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 - but by the rules you want, they are the same. You are saying that if a parent has older kids, it's their job to find the money for them, no matter what. I'm saying that life doesn't work that way. Rules need to be able to allow for situations like my friend as well as your family and your ex.

@sofakingcool

Do you get child maintenance?

No. Got married, stayed married, had as many children as we could afford, both grown up and left home.

But I have male friends whose ex wives made it almost impossible for them to see their children after they'd ejected them in favour of lovers. But the wives still wanted the money, of course. And complained when the men had second families.

Also I know of dead beat dads who do all they can to not pay.

Also I know of dead beat mums who don't think they should have to work to help support their children.

It isn't simple.

@owlinnahat where did I say this was an exclusive 'rule' to solve for every situation? I'm sorry I can't agree with you that NRPs accumulating more children (be it their new partner's or new children they choose to have merit reducing their CMS is the same as your friends' situation. There will always be exceptional circumstances such as disabled children, siblings who are better living apart or genuine accidents, but I can't help feel these are the exception and not the rule.

Any policy needs to address the key issues, and cater for the spectrum of situations. Today we have a one size fits all based on nights spent with the NRP and reduced for children who are not his (and have their own parents) and further reduced for additional children the NRP chooses to have. I believe people need to take responsibility for their life and choices not expect others to pick up the slack because they don't want to. IMO the CMS needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt in a way that isn't focused on protecting an NRPs lifestyles / choices so they may go on to live their ''best life'' at the expense of the children & RP they leave behind. You're free to take a different view.

Disclaimer: I can only talk about my situation but that of my single parent friends was very similar.

1. Why does the RP usually the mother get the say on when the NRP can have the children? Is this not a conflict of interest so will always suit the mother for the NRP to have them less. I didnt. Ex decided when it was and wasn't 'convenient' to have them
Often cancelling after he was meant to pick them up. It didn't matter if it was convenient for me, he just didn't turn up.

The default starting position should be automatically 50/50 then can be changed dependent on circumstances I've only ever met 2 dads who wanted 50/50

2. The reality is most sensible NRPs will require the same size house so the utility bills, rent will nearly be the same. My ex has never had a bedroom for the DC. They have, on occasion been allowed to sleep on the sofa.

3. From a NRP if you don't allow me to have the children 50/50 why should I then pay towards the costs of childcare to enable you to work? The RP always wants financial help but never offers extra days etc always? never? Nope. I asked ex many times to have dc more than he did. He refused. I offered to reduce his maintenance (when he paid it) to cover the days. Not nights. Just days. He refused.

4. The vast majority of RPs also get to claim child maintenance and child tax credits etc so it's never clear cut Tax credits have f all to do with maintenance. Perhaps if the government looked properly at the cost of living/wages then less women would need them.

5. Remember the child maintenance should be used to cover the essentials not lifestyle choices ie school clubs , trips etc
Who decides what's essential? A school trip to Disney Land isn't really. But one to a gallery in London to assist with the cirruculum arguably is.

And on the 50/50 point. I offered it once. I didnt want to, and knew he'd say no, but wanted to make the point. He initially said he would do 50/50 if I changed the dc to the school near him because he wasn't going to "fuck about in the mornings." He lives a 10min drive away, which would take me nearly an hour on the bus. So it's OK for me to "fuck about" but not him. I should also add he wasn't working at this point. I was.
2 mins later he said "anyway. We (he and his wife) don't have room for them. And we hardly get any time alone as it is without having more dc in the house. And you'll have to pay maintenance as we won't get anymore benefits."
I got so little "time alone" that I was still (happily as it happens) single. He'd managed to date, marry and have 2 more dc.

But yes. I'm just a bitter ex who wants his money obvs.

