Child maintenance

[Lalala1]

Posting here for traffic!

The amount of threads on mn surrounding child maintenance I’ve noticed there’s completely opposite opinions on it.
Some find the way it’s calculated fair some don’t.
Some say it doesn’t cover everything and “certain things should be split” out with cms.
Some say people get too much because they only get lower and are “greedy ex wives” so they should be grateful.
Some say the rules around calculations are wrong and should be changed.

So I’m curious if you were in charge of cms what would/should it be?
How should it be calculated?
Should it cover everything or not?
How would it or could it be changed to be fair for all children?
Or
Is the way it is set up and conducted fine as it is?

Just putting this for vote

YABU- cms is fine as it is no change
YANBU - cms should be changed and how?

@Pinkyxx

I'm an RP and I wouldn't want to become the NRP. I can't think of any mother who would want to live apart from her children & have them visit. I would have been open to 50/50 if it was a true division and collaboration, and if it worked for our child. This was never an option because ex moved so far away it's impossible unless getting a child up at 4am for the school run is considered ''in their best interests''.

Im the same. Not suggesting literally no mother on the planet would want this. But imo, I expect MOST would not want to be the NRP and would fight that if the NRP even tried.

Again, I agree a lot of NRPs (Dad's) likely don't want to try or don't care to. But even if they did, I don't believe most mothers would agree to it. And, whilst it probably is in the best interest of their children, not just because of this either but simply because they don't want to not be their childs RP. Understandably because I'm the exact same. No way would I give that up.

@Graphista

So much frothing and hyperbole.

To suggest that first family children should get the same amount when they have half siblings is just daft. In a family still together there is less money for them as siblings are born and thus it would be with a second family. Some fathers are forced out of their first families by wives having affairs or with unreasonable behaviour. Of course they are entitled to a future family life. The women they go on to have a relationship with are just as entitled to be mothers as the first wives.

You say "And you've failed to see your mistake/the irony here in that this is EXACTLY what happens to the INNOCENT child/ren from the earlier relationship under the current system - they are expected to receive A LOT LESS support than their new sibling - is that fair?"

Yes it is fair. Of course it is. You are so wrapped up in your bitterness and anger that you can't see it. No child is more important than any other. The order in which they are born is irrelevant.

Spooner you said you didn't think ANY RPs would want 50/50. My experience shows that not to be the case. You said surely NRPs don't want receipts, many do. You also said the vast majority of RPs get tax credits. Most that I know don't - the ones who are all professional, well qualified women working their arses off to also do "big man jobs" with the added complication of being the RP. The link between benefits and CMS was broken years ago as it left single parents in poverty when the benefit system assumed they were receiving the maintenance that the CSA (as was) said was owing and reduced Benefits pound for pound.
Clearly our anecdotal experiences are different - if yours suggest the status quo on CMS is fine with regard to the actual rates and what it should cover then that's fine, but I respectfully disagree.

You have clearly mistaken me for another poster because I have not said half of those things at all. As I say, please read my posts back you have 100% mistaken me for someone else.

as if by magic blimey we got page 11 before "bitter" came out to gaslight someone into retracting their opinion. I 100% agree with Graphista and this has been covered several times. In a united family, the decision for more kids and the financial impact of that is taken by all parties involved. In a second family, that decision is taken by other parties, and the RP of the first family has to suck it up. No-one is saying the NRP can't have more kids, but they have to be able to afford them - if it was me in that situation, I'd be pretty ashamed to go to the ex and say you'll have to pay even more than the 80% you already do for our child because I want more and can't afford them unless you pay for it.

I've seen people who want 50/50 it's always weighted in the former nrps favour all on nights no childcare drops them off at his exes house first thing because "he works" she feeds them takes them to school goes to work arranges and pays for childcare collects them feeds them etc etc he collects them later they sleep at his house (very important as that's the 50/50 element) and he drops them off again the following day this happens even on weekends he drops them off with "they want to see you" and goes off to his hobby

50/50 should mean days as well as nights and include childcare elements in my opinion

if yours suggest the status quo on CMS is fine with regard to the actual rates and what it should cover then that's fine, but I respectfully disagree.

NEVER said this. Not once. In fact all of my replies have been in favour of RPs. I've said nothing on this thread to suggest CMS as it is is fine and enough. Not once.

You also said the vast majority of RPs get tax credits

No. I didn't say this. I haven't even mentioned tax credits once on this thread.

you said you didn't think ANY RPs would want 50/50

NO. I didn't NOT say this. I said...

But let's not pretend most RP (mothers) would happily hand over 50:50 or more to their child's other parent if only they'd "tailor their life more

See... MOST. Not ANY. It's my opinion that MOST (not none at all) mothers wouldn't be happy to hand over majority care to their ex.

