Child maintenance

[anonforpost]

I pay my x 570 PCM for child maintenance as per CMS calculator. AIBU to expect not to pay anything on top of the amount. I believe 570 should be enough to cover all expenses of my 2 year old child.

@graphista I think you're being a bit one sided there.

What if he wasn't allowed any input with the nursery? Or mum insisted on EOW and nothing more?

I don't think you can demand half of everything because it's impossible to work out fairly and is dictated by the RP.

If the RP chooses a particularly expensive rental, has the heating on 30 degrees 24/7 and feeds the child fillet steak for every meal should they be able to demand half? Personally I don't think so.

CMS is a bit of a shit system yes. But there is currently no better way to work it out and demanding half is just as ambiguous and shitty.

And you've just basically had a massive do about finance and how it's all on mum and then said oh maybe you shouldn't see your child more.

So only dad's money matters.

But there's a middle ground between fillet steak and fuck all and the vast majority if cms payments do not come close to 50% of costs, especially if you factor in all the hidden longterm costs the RP incurred in lost wages and pension contributions if they work anything less than full time. I agree no system is fair but I would much rather see one that was biased in favour if the child and RP doing all the grunt work than an eow nrp. In this scenario if the op wants a nicer work life balance by reducing his income, thats fine, but unless he is going to actually use that time to alleviate some of the costs and childcare burden of his ex, he should be absorbing the income drop himself, not passing it on to his ex and child.

[quote Getyourarseofffthequattro]@graphista I think you're being a bit one sided there.

What if he wasn't allowed any input with the nursery? Or mum insisted on EOW and nothing more?

I don't think you can demand half of everything because it's impossible to work out fairly and is dictated by the RP.

If the RP chooses a particularly expensive rental, has the heating on 30 degrees 24/7 and feeds the child fillet steak for every meal should they be able to demand half? Personally I don't think so.

CMS is a bit of a shit system yes. But there is currently no better way to work it out and demanding half is just as ambiguous and shitty.[/quote]
Exactly demanding half of everything is not realistic there's no point going on about ifs and buts. Everyone's out goings vary and rent/mortgage is a huge outgoing alone
Depending on where exactly you live.

There has to be a reasonable arrangement.

I get £600pm for one child. I manage fine on that. I'm on a low income so I get about 70% of childcare costs paid for by tax credits and it's not a lot as DS is school age. He does expensive hobbies so maintenance covers that.

@HugeAckmansWife

But there's a middle ground between fillet steak and fuck all and the vast majority if cms payments do not come close to 50% of costs, especially if you factor in all the hidden longterm costs the RP incurred in lost wages and pension contributions if they work anything less than full time. I agree no system is fair but I would much rather see one that was biased in favour if the child and RP doing all the grunt work than an eow nrp. In this scenario if the op wants a nicer work life balance by reducing his income, thats fine, but unless he is going to actually use that time to alleviate some of the costs and childcare burden of his ex, he should be absorbing the income drop himself, not passing it on to his ex and child.

Of course there is. What this man is paying isn't "fuck all" is it? Nobody's suggesting £7 a week and nothing more. I'm just explaining why demanding 50% doesn't work.

I don't think you demand hidden costs either, tbh. You don't have to give up work or go part time as a mother. As a separated couple the other partner would have absolutely no say in that so I don't think they should pay for it.

He quite clearly said he wanted to see his child more, didn't he?

I don't think he should absorb the costs because he can't pay money he doesn't have. Maintenance isn't a reliable form of income and shouldn't be treated like one.

For instance childcare will go down when he's 3 and then again when he's at school, again when he's a teen. I can't imagine anyone agreeing maintenance should reduce at the same rate but by the 50% argument it should.

Maintenance isn't a reliable form of income and shouldn't be treated like one.

I don't agree with this at all. Of course maintainance should be treated as a reliable income. Its bloody neglect for a start! It's a parents duty not an option of the menu this is why some men don't pay or whenever they like. How could you support such a thing? Who ever the child lives with... there outgoings need paying each week/month regardless.

Percentage wise you are contributing circa 10% which leaves you with 90% to yourself.

I think that's a pretty good deal. CMS should have childcare as a separate line.

