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?

it's not a bad little earner is it.Plus you then add other benefits such as child benefit, free school meals etc

You’re a single parent? You have an understanding of the benefits system? You realise that not all single parents receive benefits and that there is no such thing as ‘single parent benefits’? You know that the majority of maintenance goes unpaid and of that that is paid, much of it is at the bare minimum of £7 a week? You know that full childcare costs are not covered by benefits?

I mean, you clearly have no clue or you wouldn’t come out with such utter shite.

@Getawaywithit

it's not a bad little earner is it.Plus you then add other benefits such as child benefit, free school meals etc

You’re a single parent? You have an understanding of the benefits system? You realise that not all single parents receive benefits and that there is no such thing as ‘single parent benefits’? You know that the majority of maintenance goes unpaid and of that that is paid, much of it is at the bare minimum of £7 a week? You know that full childcare costs are not covered by benefits?

I mean, you clearly have no clue or you wouldn’t come out with such utter shite.

She's married to a NRP which is why she's so bitter about it all. She posts similar nonsense on all threads about maintenance.

@HugeAckmansWife

getoffyourarse I meant that I think the idea that you prefer to live in a bigger house than you need is irrelevant to the discussion of the housing costs of an NRP which are being used as a reason as to why they can't contribute adequately to the main residence of their children. I agree that an NRP who sees the children on a regular if minimal basis does need adequate space so they can't really downsize to a 1 bed flat but a personal preference to maintain a much bigger home, at the cost of NOT supporting the primary residence would not be ok. There are RPs on here talking about their exes living in 4 bed houses on the earnings they garner thanks to to the RP doing all the childcare, while the children are in less happy surroundings.

They contribute with their own residence though. Why should they contribute twice?

My ex hasn't seen his Ds in over a decade. I was up half the night with Ds due to mh reasons and have had to work. He has sn's so limited what work i can do so yes why does my ex not need to pay towards space for ds.

Oh god, do you still not get it?

1. A child staying 4 nights a month can share a room, or have a box room as they won't have loads of stuff,unlike their main residence
2. The nrps house doesn't have to be near good schools or near their workplace to keep commuting short for pick ups, so there's more flexibility in area and price
3. A child will eat and use more resources in 26 days than 4..so the parent who is 50% responsible for their existence needs to address that balance.

@HugeAckmansWife

Oh god, do you still not get it?

1. A child staying 4 nights a month can share a room, or have a box room as they won't have loads of stuff,unlike their main residence
2. The nrps house doesn't have to be near good schools or near their workplace to keep commuting short for pick ups, so there's more flexibility in area and price
3. A child will eat and use more resources in 26 days than 4..so the parent who is 50% responsible for their existence needs to address that balance.

Oh I get it, I just don't agree. You're only seeing it as what your shit ex provides, or doesn't.

Maintenance is for the extra food and resources, no?

You get slated for your step child not having their own bedroom, full of their own stuff even if they only stay four nights a week. But you're saying oh that's fine as long as you pay more.

No I don't agree, If you're providing it all at your own house that's fair enough. The rp doesn't get to dictate that the nrp doesn't have to live close (another thing you get slated for!) Or have another bedroom so they should pay more.

I'm not dictating anything, I'm pointing out how unconstrained the NRP is in comparison to the RP that can translate into significant advantage.

@HugeAckmansWife

I'm not dictating anything, I'm pointing out how unconstrained the NRP is in comparison to the RP that can translate into significant advantage.

But not all of them choose to live miles away, not have bedrooms for their kids, not let their kids have any "things" there. A lot do. And pay for all that.

I have been on both sides of this, when I met (now ex) dh he had 3 children and had to pay quite a lot of maintenance whilst his ex wife didn’t work, things were very tight and when we had our own dc they missed out on quite a lot but they were small and didn’t really notice. We were also made to feel guilty if we couldn’t afford extras for the step kids or if we spent any money in our own kids.

I’m now on the other side of it where I am receiving maintenance for my 2dc’s, we didn’t go through CSA, we agreed on what we thought was a reasonable amount, he doesn’t pay a lot but it’s enough to pay for school uniforms, new shoes and clothes.

As for paying for things like food, upkeep, clubs and hobbies, I do receive tax credits and child benefit, also both dc’s are claiming DLA/PIP, they were getting this when we were still together and these went towards food etc.. the same as they do now.

Do I think ex gets away with not paying as much as I do? Sometimes but I’m sure if the dc were desperate for something I couldn’t afford to buy he would help out, I never ask him for anything other than his monthly payment because I haven’t needed it.

Is maintenance fair? I guess it depends on the situation, for me I feel it’s fair.

I'm not dictating anything, I'm pointing out how unconstrained the NRP is in comparison to the RP that can translate into significant advantage

Chicken and egg a bit though. If a nrp wants to be fully involved then yes they are constrained. If they want the children to have their own room, things, be able to stay on school nights etc, the. They have exactly the same constraints.

