe the majority behave like this.

My own dad was incredibly shit. Barely ever paid maintenance but even he ensured things went back home with me.

People saying if you can't give time give money, what about the other way around. Would you be happy if your ex went pt for example, your maintenance plummeted but they picked them up from school half the week for instance?

Because ime on MN when this happens people are not happy about it.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

People saying if you can't give time give money, what about the other way around. Would you be happy if your ex went pt for example, your maintenance plummeted but they picked them up from school half the week for instance?

Because ime on MN when this happens people are not happy about it.

Yes. I know the system isn’t perfect but I do think men can’t win sometimes.

Basically single parenting is a bit shit and there’s no perfect solution that doesn’t build resentment.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

People saying if you can't give time give money, what about the other way around. Would you be happy if your ex went pt for example, your maintenance plummeted but they picked them up from school half the week for instance?

Because ime on MN when this happens people are not happy about it.

Oh yes please. My maintenance cannot plummet from £1/month any further, but yes, more hands-on help would be fantastic.

What I find hurtful (on behalf of my child) is that everything stopped the day after he turned 18. No maintenance, no birthday card, disposable child.

@forinborin quite obviously that scenario is not the scenario you are in

No system can ensure that all those who deserve justice gets it. All cases are different. sometimes the rp gets the better deal, so,Eli,escits the nrp, most often it’s a matter of perspective.

The best you can do is prepare for the eventuality of separation as best as is possible and accept that you might yourself with the biggest share of them responsibilities.

What’s often unsaid though is that although this usually falls under the remit of the rp, the opportunity to be with your kids most of the time, have the biggest influence, and usually the highest part of returned love is worth all the responsibilities. Let’s not forget that children bring happiness not just in their childhood but also adulthood, and who is going to get most of it then? The parents who took on their responsibilities and made the most sacrifices for their kids.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

People saying if you can't give time give money, what about the other way around. Would you be happy if your ex went pt for example, your maintenance plummeted but they picked them up from school half the week for instance?

Because ime on MN when this happens people are not happy about it.

They're not happy because often that is not the action of a devoted dad who's going to care for his kids part time, but one who wants to minimise maintenance and shove them in front of the TV / pass them over to his new partner (just see all the aggrieved stepmums on that board here).

Also school pickups might save you £12 per child per day, which is meaningful but not if your maintenance plummets, also not if he doesn't cover school holidays etc.

Different case if it is about two motivated parents who both want to maximise their time with DCs, go 50/50, play minimal or no maintenance and take full responsibility on their days. Yes, it can be emotionally painful for both and they'll both end up worse off than together but sometimes that is unfortunately necessary. But that's not what happens in the majority of actual cases.

There are many NRP who don’t engage with the logistics of raising a child (dropping children off at school, picking them up, supervising them during the holidays, instrument lessons, swimming lessons etc

But that also means they don't tuck them in at night, hear about their day, see them learn to swim etc. I'm not saying it's not unequal at times but ask if you would swap and just see your child 2 out of 7 days?

So I'm right aren't I @OverTheRubicon.

You say time is important, but only if it's what you want. Only if you deem then a devoted parent. Only if it doesn't impact your money.

An NRP can't win.

There are so many comments saying "I have to do so the school runs" but then the suggestion the other parent might do some? Ooooh no I'll lose money not acceptable at all.

Well which is it?

But that also means they don't tuck them in at night, hear about their day, see them learn to swim etc. I'm not saying it's not unequal at times but ask if you would swap and just see your child 2 out of 7 days?
Exactly that. My ex was the typical lazy dad who wanted to do the least yet expected the rewards when it suited.

I didn’t receive a penny in maintenance in 15 years. I did all the travelling every weekend for them to see him on Saturdays. He never attended a school meeting, never took them to one activity, didn’t even show up when one needed hospital treatment.

I did it all, working ft. It was exhausting and frustrating that despite it all, they of course still think the world of him. I did it all for them and their emotional balance. Him benefiting from it was collateral. As it is, they are now adults and see him for who he is .they have little contact and certainly do not have the bond we have.

My kids have brought more happiness in my life, and continue to do so than anything else. I have not one once of regrets and wouldn’t swap with him for 50 million quids.

