Page 3 | AIBU to think contribution to child should be proportional to income?

Goldbar · 09/08/2021 13:33

I think the 50/50 thing is a bit silly, tbh. It only makes sense if both parents are earning enough to support the child and provide a decent standard of living which makes sure that the kids don't miss out on experiences and advantages which their peers are having. Fundamentally, both parents have joint 100% responsibility for their child... if one parent can't provide, the other has to step up.

I would be very unimpressed to hear of a child of one parent earning £10k and another parent earning £100k who isn't offered swimming lessons, can't do football/gym club if they want to and never goes on holiday. I'd be even more unimpressed if they went hungry, didn't have what they needed for school and lived in a cold house due to heating costs. Because it's unacceptable for a parent earning £100k not to help if their child is living in those circumstances... they don't stop being responsible for their child's well-being due to divorce/relationship breakdown.

I agree that where both parents have a "comfortable" income (even if one parent has to budget more carefully and doesn't have a lot of spare money), costs should be split 50/50 where care is but both parents should have a sensible discussion about what "reasonable" costs are and the higher earner needs to top up if, for instance, they insist on private tuition and riding lessons for the child.

DaisyWaldron · 09/08/2021 13:39

A lot of people seem very insistent that 50/50 splits are fair. But if one parent has a second-hand clothes, supermarket shoes, packed lunch, teach your own child to swim, no added expenses or fancy trips income, it seems incredibly unfair that a higher-earning ex-partner can prevent them from budgeting appropriately and force them into new uniform, Clarks shoes, school dinners, swimming lessons etc, potentially pushing that household into debt or poverty. And in a relationships board thread if a lower earning spouse was expected to go without basics in order to pay half of the household costs as decided by the higher spouse, then that would be considered financial abuse, and the poster would be told to LTB. Not much use if the abuse were to continue the same way after the split.

JustLyra · 09/08/2021 13:41

No I haven't, I was led to believe 50/50 care automatically meant no maintenance, regardless. I shall try speaking to them in that case.

It’s not automatic. You’ll probably find the first couple of people you speak to at CMS will tell you it is, but it’s not.

Kotatsu · 09/08/2021 13:44

I think the problem here is that the idea that it's 50/50 expenses assumes that neither parent is taking the mick.

In my case, the kids barely see their father (his and their choice - mainly his as he's barely in the country) so I contend that he should pay a proportion of income, rather than expenses, as he's not just making sure they have shoes, but also the kind of shoes he would buy them if he took any responsibility. I think he should also be compensating them because they only have one parent trying to both give them time and attention, and her own job, so they obviously miss out more than if they had 2 attentive parents.

50/50 complicates it, but I'm of the mind that the children should get a life-style partway between reach of each parent. Nothing to do with the parents, everything to do with the kids.

Goldbar · 09/08/2021 13:49

@Kotatsu. I agree. You divorce/split from your partner not your children. A parent should not be living a lavish lifestyle if their children are struggling by in poverty.

Xenia · 09/08/2021 13:54

"OnlyFoolsnMothers Mon 09-Aug-21 13:25:28

i can't understand why anyone would want there kids to experience such disparity depending on which parent they are staying with how far do you take that logic- should the richer parent subsidise the poorer parents holidays?"

In our divorce financial negotiations my husband got an extra £100,000 precisely to be able to take our 5 children away alone on after the divorce on the kinds of expensive holidays I paid for all of us before hand. In the end he just took the money and since the divorce has not taken them on holiday ONCE - his choice but it was certainly a thing and something his lawyer suggested - extra money to keep you up to the standard of living of the higher earner in English law even with the lower earner always having worked full time and making no career sacrifice, NOT doing more at home than the higher earner and not having helped the higher earner's career.

mewkins · 09/08/2021 13:56

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

i can't understand why anyone would want there kids to experience such disparity depending on which parent they are staying with how far do you take that logic- should the richer parent subsidise the poorer parents holidays?

Think think this is a long way off that level! The OP is struggling to pay for school dinners.

Naunet · 09/08/2021 14:07

@Ulltiger

Hello all, I'm looking for advice and thoughts on the following scenario, me and my ex share care of our son 50/50. Despite her earning at least 3 times what I do (£75k last I knew and she's got another job since then, so likely more) she expects everything split 50/50 cost wise. The latest thing being school meals when he starts back in September. Am I unreasonable to think a more equitable solution would be for it to be even losely proportionate to income?

