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 5zeds]**@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.[/quote]

It's based on how much care the child needs, not how much their shampoo costs. Sounds harsh but it's the truth. Lots of people have skin irritation and don't get DLA. You can't just assume because a child is autistic they qualify for DLA.

Perhaps OP will be able to claim, but saying someone should be getting DLA with absolutely no idea of the child's actual care needs? No.

[quote ArgyleIsle]@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. [/quote]
Through the CMS?

Can't be, because they don't work it out that way.

They just take a smaller percentage of his wage. They wouldn't "set aside" an amount of money because that is simply not how they work it out.

The reduction can literally never be more than the maintenance payment amount.

For instance the standard % is something like 12% of your wage. If you have one other child living with you it goes down to something like 10 or 11%

Maybe you're not in the UK or using CMS, but your situation literally cannot happen when maintenance is calculated by them.

Anything less than a grand a month is grossly unfair.

Unfortunately the system prioritises the nrp having enough money to fund a separate household when a couple separate (eg to pay rent, bills etc, instead of actually reflecting the real cost of raising a child.

@CandyFIosss I can’t see how she wouldn’t be eligible

From citizens advice

You can get DLA if at least one of the following applies to your child:

they need a lot more care, attention or supervision than a child of the same age who isn't disabled.

they have difficulty walking or getting around outdoors in unfamiliar places, compared to a child of the same age who isn't disabled.

I think it's complex. There should be more 50/50 arrangements with less money changing hands but understand that's not always practical. If you can't get more money from them you should be pushing for them to take the child more if that's a possibility.

@FunMcCool

Anything less than a grand a month is grossly unfair.

This can't be serious?

@thecatwithnoeyes but we do have an idea of her needs as the OP listed some of them plus indicated her child was disabled by sharing her diagnosis.

[quote 5zeds]@thecatwithnoeyes but we do have an idea of her needs as the OP listed some of them plus indicated her child was disabled by sharing her diagnosis.[/quote]

My point was you can't make that judgement based on a diagnosis. You claimed OP should be getting DLA. You simply don't know that.

In fact @ArgyleIsle I've just checked and what they do is disregard a % of your income but it's less than the rate for one child so I don't see it can be more disregarded than the payment you receive for two? The maths doesn't work.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Yes, CSA as was.

Ex - a policeman earning £52,000

2 DC's - with dad 2 or 3 night per week.

Maintenance was £198 per month for both DC's, over a long period of time.

This was more but was reduced due to the 'other' child living with him.

I challenged it as other child actually only lived with them 50% of the time. Even got the 'other' child's dad to confirm it to the CSA.
It was confirmed by the CSA as correct because 'other' child's mum was the parent receiving child benefit.

I think the point about the foster child allowance is a good one. So if the states assumption that €200 a week is reasonable to raise a foster child then it follows that both parents should contribute €100 a week, except the NRP can earn that (and the rest of their income) in whatever hours they choose whilst the RP needs to consider childcare.

I’m not sure about this, you also get child benefit, tax credits etc. So in isolation it might not seem much but you have access to other income the NRP won’t.

My ex refused to pay anything for his kids-ive had a full pound in 24 years
He wouldn’t give me anything ‘in case she spends it on herself’
He was proud of it-he’d tell anyone how he got out of paying but heaven forbid I was seen wearing something nice or was seen with any shopping bags-I was ‘spending the endless cash he gave me for his kids on myself’
He could afford two holidays to Spain every year and drives a nice car but would walk past us in the street and ignore us
Csa where worse than useless-as he had no income (he worked cash in hand)
I kept pointing out that he must have something as he could afford all the treats in life on himself but they didn’t want to know
His loss

Ah so you had shared care which is a pretty big detail to miss out. So he was paying you maintenance and had them and therefore was funding them two to three nights per week.

And yes whoever recieved cb is classed as resident parent. It doesn't matter how often the other child is there if that is their main residence.

@ECJW if you’re not getting DLA I would guess you should be. As the oddly focused previous posters have stated this is not certain but given you’ve achieved diagnosis, have a child who is in nappy pants, has a highly selective diet and very sensitive skin, I’m pretty sure you would qualify. If you haven’t can I suggest you visit the SN boards and ask for advice on how to apply.

Although that maintenance amount is insanely low @ArgyleIsle that wage now calculates at much more.

That's particularly expensive wrap around. It's a tenner here for before and after school club. So 36 days not 6!
Not particularly expensive, it is £7.50 /hour (cheapest childminder), one hour before school, three after (times two). This does not include, of course, 9 weeks holiday (13 weeks of school holidays minus 4 of annual leave).
Even if it pays for 36 days, still feels like there's nothing left for food / clothes / toys / utilities / trips / extracurriculars, no? Hardly covering the absolute survival minimum?

It’s just not a given , like you hear of people getting refused pip even though they do technically qualify, plenty of people also get refused dla even with loads of evidence, you just have to join the dla Facebook group to see that. People are constantly denied dla despite evidence, my own child has autism and we have to apply every 2 years and there is no guarantee she will be awarded.

@Rosewood017

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

Resident Parent and Non Resident Parent

@forinborin

That's particularly expensive wrap around. It's a tenner here for before and after school club. So 36 days not 6! Not particularly expensive, it is £7.50 /hour (cheapest childminder), one hour before school, three after (times two). This does not include, of course, 9 weeks holiday (13 weeks of school holidays minus 4 of annual leave). Even if it pays for 36 days, still feels like there's nothing left for food / clothes / toys / utilities / trips / extracurriculars, no? Hardly covering the absolute survival minimum?

That's crazy expensive.

I'm not saying the maintenance is right I'm saying that childcare cost is quite a way above average for most of the country.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro - yes, insanely low due to ex claiming for the 'other' child. Maintenance reduced at that point (on paper, because he was refusing to pay anyway).

No matter how I write it here, the reduction in the maintenance, due to the 'other' child was more than £198.00.

@ECJW it's not just men, we have the same from my husband x, she pays £7 a week whilst being journalist for The Sun. back on benefits again somehow!

[quote ArgyleIsle]@Getyourarseofffthequattro - yes, insanely low due to ex claiming for the 'other' child. Maintenance reduced at that point (on paper, because he was refusing to pay anyway).

No matter how I write it here, the reduction in the maintenance, due to the 'other' child was more than £198.00. [/quote]
CMS now says he should pay £428 a month (not taking pension into account) and the reduction for the other child would be £476 a month so yes more but not anything like what you got.

Did he pay thousands a year into his pension to avoid paying?

It's just so far off what it should be.

@Namechangeforthis88

You might have a point, but £180 a month is about £41 a week. That's easily half of our weekly shop for three people, including lunches. What the hell are you putting in these packed lunches?

I am more curious about what people feed their kids that cost them £2 for lunch!

Unless you stick to cheap processed bread and other junk food, and that sounds very wrong.