@IND1A

Some children are with foster carers for years.

And I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy in every single respect. I’m not saying it’s identical.

I’m saying that’s how much the government thinks it costs to raise a child ( of various ages and needs ). Just expenses. Not wages. To house, clothe, feed, educate and entertain them. To take them on holiday, buy gifts, pay for pocket money.

All the things that resident parents have to pay for.

Yet apparently non fostered kids only cost £14 a week to keep, as so many NRP only pay £7 a week.

Or as @forinborin said, her kids cost 25p a week.

Yes of course it’s scandalously unfair to the RP and their children and successive governments have failed to tackle this huge social injustice.

There are often many additional expenses incurred for foster children - for example, maintaining links to birth family and covering additional needs.

A nrp paying £7 a week will be on benefits. They cannot pay more. Perhaps they were on benefits when still living with the dc, perhaps not.

Maybe a minimum CMP (child maintenance payment!) amount should be set and should be treated pretty much like a graduate tax, to be paid back through the taxation system .... with no end date.

Self-employed and cash in hand people are the worst. I'd agree with CCJs and confiscation of passports for the worst offenders.
And more powers for the CMS to investigate spending patterns.

@HugeAckmansWife

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.

So you want your ex to contribute to your lifestyle lol then always this

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

There are so many comments saying "I have to do so the school runs" but then the suggestion the other parent might do some? Ooooh no I'll lose money not acceptable at all.

Well which is it?

That’s the issue sometimes. Not all the time. There are some feckless fathers and I don’t dispute that.

My own DH paid a substantial sum in maintenance and left his ex with the marital home etc to ensure her and his son were looked after. The only practical way to sustain this was for him to continue in a high earning role.

5 years or so down the line. DH decides he can’t continue with being sent dates for his annual leave allowance based on exes preferences for holidays alone, so says would it not be easier to go 50:50 now so ex can have her hols and DH can arrange regular childcare - sporadic childcare not being feasible (his idea was to get a nanny). She said but maintenance will drop and I can’t afford it, DH said maybe you could look to get a job (it was never my DH’s preference that she become at SAHM) that was rebutted because she needed to be there for her now upper primary child. But being there didn’t extend to times DH was expected to have said child for holidays.

It’s difficult not to be a bit bitter when I’m a working parent of my own DC and my DH is expected to take all his annual leave term time so holidays aren’t too expensive for his ex, preventing us from taking our own family holidays. Child is now high school age and the expectation is still that DM can’t possibly work, but regularly demands breaks, but not breaks so regular it will affect CMS. It’s an exhausting cycle of one person wanting to pull on all the resources, time/money, whilst the other party faces constant criticism for not automatically agreeing to that. I’m criticised for not supporting my step child by collecting him from school etc when my own DC are in paid childcare. Mum has had another small child so I expect the pattern is repeating.

But I guess that’s why the system isn’t perfect. It’s open to abuse from either side.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

People saying if you can't give time give money, what about the other way around. Would you be happy if your ex went pt for example, your maintenance plummeted but they picked them up from school half the week for instance?

Because ime on MN when this happens people are not happy about it.

I'd be fine with that because it would mean I could work longer hours and earn more money myself and contribute more to my own pension. As it is right now, I've had to accommodate my own working hours around my ex's as his shifts are so erratic so I can't commit to doing any more hours at work.

Although my ex would never go part time to be honest, he's a workaholic. He'd rather pay me the £500pm he pays now than do more of the donkey work of parenting!

He's not a bad guy and to be honest our situation isn't much different to a lot of married couples where the man works very long hours for a good wage. At least on his days off he spends the entire time with DS.

I think that child care costs should be split equally between RP & NRP.
It has benefits for the children in that the RP can work, will have more money to give the children a better standard of life - a steady income will give a more stable home life for the children.
Likewise dentists, opticians & school stuff should be split equally.
Plus further education costs should also be equally split.
The child's genetic makeup is 50% RP & 50% NRP - the NRP should step up & pay their 50%!
The RP can always show receipts for things spent on the children - to prove it wasn't spent on them 'gadding' about on the NRP's £££ - but things for the children should be 50/50

Oh & if the NRP moves a partner + their child in, there should be NO change in child maintenance to their biological children!