Just to put 50/50 man into context here he has seen child one approximately three possibly four times this year for one hour he requested it to be one hour I fought against it and lost and the other child 10 minutes on his birthday this year I know its only February but still this is the reality I'm dealing with here I could take it to court but you cannot force someone to be a parent he talks passionately about being a parent to his children he cannot cope with the reality of being a parent not even paying full child maintenance he pays half he KNOWS its half I've contacted child maintenance they are dragging their feet because he refuses to declare his income he will have lost his job by the time they get it sorted

He got a dog and got rid because it's too much trouble he then got another puppy to attract a certain dog loving girlfriend now she is locked in wants to get rid of it as its too much trouble

See a pattern? I know I do

[quote Yellowshirt]@Pinkyxx But every house will be different. My daughter at 16 doesn't need child care.
People seem to forget the previous years as well when I gave my Ex every single penny I earned.

I dont resent paying the money. I don't like the fact my daughter doesn't understand I pay it and what its for.

There is no balance to child maintenance. If I'm in a bedsit and my Ex is having 3 or 4 holidays a year something is wrong.

I do see when you put it like that about your childcare fees need to be accounted for. I will hold my hands up to that one. I didn't realise they were that expensive.[/quote]
People seem to forget the previous years as well when I gave my Ex every single penny I earned.

So (as PP have calculated from your maintenance you claim to pay, your salary is £3000 a month) you gave all of this to your ex (naturally she forced you) and then pocketed her £60k a year salary. If you gave every penny you had to her, how did you pay your mortgage/rent/bills/food/car/phone/clothes?

I dont resent paying the money.

You're doing a stellar version of someone who does.

There is no balance to child maintenance. If I'm in a bedsit and my Ex is having 3 or 4 holidays a year something is wrong.

If she's worked her arse off to become the deputy head of a school on £60k a year and can afford 3 holidays, what has that got to do with you? You're literally bitching that someone who has been more successful, has nicer things.

If she lives like a miser, or like a millionaire, through her own choices and work ethic, that's nothing to do with your maintenance you should pay.

Something is wrong though, if someone earns £3k a month, yet have to live in a 6 man bedsit. They don't. So something doesn't add up.

You are literally the textbook CMS nrp.

I'm curious. What is the published rationale for reducing maintenance to the original children when NRP moves into another household, with stepchildren. I have never understood it. Surely those stepchildren have a NRP who pays for them already? So that household is quids in.

@Soopermum1

I'm curious. What is the published rationale for reducing maintenance to the original children when NRP moves into another household, with stepchildren. I have never understood it. Surely those stepchildren have a NRP who pays for them already? So that household is quids in.

Exactly, baffling isn't it.

I'm not sure there is a published one but I think it goes something like - if the new partner was a single parent she may well be in receipt of some kind of tax credit. That would reduce or disappear if she starts to cohabit because it is assumed that if the NRP of some other children moved in he would need to make up that difference so she is not "worse off". He therefor is now at least partially responsibile for these step children. However, in practice that means that those children now have 3 parents contributing to them, at the expense of the first family's children.

@Soopermum1

I'm curious. What is the published rationale for reducing maintenance to the original children when NRP moves into another household, with stepchildren. I have never understood it. Surely those stepchildren have a NRP who pays for them already? So that household is quids in.

Judging from the shit show on here.... I don't think many are "quids in" the stepchildrens bio father probably pays nothing either. Or if it doesn't last the new family set up again another mother is expected to pick up the slack fincially.

Part of the issue is. People go on to have numerous kids before they have paid for their existing kids!

The government tends to assume merged finances in a household - hence if a NRP moves into a new household his new partner's benefits entitlement will be based on his income too, if her kids go to university their student loan will be based on his income too etc etc.

So it sort of makes sense that they assume this means it impacts his finances.

yes but it only works one way. Assuming a male NRP and female new partner, the male NRP is assumed to have merged finances and therefore becomes partially responsible for HER kids, at the expense of his own living elsewhere, but it doesn't work the other way round - if the NRP for whatever reason drops his income, this merged finances doesn't then require the new partner to take over any part of the CMS owed. I'm not saying it should - that would be fraught with problems, but its inconsistent.

@ChiselandBits

yes but it only works one way. Assuming a male NRP and female new partner, the male NRP is assumed to have merged finances and therefore becomes partially responsible for HER kids, at the expense of his own living elsewhere, but it doesn't work the other way round - if the NRP for whatever reason drops his income, this merged finances doesn't then require the new partner to take over any part of the CMS owed. I'm not saying it should - that would be fraught with problems, but its inconsistent.

