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?

@Thatisnotwhatisaid

If they pay the bare minimum expected and don’t buy any extras plus barely see them then yeah, it’s definitely unfair. Sadly lots of men do this because they can get away with it. It’s so very wrong.

It’s not definitely unfair. It’s potentially unfair and potentially just circumstance and that’s my point. If they haven’t got a pot to piss in at the end of each month it’s unfortunate and it’s not ideal for the child or the RP but that alone won’t change the facts.

Some children are with foster carers for years.

And I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy in every single respect. I’m not saying it’s identical.

I’m saying that’s how much the government thinks it costs to raise a child ( of various ages and needs ). Just expenses. Not wages. To house, clothe, feed, educate and entertain them. To take them on holiday, buy gifts, pay for pocket money.

All the things that resident parents have to pay for.

Yet apparently non fostered kids only cost £14 a week to keep, as so many NRP only pay £7 a week.

Or as @forinborin said, her kids cost 25p a week.

Yes of course it’s scandalously unfair to the RP and their children and successive governments have failed to tackle this huge social injustice.

I really think they should be put in jail for messing around with their CMS payments.

It’s not 25p though is it? When you account for other income available in the form of child benefits, tax credits. It’s one source of income.
I totally agree that NRP should pay and should pay a fair amount. But it’s not accurate to say that is the only source of income available in respect of the children.

My exes “protected income” is more than double my yearly salary. And that’s just the tip of the disgusting shit show of an iceberg that is our “care arrangement”. Don’t get me started...I won’t know how to stop! 🤬😩🤦🏻‍♀️

Dinohat Why are you assuming the resident parent gets tax credits etc? Often they don't. Does it mean because they have a well paying job the other parent shouldn't have to contribute to raising their child?

Dinohat not every RP qualified for tax credits. And big shocker some don’t qualify for child benefit either.

Does that completely absolve the NRP from financial supporting their child?

I really think they should be put in jail for messing around with their CMS payments

How does that help though? If they’re in jail they won’t be earning anything, so still no CMS, and neither will they be able to see their children if they are a present parent.

Also once they have that on their record their chances of getting a decent job fall dramatically. It’ll show on a dbs, many employers simply don’t employ those with a prison record.

It’s like putting mums who ignore court ordered access in prison. Doesn’t help anyone, least if all the kids, which is why it’s rarely done.

Bottom line is there isn’t really a way to force someone who is determined to avoid paying. That and for most couples, splitting one household into two simply means the money will not stretch beyond basics.

Again this is why women need to think about the future when they happily go PT or SAHM. I learned the lesson the hard way when my mum was widowed young- no one to claim cms off there. If dh upped and left or died tomorrow I am more than capable of supporting my kids.

@frazzledasarock

Dinohat not every RP qualified for tax credits. And big shocker some don’t qualify for child benefit either.

Does that completely absolve the NRP from financial supporting their child?

No. No. No it doesn’t.

But the point that the “government” thinks CMS alone is adequate for keeping a child isn’t quite right when you factor the other income available.

@DinoHat

It’s not 25p though is it? When you account for other income available in the form of child benefits, tax credits. It’s one source of income. I totally agree that NRP should pay and should pay a fair amount. But it’s not accurate to say that is the only source of income available in respect of the children.

As the previous post about 25p was about me, no, I don't get a penny from the public funds, including child benefit. Well, I guess that school education and some healthcare for the children is free, so that's available, yes, but it is paid out of my taxes too.

Why should a NRP be charged for 50% towards childcare costs when the RP won't allow them to be with them longer?

You can't have it both ways as well child maintenance is used towards running costs of houses but if a NRP moves in with another person with child the bills will be higher.

As I've said many times housing costs should not be included in child maintenance as they should be the same for both. The RP also receives Child Benefit and if they don't earn enough will be receiving Universal Credit so it's not all bad

Jail sentences might deter NRPs from not paying perhaps. Like it does with other crimes. Over time it would change how society thinks about not paying child maintenance.

Suggesting women have good enough careers where they can support their children by themselves is insulting, sexist and lets men off the hook.

Some women might be capable of getting such careers, many aren't. But that isn't the point. Even if a woman can afford to raise her children alone, it is still not morally acceptable.
What does that teach our children about society, and the role of men and women? It's going backwards. In order to achieve equality men or NRPs in general need to be legally responsible to contribute 50% of their children's upbringing.

@Loveacoseynightin

Why should a NRP be charged for 50% towards childcare costs when the RP won't allow them to be with them longer?

You can't have it both ways as well child maintenance is used towards running costs of houses but if a NRP moves in with another person with child the bills will be higher.

As I've said many times housing costs should not be included in child maintenance as they should be the same for both. The RP also receives Child Benefit and if they don't earn enough will be receiving Universal Credit so it's not all bad

As you've proven many times, you are a bitter second wife who resents her partner paying maintenance. I've seen your posts.

@Waxonwaxoff0 I don't resent the paying of child maintenance.

What I have seen though is the way kids are used for money and it is wrong.

Why does everyone assume that lone parents will be in receipt of top up benefits? And this is used as an excuse for low rates of maintenance?

I earn an okay wage. Just in the higher tax rate bracket. I still struggle massively though and have nowhere near the quality of life I would do as part of a two income family. This is with maintenance from an additional tax rate payer. Children are expensive - housing is the main one as good school catchment area and desirable places to live cost more. Add in garden to play in and sufficient living space for leisure, home work etc.

Non RP are not ‘subsiding’ the ex’s life. They should be paying so that their kids can have the same standard of living had their parents stayed together.

[quote Loveacoseynightin]@Waxonwaxoff0 I don't resent the paying of child maintenance.