Only usually when the family splits there simply isn’t enough money to provide a second home near school and the other parent, with enough bedrooms etc to enable the nrp to properly co-parent.

So they have to buy further away, which means the kids can’t stay on a school night, so it becomes relatively more important for the RP as they alone can provide that housing.

But not all of them choose to live miles away, not have bedrooms for their kids, not let their kids have any "things" there. A lot do. And pay for all that

Some do. Not a majority, especially if they have minimal residency (again, usually their choice). And in return, if they are a 1-night-a-week dad, they have hugely more flexibility to choose a good job, and are not liable for most of the costs.

As a single mother I can only keep the same kind of job as my ex because my income is enough for nanny and a cleaner. Even then, I'm financially worse off than him even though he earns less, because his CMS is far lower than half the cost of keeping 3 DCs in childcare and appropriate housing. I am still incredibly lucky as childcare costs will end and my free cash will go up dramatically - but for now, my children are having a far more reduced lifestyle than they would be if it were a fairer split, because like many dads around the world (maybe not your DH, but this is matter of research and not opinion), he loves his kids but spends his spare cash on fun stuff for him, not family holidays or the chance to learn a musical instrument. For now, it's charity shop clothes and a wet camping trip to Dorset. For the children of a less fortunate family, that wouldn't just mean the extras, it would mean having to wear outgrown school shoes or mum missing dinner the last 3 nights before payday.

As someone who had a 4 bedroom house before DCs (no matter if it's a cheaper area) you are also privileged Vs the average single mother. But you keep choosing to ignore that and go with 'not all men'. And that's true! But it is many men, often unwittingly assisted by new partners and family who believe them when they talk about how their ex cleaned them out or refused them access, and the current system vastly enables the crappy ones.

Well I'm not a single mother so it's a pointless comparison!

You're crying that I'm saying "not all men" but like the previous poster said it's a viscous circle!

You keep saying the majority etc, is it though? Is it because they all don't give a shit? Or it's it for millions of different reasons?

And believe what they say about being cleaned out. Does that never happen then? Is that always a lie?

The thing is it seems like many posters want as much maintenance as possible, equally are unhappy because they have to do all the work, but wouldn't give that work up because it would mean less money oh and have a shit ex anyway so it's not at all possible anyway.

Basically it's just about money and not actual parenting.

But women, and single parents who are women, in particular, are systemically disadvantaged. Men who don't live with their children fare better. I mean, how do you argue with these incontrovertible truths??

By "parenting" do you mean beliefs, morals and values? What about... Food; Clothes; Future security? I mean, parenting is a package, no? It's not just the fluffly stuff.

@Aalvarino

But women, and single parents who are women, in particular, are systemically disadvantaged. Men who don't live with their children fare better. I mean, how do you argue with these incontrovertible truths??

I'm not arguing with that I'm just disagreeing that nrps should fund both households, and I'm disagreeing that they all just be useless shit heads just because someone on MN decides they must be.

@Aalvarino

By "parenting" do you mean beliefs, morals and values? What about... Food; Clothes; Future security? I mean, parenting is a package, no? It's not just the fluffly stuff.

Yes, that's what's maintenance is for

I also mean time, but apparently that doesn't matter.

But not many people do think that all NRPs are crap. Overall, though, and viewed as a group they don't pull their financial or time-served weight. Most people are very skilled in understanding generalities and that not everyone conforms to the mean,?

What is "funding both households"? In my opinion this concept is quite often applied far too simplistically to mean current costs of housing/feeding/ clothing/entertaining.
In the cost to the NRP of raising a child I would include:
Salary detriment from being a woman with Resident child.
Sick days on part of resident parent. Sometimes unpaid.
Pension detriment (this is huge - I asked for an estimate, it was many thousands of ££)
Favourable credit access detriment.
Career advancement detriment.
(Often) unrecognised miscellaneous costs such as:
Renting or buying in right school catchment.
Facilitating the majority of the kids' social development and activities such as having friends round for tea or takeaway, parties, presents, that craze they really really want... all credit to you if you truly take a fair share of this.
I could go on.
Unfortunately history tells us that women are systemically disadvantaged and also that most men don't understand the full extent of their privilege. You may be different, PP, but that doesn't detract from the broader analysis. And we would be very stupid to make public policy based on the outliers like you.

Cost to the resident parent I mean, not cost to NRP.

Salary detriment from being a woman with Resident child.
Sick days on part of resident parent. Sometimes unpaid.
Pension detriment (this is huge - I asked for an estimate, it was many thousands of ££)
Favourable credit access detriment.
Career advancement detriment

This list isn't unique to single parents.

In most families one parent has to "sacrifice" their income & work prospects in order to raise children.

YLAMOON but when you are part of a couple the parent who has sacrificed this has usually got the full financial support from the full time working parent as a deal between a couple who are equally committed to do doing the best for the whole family. Once a split has occurred, that isn't the case. I think how you feel about the nrps position can depend on if they chose the split, chose to be eow or less or if they'd dearly love more contact. In the latter case I can to an extend understand not wanting to pay as much but the stats really don't bear that out with the vast majority of mostly male nrps choosing to take the financially and practically much easier for them route of eow only.
There's no point bringing sentiment into this debate either. Kids can't eat, wear or play with love and attention.