Not that im counting it into anything but for context she has a partner and I don't, so household incomes are vastly different. Also if relevant a little background, when we were together at one point we had a similar wage, she then did a degree, which I supported her in, running the household, looking after our son (feeding, getting ready, dropping off/picking up from nursery, bathing etc) so she could focus on that. After that her career took off, she worked away a lot, so again I was doing all of the above.
Even now I'm the one who regularly reads with him and helps him do his homework.
I also administer the childcare account, his swimming lessons etc and she's proposing I also administer the school meal account, which I feel almost obliged to do because if I don't our child will probably not eat! That's not sour grapes on my part, just a fact :-)

So would your suggestion be that if the woman has custody of the kids and doesn’t work, the man should pay 100% of all child related costs?

Kotatsu · 09/08/2021 14:08

i can't understand why anyone would want there kids to experience such disparity depending on which parent they are staying with how far do you take that logic- should the richer parent subsidise the poorer parents holidays?"

Well, when ex is messaging the kids from Dubai telling them what an awesome time he's having, but they've not seen him for 6 months, so are horrified at spending more than an afternoon with him, yes, I don't think it's beyond the realms of reasonable for him to pay for the poorer parent to take a week with the kids somewhere sunny - it's not as if it'll be much of a holiday for that single parent anyway (speaking as someone who's spent her fair share of time sitting in the dark watching TV in a hotel room from 8pm while the kids sleep)

Bibidy · 09/08/2021 14:27

Na sorry. 50/50 should be the starting point.

If she genuinely earns that much more and was feeling generous then of course it would be nice if she picked up some of the more expensive items if it's affecting your ability to afford things for your child when you have them, but really she's well within her rights to split everything equally.

Hemingwaycat · 09/08/2021 14:33

50/50 makes most sense in this situation. You can go to uni at any point in your life fwiw so feel free to do that if you’d like to earn more too.

Bibidy · 09/08/2021 14:50

For additional context we were married but split was done more or less 50/50 upon divorce with little, to no, recognition of the fact that I effectively gave up my career to look after our son whilst she progressed hers. That was partly down to me wanting to extricate myself from an awful situation and put it all behind me as soon as possible. In hindsight foolish of me to agree to that and maybe in some way I'm looking to redress that a little now. Which I'm sure will be a red rag to a bull for some ;-)
My point I guess to those saying costs should be 50/50 is that she's in the stronger financial position now, because I helped enable her to be there during our marriage, if I hadn't it'd be more of an even footing now. Does that count for anything, or not? I'm guessing not :-)

I do get your point and sympathise.....is she someone you could have a real conversation with about this or is your relationship not good? Does she consult you about costs before she buys/agrees to things?

If not, I don't think there's a huge amount you can do as now that you're separated she doesn't really owe you anything in terms of making your life easier/better/more affordable.

If she's unlikely to pick up for of the costs, is there any way you could change things so that you are both 100% responsible for sorting separate things rather than splitting everything, so you would at least be able to control the budget on some parts rather than just getting invoiced for half? So like, you might always be responsible for school shoes while she is responsible for trainers, you're responsible for PE kits, she's responsible for shirts and trousers etc etc?

It wouldn't help with things like school dinners and trips but maybe everyday costs could improve for you a bit if you tried that.

nanbread · 09/08/2021 15:03

YANBU. I have a friend in a similar situation and the higher earning ex basically pays for everything including the mortgage on both of their properties (although it's not 50:50 in that case. If it was they would still pay significantly more)

Getawaywithit · 09/08/2021 15:27

would your suggestion be that if the woman has custody of the kids and doesn’t work, the man should pay 100% of all child related costs?

In a case where one partner didn’t work, they would be eligible for benefits and would therefore be able to pay a proportion of child related costs that way.

Wolframhart · 09/08/2021 15:31

In my area, If one of the parents is not working by choice, the potential income is generally imputed based on prior earnings. If there are no prior earnings it is imputed based on minimum wage. So if someone decides to say have another child and become a sahp, that does not absolve them of maintenance obligations.

User135792468 · 09/08/2021 15:38

If you don’t pay maintenance (which I don’t think you should if you have 50/50), then of course all costs should be split in half. It is half your child after all. The fact that you think your ex should pay part of your share is mind boggling.

Candydreamer · 09/08/2021 15:38

@Wolframhart

In my area, If one of the parents is not working by choice, the potential income is generally imputed based on prior earnings. If there are no prior earnings it is imputed based on minimum wage. So if someone decides to say have another child and become a sahp, that does not absolve them of maintenance obligations.

whilst i understand the thinking behind this, I don't get how on earth it would work. Literally where would the money come from?

IveGotASongThatllGetOnYNerves · 09/08/2021 15:43

50/50 is how it should be!
You went 50/50 in creating the child. You should go 50/50 in feeding, clothing and otherwise raising them. 🤷‍♀️
Why do so many men think their contribution is a bloody top up and only if needed? No. You made the child. You pay half. In an ideal world. Waah wahh she doesn't neeeeed the money. So what? It's not for her. It's fulfilling your responsibility for the child you created.

