Child maintenance/ childcare

[Sofiegiraffe]

Why is the cost of childcare not included in a CM calculation? Surely it should be taken into account and half of it taken from the NRP's wage? Why is it that I would be entitled to the same amount from my DD's dad in maintenance whether I was a SAHM with no childcare costs, or if I went to work FT and paid £600 a month for nursery? Surely that's a bit unfair 🤔

If parents had 50/50 then they pay 50/50 childcare cost surely.

The change to the CMS system was to try and get parents to sort out finances fairly- back in the real world it will only happen in vary few circumstances. Breakups are generally painful and children are a flash point.

@Sofiegiraffe in that case then it makes sense to split 50/50! If it was jointly agreed upon then it's a joint cost!

You know when you see those stupid lists of 10 things non-brits find most crazy about Britain. They make them for pretty much every country. Well as a non-Brit, the number one item I would put in the list is that you don’t include child care in maintenance calculations. It’s absolutely bizarre. It’s the most expensive part of caring for a young child either through direct expense or lost wages.

The whole set up is unfair. Somebody getting generous maintenance is entitled to the same benefits as somebody getting no maintenance. How in the world can that be fair.

Because the CMS was set up by men to benefit men. Probably anyway.

My ex refused to have the DC when I was working even though he wasn't. Apparently it wasn't his "problem" and if I couldn't manage to work and find childcare then I should have given him custody
Prior to that, when I was a SAHM and they were pre school age (he was working at the time) he claimed I should get a job as he wasn't paying me to sit around on my fat arse.
So whichever I do is wrong.

I agree with you to a degree. Although if Uc is being claimed then childcare is often covered up to 80% so wouldn't really be fair for your ex to have to pay again.

When my dd was small I didn't get tax credits/UC. My ex gave me £200 as per CMS calculator which probably did pay for half her food and clothes etc, but her childcare alone was £1100 so in reality it didn't come close to a fair share

I agree with you to a degree. Although if Uc is being claimed then childcare is often covered up to 80% so wouldn't really be fair for your ex to have to pay again.

I've just calculated my entitlement to UC and it's nowhere near 80% of the childcare costs.

In fact it's less than 50%

Yeah fair enough then, he should pay half what's left to pay after tax credits/UC

Two things to be pissed off about; 1, the CMS doesn't include childcare in their calculations and 2, that men need CMS to tell them they have to contribute towards childcare and don't see it as a moral obligation all by themselves.

My ex used to say it was my choice to work so it wasn't his problem.

Interestingly now I "choose" not to work because our dd has developed a disability and I need to stay home, he doesn't see that as a "him" problem either

There are so many things it should take into consideration then. If it takes into consideration your childcare costs then it should also take into account your income. And what about your partner's income or the NRP's partner's income.

Even then there would be something that someone else would find to be unfair. The system is definitely flawed but I don't think it's an easy answer.

I agree OP

I think in the recent survey, a third of parents said childcare costs were their biggest expense, more than their mortgage payment.

If you have a 1 year old and an almost 3 year old in nursery full time it's going to be £2k a month. Most parents can not magic up their ex partners share in a split. So they have to quit work. Its forcing children into poverty.

If the nrp was paying a share prior to the split there is no reason why they shouldn't continue to pay after the split.

Quite simply, although both partners in an ex couple are going to be worse off after a split, it shouldn't disproportionately affect the resident parents finances, and the resident parent shouldn't be better off financially than they were before the split. If they previously spent half their take home pay solely on their share of childcare, its mad that they then only have to contribute a smaller percentage towards the total cost of raising a child.

Its white complex but given how advanced technology is, someone should be able to come up with an algorithm of how many days a week each parent works, how many days a week the child goes to nursery, nursery costs, wages, and a fair split in childcare costs until the child is in school

It is a very flawed system. This is just one example. To make matters worse, CMS and not paying it is a very effective way to financially abuse an ex spouse when all other opportunities to abuse them have been taken away. It seems to be very easy for many NRP parents (the vast the majority of men and far too many of them utter arseholes) to not financially support their children.