@Aalvarino

But not many people do think that all NRPs are crap. Overall, though, and viewed as a group they don't pull their financial or time-served weight. Most people are very skilled in understanding generalities and that not everyone conforms to the mean,?

What is "funding both households"? In my opinion this concept is quite often applied far too simplistically to mean current costs of housing/feeding/ clothing/entertaining.
In the cost to the NRP of raising a child I would include:
Salary detriment from being a woman with Resident child.
Sick days on part of resident parent. Sometimes unpaid.
Pension detriment (this is huge - I asked for an estimate, it was many thousands of ££)
Favourable credit access detriment.
Career advancement detriment.
(Often) unrecognised miscellaneous costs such as:
Renting or buying in right school catchment.
Facilitating the majority of the kids' social development and activities such as having friends round for tea or takeaway, parties, presents, that craze they really really want... all credit to you if you truly take a fair share of this.
I could go on.
Unfortunately history tells us that women are systemically disadvantaged and also that most men don't understand the full extent of their privilege. You may be different, PP, but that doesn't detract from the broader analysis. And we would be very stupid to make public policy based on the outliers like you.

Okay well you can be as condescending as you like but when you end your speech with "we'd be stupid to base out policies on people like you" you completely undermine your point because I have not once suggested that.

I don't agree with salary detriment, pensions etc. Nobody is forced to work part time.

What you're basically saying, and it happens on every thread like this, is that mum's time is more important, and dad's money is. Dad's money should pay for mums time. Dad's time is irrelevant.

Basically it's just about money and not actual parenting.

Thing is, that again it's about the opportunities for the children - and it's time or money. It would be about parenting if more men were willing to take on a true 50/50 role - and especially if they'd actually done that since their children were young, so that both partners had similar opportunities to pursue higher salaries if they wished.

Instead, many couples split and the woman has already taken a major financial hit by years of being the main carer (often a degree of this is by choice, a degree of this is due to the cost of childcare, and often a degree because the male partner is less willing to take on school dropoff etc)... Then during a split, many fathers wish to take a reduced role during the school week, so the woman, who often starts off behind, is further disadvantaged in her ability to earn money. For lower income women, this often means dropping out of the workforce completely, and even for high earning women (like me), you're still far less able to progress.

Therefore you need to focus on the money, to allow you to give your children better chances despite reduced income, or to pay for the extra childcare you need to continue with the same type of job.

Of course some fathers are very involved after a divorce. Unfortunately that is not the majority, when you look at the average split of residency - and therefore to protect children after separation, we need to ensure there's a better system to ensure that the majority of fathers, who do a lot less than 50/50 in terms of time, continue to contribute their share in terms of money.

@OverTheRubicon

Basically it's just about money and not actual parenting.

Thing is, that again it's about the opportunities for the children - and it's time or money. It would be about parenting if more men were willing to take on a true 50/50 role - and especially if they'd actually done that since their children were young, so that both partners had similar opportunities to pursue higher salaries if they wished.

Instead, many couples split and the woman has already taken a major financial hit by years of being the main carer (often a degree of this is by choice, a degree of this is due to the cost of childcare, and often a degree because the male partner is less willing to take on school dropoff etc)... Then during a split, many fathers wish to take a reduced role during the school week, so the woman, who often starts off behind, is further disadvantaged in her ability to earn money. For lower income women, this often means dropping out of the workforce completely, and even for high earning women (like me), you're still far less able to progress.

Therefore you need to focus on the money, to allow you to give your children better chances despite reduced income, or to pay for the extra childcare you need to continue with the same type of job.

Of course some fathers are very involved after a divorce. Unfortunately that is not the majority, when you look at the average split of residency - and therefore to protect children after separation, we need to ensure there's a better system to ensure that the majority of fathers, who do a lot less than 50/50 in terms of time, continue to contribute their share in terms of money.

So make sure you go part time when you have kids, ladies! You can claim more then.

Otoh, cheaper more accessible childcare would be the answer as I previously suggested but of course that's such an outlandish suggestion and making men pay for everything is much more sensible considering we are in the year 1954

I'm just disagreeing that nrps should fund both households
They don’t fund the rp household, they contribute.

They pay 20% of their income in maintenance. Say they also contribute another 20% for when they are with the nrp, that’s 40% of his income spent on his children. That doesn’t seem so unreasonable.

Take the rp, it is very likely that they too spend about 40% of their income on the kids if you take everything into account.

As it’s been pointed out before, it is easy to count costs on broad terms, food, clothes etc... but there are so many little costs that only the rp will pay that all together will amount for quite a bit.

Of course, nothing will take away the fact that 20% of little is a pittance whilst 20% of a lot is a luxury.