@Piggyk2

Maintenance isn't a reliable form of income and shouldn't be treated like one.

I don't agree with this at all. Of course maintainance should be treated as a reliable income. Its bloody neglect for a start! It's a parents duty not an option of the menu this is why some men don't pay or whenever they like. How could you support such a thing? Who ever the child lives with... there outgoings need paying each week/month regardless.

But it's not is it. He can't still pay if he's dead, or he's hospitalised on sick pay, or he becomes permanently disabled can he?

What would you actually have him do there?

I'm not saying it's an optional payment. I'm saying it's not guaranteed until your child is 18 at the same rate because it's based on one person and unfortunate things can happen and often do.

If the RP works full time the childcare costs are massive, even with any UC contributions and the free hours. A full time teacher could easily require 45-50 hours a week childcare. Would you agree the nrp should meet half those costs on top of any cms? If not, why not? If the RP works only part time then they will inevitably rely on the maintenance and some form of benefits. What's the alternative?

@Getyourarseofffthequattro respectfully I disagree

Op benefits from the childcare even IF he had no input (which we don't know) and how much he's paying still doesn't cover half the basics of the costs of a 2 year old based on national averages and the prices I looked at local to me which as I said is a VERY cheap part of uk. Rent and council tax here eg are very low among lowest in country, as are grocery prices etc

No I never said dad shouldn't see dc more I said mid week contact I don't think benefits the child. This is I think even more so as the child hits school age.

Kids need consistency and certainty

2 nights for his eow and half all "school holidays" I can see being a good way for op to have more time with dc

and the vast majority if cms payments do not come close to 50% of costs

Exactly!

especially if you factor in all the hidden longterm costs the RP incurred in lost wages and pension contributions if they work anything less than full time.

Not even just less than full time, single parents are also limited with what full time roles they can take on. I hold 2 degrees but because I had to work around childcare availability (which in most cases is mon - fri 7-7 at most!) I couldn't take any roles that required long hours, evenings or weekends so that meant lower paid roles with fewer benefits etc

Exactly demanding half of everything is not realistic

Maybe not for every family - but I do think it should be the starting point that calculations are made from.

Anything HAS to be better than the current system which is very poorly calculated and enforced.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro that's life though. What would happen if the mother died?? OP would have more than £570 a month to worry about!!

I think your example is off track we could all get knocked over or develop a life changing condition forcing us out of work. That's not the case at present for OP.

[quote Graphista]@Getyourarseofffthequattro respectfully I disagree

Op benefits from the childcare even IF he had no input (which we don't know) and how much he's paying still doesn't cover half the basics of the costs of a 2 year old based on national averages and the prices I looked at local to me which as I said is a VERY cheap part of uk. Rent and council tax here eg are very low among lowest in country, as are grocery prices etc

No I never said dad shouldn't see dc more I said mid week contact I don't think benefits the child. This is I think even more so as the child hits school age.

Kids need consistency and certainty

2 nights for his eow and half all "school holidays" I can see being a good way for op to have more time with dc

and the vast majority if cms payments do not come close to 50% of costs

Exactly!

especially if you factor in all the hidden longterm costs the RP incurred in lost wages and pension contributions if they work anything less than full time.

Not even just less than full time, single parents are also limited with what full time roles they can take on. I hold 2 degrees but because I had to work around childcare availability (which in most cases is mon - fri 7-7 at most!) I couldn't take any roles that required long hours, evenings or weekends so that meant lower paid roles with fewer benefits etc

Exactly demanding half of everything is not realistic

Maybe not for every family - but I do think it should be the starting point that calculations are made from.

Anything HAS to be better than the current system which is very poorly calculated and enforced.

[/quote]
How is half of school holidays any good when most jobs offer only 20 days and bank hols? He's not going to able to be present for half of school hols. So what you're saying is, whilst he has a parent at home he'll have to pay for childcare, which presumably he won't be able to claim back half of, plus paying half of childcare for every week where perhaps he could be there, but you think it's best if he's not in the name of routine.

I don't think 50% is any better at all. Theres more room for ambiguity and it would be a hell of a lot more work to work out and to check essentially. You could say anything so it would have to be verified. The cms are shit as it is. It wouldn't work.

