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?

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

No, I imagine (and apologies to the other poster if I've got the wrong end of the stick) that she wants her ex to support THEIR children's lifestyle, so that she doesn't have to spend the entirety of her income on it, while he pays far less to make up the difference.

@DinoHat what you’ve said is so true.

The system really breeds resentment. We were paying double the recommended minimum and still providing for the children 40% of the time. There were always requests for more money, more time, and the kids were coming out with this attitude of ‘Daddy’s rich’ which, when we’re paying for all the things children need and an extra 15% on top, is really not the case.

We did push for 50/50 and got it. And one of the things that really stuck in my head was our legal advisor saying that Mum takes home more in benefits and part time working, than I earn. I earn a decent salary. But I work hard for it, and I support her children with it. And she works two days despite having another 1-2 available to work when the kids are here.

It absolutely breeds resentment. And I like you am expected to ‘help’ but then also expected to ‘not overstep’. And frankly I’m not dancing to a tune that will always change so I don’t even bother. I’m allowed to collect the children but woe betide a teacher speaking to me.

And I honestly think this is why so many women come on Mumsnet saying DP pays for everything and it’s so unfair. We don’t begrudge the act of paying for your kids, in fact that’s an admirable quality.

But we really begrudge working hard, when someone else is not. Sustaining 1.5 households - maintenance was more than our mortgage. And then being treated like a second class citizen who should be dictated to despite contributing to their child and the drama that comes with that.

People should absolutely pay for their children. But until the world changes in its approach, to accommodate split families...the resentment will always be there.

Because:
One parent will receive the child benefit and other benefits if entitled.
One parent will always be the one school ring first because schools are gender biased.
One parent will always receive a letter about doctors and dentists when the other won’t.
One parent makes a school application.

And yet the law expects two parents to provide for their child. Together or not.

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

That’s great. But who decides?

Mum believes child A should have branded tracksuit. At a cost of £20 more than non-branded tracksuit.

Dad believe child enjoys branded cereal more at £2 per box more expensive than other cereal. That is an extra £10 a month. Meanwhile Dad says he can’t afford a school trip, but is spending an extra £120 a year on cereal Mum can’t afford.

Mum spends £160 on branded air max trainers, but then can’t afford to pay for school shoes. Dad wonders why she spent £160 on trainers when she can’t afford school shoes.

Yes in theory, child costs should be split 50/50. But it’s not that simple is it? Because every individual has a different budget, that they can spend on their child and has different priorities.

social thank you. Exactly that. I absolutely do not expect my ex to subsidize my lifestyle. We both work full time and earn similar. But 20% of his income goes to the kids and about 95% of mine does. He spends minimally on them on the 4 days a month he has them and they share a room at his place so he's not beggaring himself to provide more space. It's not 'lifestyle' to get a haircut twice a year, buy new jeans when mine have holes and new boots when my feet are wet. Equally, I don't think it's unreasonable that I should be allowed to have a night ou twice a month or a self catering holiday once every two years. Bu in order for that to happen, ex needs to cover a fair share of the kids costs. I emphasise for the benefit of latecomers to the thread: I work full time in a professional role; I would happily do 50/50 and take the drop of maintenance; I did not choose this, ex left and chose ow and eow contact.

@Spandang

Our two household incomes are comparable, but we have one where both adults work, and one where only one does.

And yes this is so true But we really begrudge working hard, when someone else is not. Sustaining 1.5 households - maintenance was more than our mortgage. And then being treated like a second class citizen who should be dictated to despite contributing to their child and the drama that comes with that. because where one party is getting something for nothing, the other is doing something for nothing.

@Spandang

Ok I stand corrected. I'm one of those Mumsnetters that doesn't have children & has never been married so am probably talking out my arse..

However I stand by my decision that childcare - nursery, wrap-around care, holiday kids clubs - should be 50/50. It will enable the RP to work then they can afford better things for the child.
Health things should also be 50/50.
Further education costs should also be 50/50.

And most definitely, the NRP moves a new partner + child in or has another child?
It should most definitely NOT affect maintenance given to the RP!

Of course childcare costs should be split 50/50 to enable both parents to work. It is so obvious that it goes without saying and yet we challenge the idea on the basis that it's unfair to expect the NRP to subsidise the RP's 'life choices'.

Working is not a life choice.

The question is why wouldn’t a NRP contribute to childcare costs equally? It doesn’t enable just the RP to work. It enables the NRP to work too, unless they are going to take it upon themselves to drop hours / do school pick ups etc.

That being said, I receive a small amount of UC so I could claim 85% back (currently don’t pay for childcare except in summer hols) so I wouldn’t expect ex to contribute 50% because then I’d actually be making money off him. I think it would be reasonable to expect him to contribute 50% of what UC don’t cover.

If RP not on UC then it should be 50/50.

