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?

@vivainsomnia

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.

Yes, presently, which no isn't unreasonable. What's unreasonable is those wanting more than that because "the nrp doesn't have to have the kids stay, doesn't have to have stuff for them, doesn't have to live in school catchment"

Because that's basically saying please do less as a parent and pay me more and I don't agree with that.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro I think the issue is though, a lot of NRPs don't do those things anyway. Not all, but a lot. My exh wouldn't even take school location into account when he decides where to live, because he knows that I will always be there to pick up the slack.

I receive more in maintenance than most people I know and I get told I'm "lucky" that I get so much and that ex is great and I should be grateful. But he is happy to pay so much because I essentially facilitate his working hours by doing about 85% of the day to day parenting. So no, I don't really think I should feel "grateful". I don't want more money but I'm not going to make a big song and dance about his wonderfulness.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro making men pay for everything is much more sensible considering we are in the year 1954

Literally nobody has suggested making men pay for everything.

What we do have is a situation where 13% of fathers make no contact with their children under 18, and only 49% have any regular planned contact.

That's over 50% of RPs having to plan their lives around full time care. Those RPs are also highly likely to be covering all the costs. 34% of CM as recorded by the CMS goes unpaid - and a lot of that will be owed on behalf of those children with limited contact. That 30% also excludes the many informal on and off agreements and the many women who never even bother because they know he'll just go cash in hand, or stop bothering when the debts are written off yet again.

It seems like you're fixed on the picture of your husband's privileged and non-working ex, and are thinking of that as the model of an RP.
Most aren't like that, and 44% of their children are being raised in poverty. Affordable childcare is really important but not sufficient alone either - because even with subsidised childcare, you'd still have children who are frankly owed at least some contribution by the men who helped make them.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

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

This is offensive, a lot of 'ladies' would be working part time around their partners jobs and they would do less hours to look after their children anyway. When the NRP is no longer around there is a drop in the income so the NRP should be expected to pay what they can.

If an NRP pays 12-20% of their income to provide for their children then they have at least 80% left to live on.

It depends on what the nrp earns doesnt it? It’s never been an issue for me and my exh but he is a high earner and actually has the kids just under 50/50. He doesn’t have to pay what he does but he wants to, because she wants his kids to be looked after.

It’s hard, because unfortunately it all depends on what kind of man your ex is. And it’s not always easy to tell which ones will be dickheads!

@HugeAckmansWife but the parent that stays at home or works part time will still have pension and career detriment, they will still be disadvantaged when it comes to credit and are sacrificing their own potential earnings either for child care or to pay for child care.
It's very short sighted to assume that a 2 parents household is better off financially.
But then, this is not a race to the bottom, we all have to assess our own financial situation and work with what we have.
--We are a 2 working parent household, I'd love to get my DC music lessons as very talented but can't afford it. Instead it's 90minutes Karate at a bargain price of £3.50/lesson!--

[quote OverTheRubicon]**@Getyourarseofffthequattro* making men pay for everything is much more sensible considering we are in the year 1954*

Literally nobody has suggested making men pay for everything.

What we do have is a situation where 13% of fathers make no contact with their children under 18, and only 49% have any regular planned contact.

That's over 50% of RPs having to plan their lives around full time care. Those RPs are also highly likely to be covering all the costs. 34% of CM as recorded by the CMS goes unpaid - and a lot of that will be owed on behalf of those children with limited contact. That 30% also excludes the many informal on and off agreements and the many women who never even bother because they know he'll just go cash in hand, or stop bothering when the debts are written off yet again.

It seems like you're fixed on the picture of your husband's privileged and non-working ex, and are thinking of that as the model of an RP.
Most aren't like that, and 44% of their children are being raised in poverty. Affordable childcare is really important but not sufficient alone either - because even with subsidised childcare, you'd still have children who are frankly owed at least some contribution by the men who helped make them.[/quote]
My partner's ex does work? I don't know what you're on about!

I'm not fixed on anything. I've said right from the start I think it should be assessed based on every situation. I don't know what you find so hard to grasp about that?

