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?

Totally agree.

My ex is paying me a grand sum of £74 per month despite earning six figures - he just hides behind a limited company.

The whole system is unfair for the RP and biased in favour of the NRP.

The CMS is beyond useless and works at a snails pace.

My ex blithely ignores the CMS amount and pays what he decrees, because he is King. Or something

£180 from you both is £360 plus child benefit would easily cover the costs of a child unless in early years childcare.
£360 is 6 days worth of wraparound care (school age children) for me, and I assume for many other parents.

@forinborin

£180 from you both is £360 plus child benefit would easily cover the costs of a child unless in early years childcare. £360 is 6 days worth of wraparound care (school age children) for me, and I assume for many other parents.

That's particularly expensive wrap around. It's a tenner here for before and after school club. So 36 days not 6!

You should be getting dla which should be used to help towards extra expenses. As pp’s have said double the amount as you should be contributing the same, then add benefits.

Yep, my ex has two children with me.
In calculating his maintenance he was allowed a percentage deducted because his partners child lived with them. (50/50).

The amount of the reduction for one child, (that wasn't even his), was more than he had to pay me for both of his own children.

The amount didn't even cover their dinner money per month.

Ridiculous. ( and even more galling was the fact that his partners child also lived 50/50 with his dad, dad, earned over £100,000 per year).

My dad paid a grand total of £0 over 15 years for me and my brother. Apparently getting us a takeaway once a month was acceptable.
IF DH ever tried that it would break my heart for my children’s sake.

If I was ever in power this is the one thing I would aim to sort out. It's ridiculous.

I'm wondering, does any country have a system that is actually fair??

In the meantime the only way to do it fairly is 50/50 care. But that is not necessarily fair on the child, if the NRP is crap to be around.

Men (and it is almost always men) who hide self employed earnings to dodge their child maintenance responsibilities are the scum of the earth.

The amount of the reduction for one child, (that wasn't even his), was more than he had to pay me for both of his own children

That is quite literally impossible.

How does 50/50 work when your ex is absent then?

I think the British system is really unfair. Especially the part about not counting new partners earnings. How a father (or mother) is allowed to live the life of Riley off a new partner and contribute a tenner a week is a disgrace. We used to pay about 800€ pm for DHs kids (adults now) but would buy bikes etc or split costs for school trips too. We are overseas and don't see them often so the least we can do is support them. Obviously still plenty of contact but DHs ex did the actual raising. Frankly, given the animosity between her and DH it was probably for the best - we also think she did a good job!

It beggars belief that RPs have to pay most costs and that this seems to be endorsed by the government.

DH ex has and always had a new partner who was also paying into their house and his (local) parents took care of after school/ holiday cover. Seeing as how neither couple was skint we just divided extras up and it worked pretty well.

Some of these support payment amounts are insulting!

Amount was for 2 children.

*The amount of the reduction for one child, (that wasn't even his), was more than he had to pay me for both of his own children

That is quite literally impossible*

What do you mean?

Yanbu.
Before we had full residency of dsd, officially it was 50/50, but in reality dp had her most of the time. He still chose to pay maintenance well above the legal requirements for a nrp without access.

Not because he felt an obligation to his ex, but because he, and later both of us were primarily concerned with dsd's quality of life, above and beyond what his ex 'deserved'. And that's in circumstances that resulted in me being dsd's mother in all but name for most of her life. If he'd had a regular ex and was only paying legal minimum I would have walked away the moment I discovered he was a shit parent, because that's what it comes down to.

What do you mean @Getyourarseofffthequattro

@ArgyleIsle

*The amount of the reduction for one child, (that wasn't even his), was more than he had to pay me for both of his own children

That is quite literally impossible*

What do you mean?

The reduction is a % not a set amount. They wouldn't reduce the payment by over 100% that's just not how it works.

@5zeds

You should be getting dla which should be used to help towards extra expenses.

How do you know OP should be getting DLA

In a lot of cases it's very unfair, I receive 150 a month a disabled ds15, he has no contact with his 'dad'. I can't work, need childcare if I leave him, and he isn't reliably in school. Yes I receive benefits but ex should be putting more in than 150 a month! Oh and let's not forget that ds will still need care past when child maintenance stops.

Not everyone qualifies or even gets awarded dla with a child with disabilities

@CandyFlosss it doesn't. I'm sorry if you're in that position :( such low lifes out there.

@thecatwithnoeyes and @CandyFIosss
Because OPs school age child

has autism and therefore only eats certain things for lunch - a lot of the pre packed things that aren’t cheap - plus I said and a few extras - she still wears nappy pants due to her autism so these are very expensive and can only use certain brands for her skin due to skin irritation so these can cost up to £50 a time for a wash, shampoo, lotion, etc

And sounds very eligible for DLA.

And how is that fair? When the NRP has another child, that the payments go down. We didnt count the new DC into the support payments because getting new children didnt magically make the older children cheaper to house/ keep. Great way to build resentment against the new DC.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I still don't know what you mean, perhaps I didn't explain clearly initially.

I do know that my maintenance was reduced because my ex's partner had a child living with them 50/50.

There was a deduction for this 'other' child before maintenance was calculated on what was left of my ex's wage.

So, for instance, £300 per month was 'set aside' as the deduction from my ex's salary for the other child.
After the deduction maintenance was calculated.

In our case £198 per month for two DC's.

This was far less than the amount retained for the 'other' child.

5zeds

It’s not a given though is it, plenty are turned down even though they “sound eligible”

I'm so bad with abbreviations. What is RP and NRP? Been racking my brains throughout this thread