My ex might be a prick over some things but in fairness to him he pays me a sum we agreed was reasonable based on 55/45 split of days (although he doesn't have her overnight). He pays half all hobby and school costs.

When I looked at a childminder during school holidays he did agree to contribute. Wouldn't have been 50% as not needed on his days but he did agree to about 30% which was fair I think

@IveGotASongThatllGetOnYNerves

Ideally each parent would pay half the actual cost of raising a child but good luck getting that to happen!

This ^

There should be harsh penalties for failure to support a child financially by parents themselves imo (not via other tax payers). It should be the expected minimum norm.

YANBU. But that is the problem with having a system based on NRP income not children's needs.

I agree op - it's a scandal that the CMS doesn't account for childcare. The NRP should either provide half the childcare or pay 50% of the costs.

My friends ex used to threaten to take the kids from her (he's a knob) until she got to the end of her regather and told him he could take them but the nursery costs alone for the DD were £800 and she's only have to give him £250 per month. He backed off quite quickly.

@AnneElliott

I agree op - it's a scandal that the CMS doesn't account for childcare. The NRP should either provide half the childcare or pay 50% of the costs.

My friends ex used to threaten to take the kids from her (he's a knob) until she got to the end of her regather and told him he could take them but the nursery costs alone for the DD were £800 and she's only have to give him £250 per month. He backed off quite quickly.

Yeah I bet he did! It's a disgrace that it's assumed the mother should pay the childcare bill. 🤬

@Sofiegiraffe

I should say that my outrage at this is based on the assumption that NRP chooses to work FT and is therefore providing zero childcare. As well as not contributing to the childcare bill.

I think this is the reason they can't force it. It will get too complicated. Unless there's a way they can say right either pay half childcare or look after your child half the week/fortnight.

viviennemary your point has been made before but the link between benefits and maintenance was broken for a reason.. Namely that so so many nrps just didn't pay what they were meant to so the RP was left with neither maintenance or benefits that had been reduced assuming the maintenance would be paid.
Also, I work ft on a good wage. A very similar wage to ex. I wouldn't get much help at all with childcare costs from UC etc if I still paid them so I'd take a huge battering of my finances but he gets to work ft, with zero juggling, compromising or having to be off for sick days etc and keep 80% of his wage. Yay!

50/50 when split but might not have been 50/50 when together as ons person often earns more. Maybe actual childcare costs could be paid proportional to income and then NRP payment would be proportionate to income but it still doesn't take into account the RP's income.

CMS don’t take any expenses into account. Just a percentage of the income.

It’s a very blunt tool.

Although, I’d worry that if they started having a childcare cost element added they’d start faffing with the thought of making maintenance affect benefits again and that (because of the number of non payers) would be a disaster.

@HugeAckmansWife

viviennemary your point has been made before but the link between benefits and maintenance was broken for a reason.. Namely that so so many nrps just didn't pay what they were meant to so the RP was left with neither maintenance or benefits that had been reduced assuming the maintenance would be paid. Also, I work ft on a good wage. A very similar wage to ex. I wouldn't get much help at all with childcare costs from UC etc if I still paid them so I'd take a huge battering of my finances but he gets to work ft, with zero juggling, compromising or having to be off for sick days etc and keep 80% of his wage. Yay!

Yes this is similar to my situation

@Viviennemary

The whole set up is unfair. Somebody getting generous maintenance is entitled to the same benefits as somebody getting no maintenance. How in the world can that be fair.

Because the number of people getting “generous” maintenance while on benefits is tiny.

The way to rectify that anomaly would be to target the non generous maintenance payers. Not the benefits.

Children like me when I was a kid were left in absolute poverty when maintenance counted toward benefits due to the lack of collection. CMS are no better now so any hint of maintenance affecting benefits must be fought against.

The way to rectify that anomaly would be to target the non generous maintenance payers. Not the benefits

But why? If it's actually paid why shouldn't it count as income.

This is my point. The system can never be com plods or and uniform and we are all biased by our own experiences.