I believe that the children are entitled to the same standard of living that they would’ve enjoyed have their parents stay together for example we had a joint income of an excess of £100,000 a year together which has now obviously been cut as a result of my not being able to maintain my career at the level that it ought to have for several years needless to say he is has rocketed because he no longer has any family responsibilities so one way or the other and I don’t care how it happens my children should still be receiving and inflationary adjusted lifestyle that was at the same level as their parents gave them when they were together .

[quote Piggyk2]@Getyourarseofffthequattro that's life though. What would happen if the mother died?? OP would have more than £570 a month to worry about!!

I think your example is off track we could all get knocked over or develop a life changing condition forcing us out of work. That's not the case at present for OP.[/quote]
Yes.... But we're specifically talking about why maintenance isnt a reliable form of income.

[quote Piggyk2]@Getyourarseofffthequattro that's life though. What would happen if the mother died?? OP would have more than £570 a month to worry about!!

I think your example is off track we could all get knocked over or develop a life changing condition forcing us out of work. That's not the case at present for OP.[/quote]
It's a good point though. It's not reliable, no ones income is really. It doesn't even have to be death or illness. Redundancy would cover it too.

Loads of people reduce their hours to look after their children OP should be given that chance too.

* My choices shouldn't affect our son.*

This stopped me dead in my tracks

Its not a good point the NRP income is as reliable as the mothers.. what if the mum died. The dad may have to step up. That's a lame excuse.. anyone of us could loose our jobs. That's not the case here.

@Piggyk2

Its not a good point the NRP income is as reliable as the mothers.. what if the mum died. The dad may have to step up. That's a lame excuse.. anyone of us could loose our jobs. That's not the case here.

I think we all know that. It doesn't stop it being true though does it?

Yes dad would have to "step up" if mum died. Doesn't mean dad's income is guaranteed for 18 years

As an rp you have more protection. Uc if you lose your job which takes into account your child, you don't get as much as an nrp.

But he's choosing to lower his income. An active choice which the RP has had no input into making. You said upthread that it wasn't fair the nrp might have to pay for the choices an RP made re costs for the child. How is it fair then for an NRP to choose to lower his income and pass that on to the RP? My ex did this. Guess what, my kids don't know he's cut the maintenance in half because I've put myself in significant debt to keep all their hobbies, activities, school fees and everything else in place. They didn't take a hit and nor should they, but why should I, or the OPs ex go into debt to allow the eow nrp a less stressful life?

I think the non-resident parent needs to do one of two things either pay up or reduce the amount of time that the resident parent needs to pay for childcare by stepping up. to do neither of those is absolutely despicable and frankly is what most non-resident parents get away with

@Jessie75

I think the non-resident parent needs to do one of two things either pay up or reduce the amount of time that the resident parent needs to pay for childcare by stepping up. to do neither of those is absolutely despicable and frankly is what most non-resident parents get away with

That's what he's trying to do. A pp thinks that wrong because children need routine

@HugeAckmansWife

But he's choosing to lower his income. An active choice which the RP has had no input into making. You said upthread that it wasn't fair the nrp might have to pay for the choices an RP made re costs for the child. How is it fair then for an NRP to choose to lower his income and pass that on to the RP? My ex did this. Guess what, my kids don't know he's cut the maintenance in half because I've put myself in significant debt to keep all their hobbies, activities, school fees and everything else in place. They didn't take a hit and nor should they, but why should I, or the OPs ex go into debt to allow the eow nrp a less stressful life?

But he's wanting to have the child more so she'll have less childcare? If she lets him, of course.

If you're paying school fees you're clearly not poor, are you? You didn't have to do that and frankly it's not a sensible idea anyway. But I personally wouldn't have based my outgoings on including maintenance because I know it's not guaranteed and in fact it will end.

If very much depends what it looks like. children do need routine but that routine could be 3 1/2 days at daddy‘s house and 3 1/2 days at mummies. what isn’t ideal is children living out of a suitcase so I’m not entirely sure it saves anybody any money having two sets of school uniform, two sets of equipment for sport, two sets of technology so that there’s no carrying stuff between two houses and when inevitably gets broken at the house of the parent who didn’t pay for it there’s world War three.