As for funding ex’s lifestyles of course the RP will forego things for themselves like haircuts if they need to pay for things like school uniform because NRP won’t contribute. They shouldn’t have to, though. And actually I’d argue that the RP is subsidising the NRP’s lifestyle at times because they have no other choice but to pay for things the children need and the NRP gets away with paying the minimum.

Of course childcare costs should be split 50/50 to enable both parents to work

How often on here though do we see “my wages didn’t cover childcare so we’re better off with me being a sahm”

It starts there. Once a woman takes herself out of the working world and sets up that dynamic that female = childcare and male = money it is hard to change, if they even want to. And this carries on through divorce.

We need sahd to be normalised. Or other solutions like both parents going part time or choosing flexible jobs. Putting two adults futures into one career doesn’t work these days.

We need to change the narrative from the start, couple or single, that childcare is a shared cost, and barring SN, all parents should work and share child 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.

While I like the sentiment of this, I think it's a dangerous attitude. You can't trade off the emotional side of having children, however satisfying, against the financial costs. The two aren't comparable. And often one parent (the NRP) attributes little value to the emotional bond with the children and so is happy to see them very rarely, but is happy to use it as a stick to beat the RP with - "You should be happy looking after the kids, that's what you should be doing, it's a privilege, so why are you asking for money or a night off?"

The thing is, it's not always worth it. Many single parents wouldn't have children again if they knew they would end up in the situation that they're in. Especially if they're caring for multiple children or children with additional needs. It can be a relentless, thankless drudge where they completely lose themselves. And it doesn't always end in a good relationship with the kids...financial pressures, extreme stress on the RP, the children idolising the absent parent...all of these can put a strain on the RP's relationship with the children.

The reality is the NRP will be equally contributing. For those that are paying Child Maintenance.

The NRP will have a house to run for the children just like RP and bills just like RP has. Plus the extra 20percent that is provided as child maintenance for 2 children and having them every other week. So if you add the total they are more likely providing 50% percent but just not the way the RP wants it. Plus the RP is more than likely receiving child benefit and some other benefits.

Why is Housing costs used as what the Child Maintenance is used on for RP but can't be used for the NRP?

The hypocrisy of RPs when maintenance is dropped cos of further children in the NRP house is astounding. You say the housing costs are greater with more children in the house but when a NRP has more children it shouldn't be dropped not forgetting if the RP has somebody move in they have more money in the house. Hypocrisy at its finest.

The only true difference between spending in the 2 households would be food and clothes and the 20 percent should easily cover that.

😂😂😂😂 At 'the only difference is food and clothes and the 20% should cover that'. Quite simply, no it doesn't not by a country mile. And you forgot activities, sports club fees, kit, petrol to and from training, outings, birthday gifts for parties they're invited too, cost of glasses, braces and most significantly, as had been outlined on here in exhaustive detail, the cost to the RP in both time and £££ in childcare, lost earnings, pension ec which the NRP is entirely free from thanks to the RP. And no we don't all get benefits. If you really don't get that after 19 pages of it being explained to you, there's no hope.

If the NRP was contributing equally, the child would be able to survive on their contribution x 2.

EOW and child benefit x 2 is in most cases insufficient to sustain the child.

So most NRPs are not contributing 'equally'. If the RP provided the same contribution as the NRP, the child would end up in care.

The reality is the NRP will be equally contributing. For those that are paying Child Maintenance.
That's very much a blanket statement. My ex pays me less than £200 a month. The last childcare bill I received before DS2 qualified for the funded hours, was £432. That's before costs of food, clothes for him and for DS1. How is that an equal contribution? Other single parents have given examples of how the CM doesn't cover enough, have you just chosen to ignore those posts?

Why is Housing costs used as what the Child Maintenance is used on for RP but can't be used for the NRP?
I can't speak for anyone else but my DS1 is settled in school here and DS2 in preschool. If I moved to another, cheaper, area that would mean moving both of them and possibly not getting a space for DS1 because all the good schools are over-subscribed. DS2's preschool is very reasonably priced but also good. Any other preschool/nursery that has space would likely be much further away, or much more expensive. As it is now, their preschool and school are on the same site, making drop offs and pick ups doable with my work, as it is either me or my mum doing them. So we are still tied to this area. My ex is not, and in fact next week he is moving further out to somewhere much cheaper. The idea of child maintenance is that the children should, in an ideal world, carry on having the same standard of living with their parents separated as they would if they were still together. Therefore housing costs do very much come into it when you take into account schooling etc

carry on having the same standard of living with their parents separated as they would if they were still together.

I thought it was to reduce disparity between households. The disparity being between the new norms. I don’t think it’s logical to expect everything to stay exactly the same.

And you forgot activities, sports club fees, kit, petrol to and from training, outings, birthday gifts for parties they're invited too, cost of glasses, braces.

@HugeAckmansWife - don't you understand that children of separated parents lose their entitlement to these luxuries? All they are entitled to is a bit of bread to eat and the clothes on their back and that is all.

