Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 23 24

Original poster

AIBU to think that child maintenance is actually very unfair to the RP?

592 replies

ECJW · 21/05/2021 19:16

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?

OP posts:

thecatwithnoeyes · 21/05/2021 20:52

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.

Selective diet and sensitive skin won't even register on a DLA claim. Selective diet? The child eats a packed lunch so does not need any help over and above that of an average child of the same age. Sensitive skin? Unless this is extreme, it's a common complaint in people and not worthy of any 'extra' help.

Nappy pants? Depending on age and whether this is 24/7 or just at night even this might not be deemed as an extra care need. Even if it is, it won't be enough for DLA.

Obviously we only know what OP has said and there will be many other things that possibly do for the descriptors, but from the info OP, you should not be sure they would qualify at all.

Looneytune253 · 21/05/2021 20:53

To be fair though, it's worked out on their income and they need to pay bills for their home too. Not that they end up paying for their kids as much as RP does but still prob can't be expected to pay too much more than they are.

Dddccc · 21/05/2021 20:53

@argyleisle if you do the cms calculator you should be getting £98 a week for the 2 kids or 428 a month you need to challenge it ASAP

Cheeseycheeseycheesecheese · 21/05/2021 20:54

@FunMcCool

Anything less than a grand a month is grossly unfair.

But if the nrp is earning nlw/mw, that's 2/3s of their wage gone basically... how can they realistically keep a home for their children to visit?

ArgyleIsle · 21/05/2021 20:59

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

No idea about the pension. He did use every trick in the book to reduce payments or not pay.

Even told the CSA he couldn't afford an extra £3.00 a week to pay the arrears.
I found out when the CSA rang me to say they were sorry it had taken so long to let me know that he'd confirmed he really couldn't afford to pay the extra - they hadn't been able to contact him on the phone.

I told them it was no wonder he was out of touch, he was skiing in the French Alps for 3 weeks!

Dddccc · 21/05/2021 20:59

@tattleandbagels ds lunches brown bread, ham, or wrap and ham or chicken, banana or apple, quavers, carrot sticks, pepper sticks, cucumber sticks cherry toms, yoghurt, sometimes a cake or cookie cost me less the £10 a week

Getyourarseofffthequattro · 21/05/2021 21:00

[quote ArgyleIsle]@Getyourarseofffthequattro

No idea about the pension. He did use every trick in the book to reduce payments or not pay.

I told them it was no wonder he was out of touch, he was skiing in the French Alps for 3 weeks! [/quote]
He has to have been paying a lot into his pension. There is no way that big of a reduction was because of the other child. As I say, it a set percentage.

anxietyanonymous · 21/05/2021 21:02

My partner pays approx £1200 a month maintenance and has various life insurance policies to ensure it would continue to be paid in the event of his death. He would never want his children to go without.

Yes he earns well. But its way more then CMS say he should pay and of course doesnt take my children into account (who i see as my own financial responsibility).

Just saying not all nrps are dickheads or tight with their kids and exes.

ArgyleIsle · 21/05/2021 21:04

Thanks @Dddccc

But too late for that now, I fought and fought for years and got nowhere really. Even at CSA appeals I was expected to sit in a room with ex and his partner (OW) to discuss!

He lied, he cheated, he brought his force into his lies, he had another business on the side too.
Horrendous times. The money really wasn't worth it.

Heatherjayne1972 · 21/05/2021 21:05

My ex pays £50 a week for two kids Doesn’t even cover a fraction of their expenses let alone his half
Makes me furious that ( according to the kids) he’s got ‘a pile of £50 pound notes’ in his bedroom
Does a lot of cash in hand work too.

It’s not fair on the kids - he should be 50% responsible for their costs

IND1A · 21/05/2021 21:05

[quote Tk5787338]@IND1A sorry but I’m not sure of your point; foster carers are paid that amount of money because they’re not expected to have to pay out of their own pocket for children they look after whereas a RP obviously needs to contribute to their own child and it’s not just up to the NRP[/quote]
My point is that these figures are the government’s estimate of how much it costs to raise a child. So if a child is living full time with one parent ( as many are ) , the NRP should expect to pay half of that sum.

So that would be a minimum of £67 a week. Many NRP pay less than that a month.

There are second wives / new GF on MN every day complaining about how much their partner pays in child support, saying it doesn't costs that much to raise a child.

IND1A · 21/05/2021 21:05

Pay at least half of that sum

ArgyleIsle · 21/05/2021 21:05

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

The paperwork did show the reduction was due to the 'other' child. Even the 'other' child's dad was appalled and contributed to the appeal.