If you disagree that's fine but do not put words into my mouth thank you.

bloody hell Spooner you are right - I am so sorry. It was Reborn again. My apologies!

@ChiselandBits

bloody hell Spooner you are right - I am so sorry. It was Reborn again. My apologies!

X posted. Thank you, that's okay.

@Spooner56 I feel exactly the same way about being the NRP and yes I would (and have fought it). I'd also fight 50/50 as well. My case is a little different though, my ex was / is abusive to me (DV) and has caused a lot of psychological issues in our child (she's getting help with this). That said, while I think 50/50 feels good to parents, I don't think children necessarily benefit from this that's just my view. Some may others not, so it's can't be a default position. My daughter struggles to tolerate the time she has with her Father, no way she could cope being there more. If things were different, I'd like to think I would put my own wishes to one side despite it not being something I'd ever want.

@Pinkyxx

I'm an RP and I wouldn't want to become the NRP. I can't think of any mother who would want to live apart from her children & have them visit. I would have been open to 50/50 if it was a true division and collaboration, and if it worked for our child. This was never an option because ex moved so far away it's impossible unless getting a child up at 4am for the school run is considered ''in their best interests''.

Yup also I had to pay for childcare because I asked him (because he was unemployed and living locally at his mums at the time) I asked him to take the kids to school for me so I could work he didn't show up on time made me late I had to get paid for childcare or lose my job I lost it anyway because he kept calling and returning the children to me while I was at work literally trying to dump them in the carpark

But he wants 50/50 and I'm a vile bitter jealous ex for not allowing it to happen

But he wants 50/50 and I'm a vile bitter jealous ex for not allowing it to happen

Obviously 🙄

@AndAsIfByMagic I also 100% agree with @Graphista NRPs have reproduce like rabbits if they so choose but they cannot neglect the children they have to enable more. Yet this is exactly what happens, for every new child the NRP has (or his girlfriend already has) the child in question receives less and less. How is this not prioritizing some children over others??

Your mortgage lender will loan you more until you are maxed on on income multiples, after that no more because you cannot afford it - not even if you really really want a 2nd house. They don't say - oh ok then we'll pay the first mortgage so you can have another one.

It's the same here: NRPs should not take on more cost than they can afford and expect someone else to pay it which is effectively the outcome.

I can't afford another child, so I don't have one. No one is going to take on that cost for me so I can do what I want - nor should they!

[quote AndAsIfByMagic]@Graphista

So much frothing and hyperbole.

To suggest that first family children should get the same amount when they have half siblings is just daft. In a family still together there is less money for them as siblings are born and thus it would be with a second family. Some fathers are forced out of their first families by wives having affairs or with unreasonable behaviour. Of course they are entitled to a future family life. The women they go on to have a relationship with are just as entitled to be mothers as the first wives.

You say "And you've failed to see your mistake/the irony here in that this is EXACTLY what happens to the INNOCENT child/ren from the earlier relationship under the current system - they are expected to receive A LOT LESS support than their new sibling - is that fair?"

Yes it is fair. Of course it is. You are so wrapped up in your bitterness and anger that you can't see it. No child is more important than any other. The order in which they are born is irrelevant.[/quote]
@AndAsIfByMagic

Do you get child maintenance?

@Theunamedcat mine did exactly the same, and would also randomly demand contact when DD was in childcare I had paid for.. threatening court if I didn't allow it.

I paid for childcare I then didn't use, it was / remains impossible to work as he refuses to respect the order and constantly brings her back early / cancels / picks her up late. I wouldn't mind so much if he actually spent time with her when he sees her - but nope - she's just dumped in the mix with his partners kids / their new kids and left to get on with it. Yet just like yours, he demands 50/50 (even though he lives too far away) and of course I'm a heinous bitch denying him contact for my own selfish vindictive pleasure... The money I've wasted on legal fees.. the courts' won't grant it obviously to someone who is demanding it not to spend time with the child nor with any intention of actually doing any parenting rather purely as a further attempt to control my life.

Lmao at yellow tshirt thinking their £300 goes anywhere near the cost of raising a child.

I'd love to know what universe this is in.

Some fathers actually believe their own shit.

“You say "And you've failed to see your mistake/the irony here in that this is EXACTLY what happens to the INNOCENT child/ren from the earlier relationship under the current system - they are expected to receive A LOT LESS support than their new sibling - is that fair?"

Yes it is fair. Of course it is. You are so wrapped up in your bitterness and anger that you can't see it. No child is more important than any other. The order in which they are born is irrelevant.”

@AndAsIfByMagic
How can you say yes it is fair that the oldest child receives a lot less but then say “No child is more important than any other”??

@Pinkyxx

4. The vast majority of RPs also get to claim child maintenance and child tax credits etc so it's never clear cut

Obviously, CMS should consider tax credits. It is only right the state should subsidize the NRPs financial responsibility towards their child by extending tax credits to the RP thus justifying reduced CMS and effectively absolving the NRP of that responsibility at the expense of the tax payer....