What I have seen though is the way kids are used for money and it is wrong. [/quote]
Just because that is your situation, doesn't mean it is everyone else's. You seem to think all RP are the same.

My mate, non resident father, tried his absolute best. Would always buy school.uniforms for his two girls, new tights once a month, bought sanitary stuff for them, paid school trips, piano lessons, singing lessons and paid maintenance to the mum for shopping and bills, and 50/50 on holidays they had with their mum. This wasn't enough for the stupid woman (who had little outgoings as mum and dad pay her £1000 mibtg rent) so she applied through csa, which came out with an order of £28. He of course did pay £28 after that.

So in view of what he was paying, and what said came out with, I'd say it's definitely unfair, and not even close to being fair.

@SplunkPostGres

Why does everyone assume that lone parents will be in receipt of top up benefits? And this is used as an excuse for low rates of maintenance?

I earn an okay wage. Just in the higher tax rate bracket. I still struggle massively though and have nowhere near the quality of life I would do as part of a two income family. This is with maintenance from an additional tax rate payer. Children are expensive - housing is the main one as good school catchment area and desirable places to live cost more. Add in garden to play in and sufficient living space for leisure, home work etc.

Non RP are not ‘subsiding’ the ex’s life. They should be paying so that their kids can have the same standard of living had their parents stayed together.

This same standard of living thing is an odd one. Dps child had a worse standard of living when they were together because him mum refused to work and ran up a massive amount of debt which dp had to pay off as the only one working.

Dp earns more now as he changed jobs (did not benefit from me staying off work, btw) and we have a better standard of living because I work and am sensible with money. So by that logic dp should pay much less.

*Suggesting women have good enough careers where they can support their children by themselves is insulting, sexist and lets men off the hook.

Some women might be capable of getting such careers, many aren't. But that isn't the point. Even if a woman can afford to raise her children alone, it is still not morally acceptable.
What does that teach our children about society, and the role of men and women? It's going backwards*

But it’s not insulting and sexist to allow women to continue to work PT or sah after a split and for the dad/state to pick up the bills? What does that teach kids about society? Men work and pay, women stay at home and allow men to pay? That is also going backwards.

If men are expected to work full time to pay their half, why aren’t women? If women continued working men would have to start picking ip the childcare responsibilities, instead of continuing with the women stay at home, allowing men to use the “work” excuse to not do school runs etc.

I haven’t said men shouldn’t pay, or be let off the hook in any way. Just that women should be expected to pay their way too. I’ve known women who don’t let their ex have the children because then they would be able to go back to work.

@SplunkPostGres

Why does everyone assume that lone parents will be in receipt of top up benefits? And this is used as an excuse for low rates of maintenance?

I earn an okay wage. Just in the higher tax rate bracket. I still struggle massively though and have nowhere near the quality of life I would do as part of a two income family. This is with maintenance from an additional tax rate payer. Children are expensive - housing is the main one as good school catchment area and desirable places to live cost more. Add in garden to play in and sufficient living space for leisure, home work etc.

Non RP are not ‘subsiding’ the ex’s life. They should be paying so that their kids can have the same standard of living had their parents stayed together.

I even started a topic recently about this, as was surprised by the sentiment expressed on some other threads about that if the RP does not qualify for benefits, they are wealthy and should not inconvenience the NRP with requests for money.

It somehow quickly descended into a fight about a multimillionaire RP high flying mum and a disabled NRP dad with no qualifications living on welfare in a bedsit... which felt a bit unrealistic.

reallyreally, what makes you think women can decide to stay at home when they are lone parents? I don't know the exact ages but there are actually rules in order to qualify for top up benefits linked to the age of the children about how many hours minimum someone has to work. A single mum cannot simply decide to stay at home forever!

@reallyreallyborednow

*Suggesting women have good enough careers where they can support their children by themselves is insulting, sexist and lets men off the hook.

Some women might be capable of getting such careers, many aren't. But that isn't the point. Even if a woman can afford to raise her children alone, it is still not morally acceptable.
What does that teach our children about society, and the role of men and women? It's going backwards*

But it’s not insulting and sexist to allow women to continue to work PT or sah after a split and for the dad/state to pick up the bills? What does that teach kids about society? Men work and pay, women stay at home and allow men to pay? That is also going backwards.

If men are expected to work full time to pay their half, why aren’t women? If women continued working men would have to start picking ip the childcare responsibilities, instead of continuing with the women stay at home, allowing men to use the “work” excuse to not do school runs etc.

I haven’t said men shouldn’t pay, or be let off the hook in any way. Just that women should be expected to pay their way too. I’ve known women who don’t let their ex have the children because then they would be able to go back to work.

That’s my view too.

I still struggle massively though and have nowhere near the quality of life I would do as part of a two income family.

That’s an inevitable and unavoidable part of splitting up.

Non RP are not ‘subsiding’ the ex’s life. They should be paying so that their kids can have the same standard of living had their parents stayed together.

That’s just not realistic, you can’t double housing costs and expect that not to impact on the bigger picture.

Why does everyone assume that lone parents will be in receipt of top up benefits? And this is used as an excuse for low rates of maintenance?

My point was that there is some recognition and thus some recourse that acknowledges CMS isn’t adequate alone and for those people who’s income falls below a certain bracket, other help is available to them. I am not and do not support anyone paying lower or no CMS than is justified. But it’s not right to say CMS is the only other source of income besides from the mother’s earning that can be claimed in respect of children. So the statement that CMS is assumed to cover expenses is wrong.

When the NRP has no interest in being a parent then yes, it's unfair. However, there are a lot of NRPs out there who would love 50/50 custody of their DC but who are denied due to a jealous RP wanting to be seen as the "main parent" . This happens a lot more often than you think. In this case, then the RP should pick up more of slack, as it is their choice to have their DC the most.