@HugeAckmansWife

😂😂😂😂 At 'the only difference is food and clothes and the 20% should cover that'. Quite simply, no it doesn't not by a country mile. And you forgot activities, sports club fees, kit, petrol to and from training, outings, birthday gifts for parties they're invited too, cost of glasses, braces and most significantly, as had been outlined on here in exhaustive detail, the cost to the RP in both time and £££ in childcare, lost earnings, pension ec which the NRP is entirely free from thanks to the RP. And no we don't all get benefits. If you really don't get that after 19 pages of it being explained to you, there's no hope.

When you were a family you probably made the choice which was the best financial decision for your family guess what your no longer that family so it changes. Also what is never factored here is the mother usually wants to be the SAHP. How do you measure the emotional cost of the other parent working his arse off to provide and look after the family whilst the SAHP is off? Should there be benefits for them. Don't worry the kids n

Outings, petrol for taking kids to sporting activities are you deliberately taking the Michael here, why should a NRP child maintenance pay for that, can you imagine the outrage if a NRP wanted to deduct payment for petrol lol. Sports clubs are not essential yes nice to have but if you can't afford it tough luck.

@cadburyegg the child maintenance to keep the expected lifestyle change surely is a fallacy how does the same income spread across 2 households work, esp if both are on NMW

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast things have changed, if you were together and somebody lost a job you have to cut your cloth accordingly. This is no different. You know something has to give to find the extra 1000 for extra housing costs

Outings, petrol for taking kids to sporting activities are you deliberately taking the Michael here, why should a NRP child maintenance pay for that, can you imagine the outrage if a NRP wanted to deduct payment for petrol lol.
That is actually a part of CMS calculation, mileage or plane tickets can be deducted from the maintenance amount. Where's the outrage?

So where are we on the dental care and the glasses? Non-essential costs, everyone?

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

So where are we on the dental care and the glasses? Non-essential costs, everyone?

That’s going to depend on circumstances, if like my DH you’ve given a house away (literally) and pay more than my salary in my maintenance, you can get it out of that. If you’re on the breadline and NRP is driving around in a Ferrari or, otherwise has some disposable income/means (ie has something to give) then clearly it should come as an extra.

And that is why people keep reiterating it’s NOT size fits all so you can’t just list off “essentials” and expect the same answer for every situ.

you can’t just list off “essentials” and expect the same answer for every situ.

No but I think most of us, with the exception of Loveacoseynightin, could agree that it extends beyond food and clothes .

OP -separate point but if your child needs special skincare products etc., you should be able to get these on prescription, which should save some cash.

The thing is, it's not always worth it. Many single parents wouldn't have children again if they knew they would end up in the situation that they're in. Especially if they're caring for multiple children or children with additional needs. It can be a relentless, thankless drudge where they completely lose themselves
Yet anyone can become a single mum at any time through no choice. This is one of the reason why I decided to stick at 2 kids even though my maternal instinct made me desperate for a 3rd. I find any women opting for 3 or more children puts herself at risk, even more if one child is disabled. If you are going to resent having your kids because of how hard it is on your own, you need to take some responsibility for that outcome.

But 20% of his income goes to the kids and about 95% of mine does
That doesn’t make any sense. Surely your are not able to house, feed, transport yourself on 5% of your income only. There is economy of scale inevitably, but you can’t attribute all these costs on the kids only.

The idea of child maintenance is that the children should, in an ideal world, carry on having the same standard of living with their parents separated as they would if they were still together
No it isn’t because that’s not realistic. It’s about ensuring that the kids’ lifestyle with the rp is proportional to what the nrp earns. It doesn’t mean that the kids get to have the fantastic lifestyle they enjoyed before, and the rp too by default whilst the nrp gets to just survive.

Yet anyone can become a single mum at any time through no choice. This is one of the reason why I decided to stick at 2 kids

Yup, it’s sad but it’s true. I have always had the mantra that I need to be able to look after myself if necessary. Yes I should be able to rely on DH, but I’ve got a deep routed mistrust of men so have planned my life around that. That’s why very soon I’ll have two DC in early years childcare despite the costs and the little take home to ensure the damage to my career is minimal (although I accept that’s not perfect).

I also worry what would happen if DH drops dead. Life insurance would be great but it won’t keep me going until retirement.

You can’t plan for everything but given the high instances of failed marriages it seems sensible to plan for that.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

So where are we on the dental care and the glasses? Non-essential costs, everyone?

It would be actually interesting to ask what people think is a reasonable average "child package" is, outside of the hypothetical extremes of one parent driving a Ferrari and another living under a bridge, and fights around child maintenance. I tried to ask earlier on the thread, but it was quickly shot down. Even outside of the context of first wives vs second wives, would be interesting to actually see what a child costs.

And it is not like it is a purely theoretical exercise, inflation is calculated with reference to a basket of goods and services - and no, there aren't only essentials there. Shock horror, it includes smartwatches, jewellery and movie tickets.