Wasn't the link between benefits and child maintenance removed precisely because so many NRPs failed to pay and this left the RP and child destitute?

£350 is a bargain for 24/7 full-time childcare, all food and other expenses paid. I don't know how NRPs can complain about this. A full-time nanny would cost £2-£3k a month, wouldn't do weekends and you'd still have to pay for food, activities and everything else.

yes it was. And why should the state paying tax credits relieve an NRP of the duty to adequately provide for the children they helped create? Tax credits are to compensate for the lack of earning power an RP has due to being an RP.

*It's the same here: NRPs should not take on more cost than they can afford and expect someone else to pay it which is effectively the outcome.

I can't afford another child, so I don't have one. No one is going to take on that cost for me so I can do what I want - nor should they!*

This is the exact same logic used by the Tories when they cut child benefit for third children. And the same counters apply. Not all children are planned. People's situations change. People lose jobs or become disabled or have twins or something. Birth control fails. In the case of child maintainance, children might decide to move in with the other parent, potentially leaving both parents as RP to one of their kids - a friend of mine has two kids, younger has complex needs which have hugely limited her capacity to work. Eldest, in part because she struggles with her sibling, decided to move in with dad. Thankfully, my friend isn't expected to pay a huge amount of child maintainance out of her carers allowance but under your ideal system she'd do what? Leave her severely disabled child alone at home and go out and get a job to pay for maintenance for the other?

@ChocolateMassacre yep, and for good reason it seems.. the shocking entitlement of an NRP to think that tax payers should subsidize a father's lifestyle.. so he can be relieved of the immense burden of paying a pittance in child support that won't even scratch the surface of the cost..

I'm a higher rate payer who is a single parent (no partner) who is already paying for my own ex's single man life style. Why on god's good earth should I pay taxes to subsidize other men who think they shouldn't have to support their children?? The solution is blindingly obvious: men to be held to account why is this so outrageous?

It's genuinely worrying how many men really do seem to have literally no concept of the cost of raising a child.

@ChocolateMassacre

£350 is a bargain for 24/7 full-time childcare, all food and other expenses paid. I don't know how NRPs can complain about this. A full-time nanny would cost £2-£3k a month, wouldn't do weekends and you'd still have to pay for food, activities and everything else.

Not for a second suggesting maintenance is enough, it's often woefully inadequate.

But the other parent isn't providing 24/7 full time "childcare" (unless the other parent never sees their child obviously).

Half of the "childcare" is still the responsibility of the RP because they are of course their children too. It's not 24/7 full time childcare for your ex because your ex is not responsible for FULL time childcare. You are both responsible.

Maintenance should be for anything above the 50% childcare / expenses the RP is themselves responsible for.

My friend has his children 3 nights a week, Inc everything on those days, pays half of all school stuff, any additional expenses, have bedrooms here and all the rest. The only childcare his ex does "for him" is the one day a week extra she has them, which is what the maintenance is for. £350 would be more than enough in that situation in my opinion (other than if the child was in childcare which both parents should be paying half of).

@owlinnahat I am talking about NRP who go on to reduce maintenance based on their partners children or new children they opt to have. You are applying this to multiple different scenarios which are clearly not the same.

Having raised a child who had significant medical needs, and required special care for many years, and having been left with no choice but to work to fund her needs, I agree it's tough in the situation you describe. Sadly I was refused all benefits as they didn't deem her needs to meet the ''threshold'' - yet 9 out 10 childcare refused to take her on... as they weren't able to meet her needs. I didn't sleep much during those years, as I had to work early mornings and late into the night, often not at all if she had a bad night. She caught every bug around as her immune system was non-existent. I spent an absolute fortunate on childcare so her needs were met during the day. I had to stop travelling so my job was impacted. I have health issues I was born with and as my consultant says the demands on me have irretrievably deteriorated my conditions. He left to shack up with his mistress before she was 3 having never had to care for our child since she was born leaving me to do it alone, and pay for everything with a pittance from him. Forgive me if I think our child needed that money more than his girlfriends kids (who have their own 2 parents), or the kids he went on to have each time reducing the money available to our child.

This is the exact same logic used by the Tories when they cut child benefit for third children. And the same counters apply. Not all children are planned

Agree with this. It's hard to put a failsafe procedure in place for this sort of situation.

Obviously in an ideal world people would think about finances etc .. before having more children. And absolutely NRPS should be thinking of that before having more children.

But those children still exist, it isn't their fault. And not all children are planned.

A bit like when people were going on about parents having iPhones but claiming the free meals in lockdown. None of it is the child's fault, they need to eat either way.

Difficult to know what the answer is.