1FootInTheRave · 21/05/2021 21:07

The system in this country is farcical.

They can pay fuck all and reap no consequences.

Ridiculous.

OwlTwitterings · 21/05/2021 21:07

I think that it is usually unfair on the RP to pick up the slack but there are occasions when they have a baby with someone whose income enables them to have a lifestyle they couldn’t otherwise have. That’s not right either.

OddshoesOddsocks · 21/05/2021 21:09

My ex buggered off to America without telling me and CMA can’t chase him as he’s no longer under their jurisdiction.

I can’t afford to take him to court without the maintenance money he was previously sending and he bloody knows it. He was playing the system before that too. Grossly unfair and frustrating, I’m with you OP!

5zeds · 21/05/2021 21:09

@thecatwithnoeyes and @CandyFIosss I’m happy to disagree.

OverTheRubicon · 21/05/2021 21:14

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

It depends on many things. Many RP don’t work so aren’t paying anything, the state is. Some get far less so will be paying more but the likely benefit from more contact.

£180 from you both is £360 plus child benefit would easily cover the costs of a child unless in early years childcare.

No it wouldn't. First of all, you can't just discount early years childcare because that is exactly the point at which women fall out of the workforce and do major damage to their later earning (while nrp climbs on up the ladder).

Secondly, wraparound childcare in primary can easily be £18 a day / £90 a week if you need care before 9am and then until 5.30, or even more. And that excludes school holiday clubs which are far more expensive again.

Finally, most single resident parents do work. Approximately 70% of lone parents (not even shared care RPs) are in paid work, according to the ONS. Most of those are women, often just scraping by because of the laughable amount of child support paid by many fathers.

Getyourarseofffthequattro · 21/05/2021 21:17

[quote ArgyleIsle]@Getyourarseofffthequattro

The paperwork did show the reduction was due to the 'other' child. Even the 'other' child's dad was appalled and contributed to the appeal. [/quote]
I don't believe that, because it's just not how they calculate it. I doubt they did then, either.

AnneElliott · 21/05/2021 21:20

This is something I'd sort of I was running the country. It's a scandal the levels of child poverty in this country and we'll never solve it unless men (and it is mainly men) are forced to take financial responsibility for their children.

I think there ought to be a set minimum that every NRP has to pay even if they're on benefits. It would be a debt that doesn't disappear and they have to pay it out of any job, pension, lottery win, tax rebate etc. And it would go up depending on wages.

This is an an area where we should look to the US for how to deal with this. If the NRP didn't pay I'd take away passport, driving licence and then put them in prison. While that costs a fortune, I think it's only a minority of men who's actually be prepared to go to prison for non payment.

CandyFIosss · 21/05/2021 21:24

Another thing is, just before I cancelled my claim they asked if I wanted to leave it open with just the arrears but a nrp on benefits doesn’t have to pay arrears, so I was never going to get the money so I said no close it, how do nrp on benefits get away with not paying cm debt because they are on benefits? Literally nowhere else let’s you off debts because you are on benefits

Wegobshite · 21/05/2021 21:26

What I find interesting is why do so many men - and let’s face it is mainly men that do this .
Are they uninvolved fathers when with the mothers of the kids so it’s no real surprise that when they leave they don’t want to pay a penny
Or is it a case of I’ve left the wife / mother so I’ve left the kids as well so I’m not paying for them .
Do the majority that don’t pay don’t see their kids or do they try and get 50 -50
I can’t quite get my head around that if they are willing to go to such extremes not to pay anything for their own flesh and blood why do they still want to see their kids - or do they not see them if they are refusing to pay

I just wonder if there is a link between the fathers that pay up with no problem will always see the kids and those that don’t pay aren’t really that bothered either way

ArgyleIsle · 21/05/2021 21:28

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

It doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not - it happened.

And as you said £198 for two DC's from a £52,000 wage doesn't add up without other factors.

I have the paperwork somewhere...but who cares.

Getyourarseofffthequattro · 21/05/2021 21:29

[quote ArgyleIsle]@Getyourarseofffthequattro

It doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not - it happened.

And as you said £198 for two DC's from a £52,000 wage doesn't add up without other factors.

I have the paperwork somewhere...but who cares. [/quote]
I'm sure it did happen but not for the reason you think it did. Either way it's not really a cms issue it's a your ex didn't want to pay issue isn't it?

EvilPea · 21/05/2021 21:30

Completely op. If a resident parent did it they’d be charged with neglect.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 23 24