[quote Aerisash]@Getyourarseofffthequattro

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

This is offensive, a lot of 'ladies' would be working part time around their partners jobs and they would do less hours to look after their children anyway. When the NRP is no longer around there is a drop in the income so the NRP should be expected to pay what they can.

If an NRP pays 12-20% of their income to provide for their children then they have at least 80% left to live on. [/quote]
Yes and that's why affordable childcare would fix this but only a few people seem to agree. Wonder why?

And no, not instead of maintenance, on top of it because then BOTH parents would be able to work, whether they're together or split and it would be a much more even footing to work from.

This is offensive, a lot of 'ladies' would be working part time around their partners jobs and they would do less hours to look after their children anyway

So maybe women should stop accepting that they are the default part timers/childcare providers and facilitating men to remain in the workplace to their own detriment.

This also means men can relinquish responsibility right from the start, and that extends to the workplace. Whenever DH left work early for the school run (we shared) it was always commented on and met with “can’t your wife do it?”.

So when parents split the division is still man =work, female= do the child stuff. Which as people are complaining about, means the woman can’t get back to work. But if the man also drops their work commitments to pick up the slack, there’s less money, at least temporarily until the woman gets back into the workplace.

Add to that many women don’t actually want to work full time around kids, it’s tough.

More and cheaper childcare though, means that the tax payer is funding it. If I was child free I'm not sure how I'd feel about that as an argument if I knew that 1/3 of nrps don't contribute adequately or at all to their kids. We come back to a suggestion made by me and others previously that a) more investment into a rigorous, case by case basis would be useful, coupled with b) a system where once the assessment is made, if the nrp fails to comply, the state pays it and accrues as a debt that is not written off and affects their credit report. C) more enforcement of contact orders where an RP obstructs contact d) rigorous assessment of reports of abuse / neglect /alienation / child's views o help with appropriate use of C.

@HugeAckmansWife

More and cheaper childcare though, means that the tax payer is funding it. If I was child free I'm not sure how I'd feel about that as an argument if I knew that 1/3 of nrps don't contribute adequately or at all to their kids. We come back to a suggestion made by me and others previously that a) more investment into a rigorous, case by case basis would be useful, coupled with b) a system where once the assessment is made, if the nrp fails to comply, the state pays it and accrues as a debt that is not written off and affects their credit report. C) more enforcement of contact orders where an RP obstructs contact d) rigorous assessment of reports of abuse / neglect /alienation / child's views o help with appropriate use of C.

A being a previous suggestion made by me as well. Did you miss it the several times I said it?

I agree with all that but apparently all I want is dad's not to pay ffs

more enforcement of contact orders where an RP obstructs contact

How do you do this though? As with non paying nrp any severe sanctions like prison, endorsing driving license etc will have a negative impact on the children. Which is why RP can consistently breach contact orders with no real consequence.

And an NRP can fuck about with contact and not turn up and there's nothing the RP can do. Let's face it, there are wrongs on all sides of this but we will never make progress if every wrong on one side is countered with a reason why the other is just as bad, instead of accepting that it happens and looking for solutions. I think most of us are in agreement that the only way to do this fairly is a case by case basis but there's no will to enforce or fund this.

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@Getyourarseofffthequattro I think the issue is though, a lot of NRPs don't do those things anyway. Not all, but a lot. My exh wouldn't even take school location into account when he decides where to live, because he knows that I will always be there to pick up the slack.

I receive more in maintenance than most people I know and I get told I'm "lucky" that I get so much and that ex is great and I should be grateful. But he is happy to pay so much because I essentially facilitate his working hours by doing about 85% of the day to day parenting. So no, I don't really think I should feel "grateful". I don't want more money but I'm not going to make a big song and dance about his wonderfulness.[/quote]
I do that for my husband. He’s not seen our son since Sunday. I’m off work today with a coughing child who’s had a Covid test. There was no question who would stay home. I support his career because he is the higher earner. I also have a professional job but it’s just tough.

He spends more 1-2-1 time with his son from a prev marriage because he is actually home when his son is with us. Ironically his ex is a SAHM supported by generous maintenance- I wouldn’t want to do that as I want to maintain my own career to whatever degree I can. But i couldn’t afford to anyway.