TheLovelinessOfDemons · 09/08/2021 16:07

If yours and your ex's income add up to 100%, whatever percentage is your ex's income is the percentage she should pay towards your child's welfare.

Naunet · 09/08/2021 18:09

@Getawaywithit

would your suggestion be that if the woman has custody of the kids and doesn’t work, the man should pay 100% of all child related costs?

In a case where one partner didn’t work, they would be eligible for benefits and would therefore be able to pay a proportion of child related costs that way.

True, ok then, so the majority?

Just curious as to how this would work, because women are often screwed over and left to pay for everything irrelevant of their income. A percentage might well work better

EveryFlightBeginsWithAFall · 09/08/2021 18:24

Plenty of people can't afford to pay for school dinners/lots of extra curricular activities etc they aren't necessities

I'd tell her that when they are with me I'll be sending in packed lunch , it's up to her what she does on her time

Same if I was finding hobbies too expensive. Just tell her and see what she says. Personally I can't imagine being on that much of a higher wage than my ex and expecting them to pay for things that aren't necessities if it meant he was struggling

Getawaywithit · 09/08/2021 18:37

Just curious as to how this would work, because women are often screwed over and left to pay for everything irrelevant of their income. A percentage might well work better

People who don’t want to support their children beyond the odd meal don’t have to. My ex hasn’t paid a penny in over 12 years now. I have paid for all childcare, uniform, hobbies, shoes, haircuts etc etc etc. There is no legal mechanism for making someone pay a fair contribution and the CSA/CMS can’t handle anyone who isn’t PAYE. 50/50 care is just another way to screw over women, particularly if Child Benefit ends up shared.

Original poster

Ulltiger · 09/08/2021 18:45

@IveGotASongThatllGetOnYNerves

50/50 is how it should be! You went 50/50 in creating the child. You should go 50/50 in feeding, clothing and otherwise raising them. 🤷‍♀️ Why do so many men think their contribution is a bloody top up and only if needed? No. You made the child. You pay half. In an ideal world. Waah wahh she doesn't neeeeed the money. So what? It's not for her. It's fulfilling your responsibility for the child you created.

50/50 in terms of feeding, clothing and raising them you say, well if in this instance it isn't, then what? I didn't come on here to be bashed for being male, I was genuinely looked for advice and thoughts without any vitriol (apparently too much to ask). As I've already stated my ex-wife worked away, her choice, as she's admitted her career was everything and to quote her, "I'll never be as paternal as you", which was fine but just mentioning to give some insight. He comes to me on occasions having not had a breakfast or a lunch (my ex doesn't stick to normal meals and just eats when she's hungry, so by default that seems to apply to our child too), I'm the one who ensures he's taken to have his feet measured and wearing the correct size shoes, doesn't have shirts that are half way up his belly, who doesn't farm him out to grandma, sister, friends because I'm working, or dump him in front of the x-box or telly (don't get me wrong we all need help sometimes), I actually take leave to spend looking after my child, partly because I think that's what I should do but mostly because I want to. I appreciate I'm probably in the lions den being a male here but please don't tar us all with the same brush and make assumptions about my situation and the care of my child.

OP posts:

Original poster

Ulltiger · 09/08/2021 19:09

Clearly that stinks and isn't right, how is he able to get child benefit if he makes no contribution? I also understand that overwhelmingly it is the woman who suffers but I didn't intend to bring gender into it, it shouldn't be a factor (whilst sadly I acknowledge it is). One thing that that is clear to me reading some of the comments on here is that there’s a large proportion of people for whom 'the system' just does not work and does not protect the most vulnerable.

OP posts:

LuaDipa · 09/08/2021 19:11

@IveGotASongThatllGetOnYNerves

50/50 is how it should be! You went 50/50 in creating the child. You should go 50/50 in feeding, clothing and otherwise raising them. 🤷‍♀️ Why do so many men think their contribution is a bloody top up and only if needed? No. You made the child. You pay half. In an ideal world. Waah wahh she doesn't neeeeed the money. So what? It's not for her. It's fulfilling your responsibility for the child you created.

I completely agree in principle. But I would feel very uncomfortable if a woman, which is more often the case, had limited her career in order to support her husband and was then expected to pay half of all costs on a very limited salary. I think there can and should be a bit of flexibility for the sake of the dc in these situations and I would have the conversation with ex.

There are an inordinate amount of men out there who have their kids one night a week and eow and pay the bare minimum to support them. These situations infuriate me but that isn’t what is happening here. While op certainly shouldn’t be applauded for stepping up to raise his own child, he shouldn’t be penalised for the actions of other men.