It’s the same for a lot of my friends. Fathers that live with their children aren’t necessarily available for childcare. They’re still working then.

It’s the same for a lot of my friends. Fathers that live with their children aren’t necessarily available for childcare. They’re still working then

Yes, the dynamic is set while still together. I do wonder why people who choose the sah/pt/childcare/facilitating other parents career within a relationship split, then suddenly expect it to change, nrp to somehow earn more money as there’s two lots of costs, yet take a bigger parent role which prevents them from doing so..

@reallyreallyborednow

It’s the same for a lot of my friends. Fathers that live with their children aren’t necessarily available for childcare. They’re still working then

Yes, the dynamic is set while still together. I do wonder why people who choose the sah/pt/childcare/facilitating other parents career within a relationship split, then suddenly expect it to change, nrp to somehow earn more money as there’s two lots of costs, yet take a bigger parent role which prevents them from doing so..

Exactly. I often think one night a week to myself would be utter bliss.

If we spilt up I’m not sure how he would suddenly be better placed for childcare and as you say, earn more money to run two homes.

The truth is that a lot of fathers don't care about their children. Out of sight, out of mind.

Once they're no longer together/sleeping with the children's mother, they're happy to do the bare minimum they can get away with.

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast

The truth is that a lot of fathers don't care about their children. Out of sight, out of mind.

Once they're no longer together/sleeping with the children's mother, they're happy to do the bare minimum they can get away with.

Maybe the men you know. The only father I know who has acted like that, is my own. Fortunately for me within our group of friends, they're all committed parents, even the ones not sleeping with the mother

Honesty this is such a vile generalisation and imo not true at all.

The truth is that a lot of fathers don't care about their children. Out of sight, out of mind

There are plenty of fathers who want more access, but as 100's of threads on here show, many mothers think it's not in the "best interests of the child" ...

The truth is that a lot of fathers don't care about their children. Out of sight, out of mind
Definitely true of some, but for many it’s just gender roles and the division of labour.

It’s crap but as I often say it’s a mans world still!

I do believe that a number of single mums do use their single status as a cause for not working ft. It’s inevitably harder but not impossible for many. It certainly isn’t facilitating the ex to work FT. Many families have both parents working FT and many single parents do to. More often single dads.

So yes, I can understand the frustration of NPR’s and their partner when the rp insists they couldn’t possibly work FT and seem to believe that they are entitled to more money from the ex.

If maintenance account for more than 75% than what the children realistically cost, then you are indeed very fortunate.

The truth is that a lot of fathers don’t care about their children
I think more commonly, there are many fathers who haven’t bonded with their children.

There are various reasons for this, but they are not all the fault of the dad. When parents separate before the birth or shortly afterwards, it’s very hard for a father to develop that bond. Often the mum will move close to her family and create a distance. Add breastfeeding so that contact can only be minimal, and worse, under the supervision, which often means the critical eye, of the mother, it makes bonding almost impossible.

Some mums unfortunately will use this as an excuse to limit contact but without the responsibility of the outcome when the father ends up having no contact.

There are certainly no excuses when the children are older and the bond is in place. Sadly, some dads are shit and despite all opportunities to bond, never bothered to make the efforts that are required. Mums often leave them for that reason.

I do believe that a number of single mums do use their single status as a cause for not working ft.

I do believe that is not necessarily the case. I think that many dads or mums, whether they are single or not, who have been off work for a while, will find it difficult to balance the demands of work and child rearing as they get used to the flexibility of being at home.

But more than that, many will also find it difficult to get a job if they have no recent experience or there is no babysitting available. Some will face some serious confidence issues after a time at home or have totally unrealistic expectations.

Personally, I found I was not able to return to my profession for the simple reason that I needed to commute to the next city and the nursery was still closed at the time I needed to be at the train station and again, by the time I could manage to get back. So to the disgust of my ex, I have been working in a series of not so well paid jobs, full time or not. He thinks that is my preference, it is not... I just took every local opportunity as my residence order doesn’t allow me to relocate my child.