I agree with this.

You can't say that it's because finances are merged and so it's understandable but then say step parents shouldn't contribute to CMS.

Neither should be the case. CMS shouldn't drop because a NRP moves in with step children and step parents should not have their income taken into account or have to pay on their partners behalf if they can't.

@ChiselandBits

yes but it only works one way. Assuming a male NRP and female new partner, the male NRP is assumed to have merged finances and therefore becomes partially responsible for HER kids, at the expense of his own living elsewhere, but it doesn't work the other way round - if the NRP for whatever reason drops his income, this merged finances doesn't then require the new partner to take over any part of the CMS owed. I'm not saying it should - that would be fraught with problems, but its inconsistent.

And the RP in this equation (which her reduced CMS to account for the new partner's kids) is on the hook for ALL university expenses with zero responsibility on the NRP because, you guessed it - he's supporting someone else's kids. New partner's income totally disregarded.

The NRP, new partner & her kids benefit every which way.

he's supporting someone else's kids. New partner's income totally disregarded

I thought partners incomes were included for university? Not a shitty reply btw, just I must have misunderstood otherwise.

@HarrySwotter I'm talking about costs above the student loans which I will need to support DD with not the income used to assess student loan itself. My post was terribly clear!

What I mean is that my ex doesn't have to support our DD at uni, nor will he have to pay CMS at that stage - all cost is on me as I am RP. I don't have a partner, so no one to help me with costs either. My income alone will be assessed for loans etc. His income will be considered for his new kids and steps kids if they go to uni.

It just feels like I get short changed at every stage.. ex can MORE than afford to help his child now and unless his circumstances change vastly will be in a position to do so when she is uni. He's made it clear he will not be paying a penny towards her higher education. This all links to the fact the courts wouldn't remove her from me when he applied for residence and I won't force her to live with him. All costs are mine to bear with his only contribution the heavily discounted CMS I get till she finishes school. He delights in the control this gives him has over my life... it's sad but the system enables / encourages it so here we are.

Ohhh okay sorry yes that makes sense. I thought you meant for the student loans apologies.

Agreed @Pinkyxx the system supports and enables continued control from the NRP. This is a point I have been making to my MP

I have my children 50%of the time. Do school runs, buy everything they need, have exactly the same outgoings as their mum.
But am still assessed by the CMS as the NRP so have to pay CM.

This sucks, big time. Completely unfair and needs to change.

But am still assessed by the CMS as the NRP so have to pay CM

As I understand it the calculator is not supposed to be used when there is 50:50. Precisely because of this reason.

@RhubardCrumble

I have my children 50%of the time. Do school runs, buy everything they need, have exactly the same outgoings as their mum. But am still assessed by the CMS as the NRP so have to pay CM.

This sucks, big time. Completely unfair and needs to change.

As a previous poster said, surely in your case neither of you pay CM?

The CMS calculator is not intended to be used in cases of 50:50 care.

@RhubardCrumble

I have my children 50%of the time. Do school runs, buy everything they need, have exactly the same outgoings as their mum. But am still assessed by the CMS as the NRP so have to pay CM.

This sucks, big time. Completely unfair and needs to change.

If it's a case of genuine 50:50 split, the CMS calculator shouldn't be used, I believe?

Yellowshirt - If both parents are working the none resident parent wouldn't need to pay more than £250 per child per month otherwise the resident parent is not contributing a reasonable amount to the childs upbringing and is being a greedy money grabber.

What utter garbage. I work, Ex works both on comparable salaries, when younger he had the DCS for 6 weekends in the year Sat/Sun -never during the week.
I worked provided all childcare, if I wanted to go out with friends ( forgotten what that actually means!) - it meant babysitters -3 hrs £36 only local, go to the gym - babysitter 2 hrs £24. Meanwhile the NRP went to the gym twice per week, pub x2 per week, went out for a meal saw friends at least once per week. So I provided him with free child care to the tune of £150 per week minimum .
Holiday clubs so I can work - £150 per week per child - 8week summer holidays are bloody expensive and yes the NRP is liable for that.
2 DCs 6 weeks clubs lets be miserly like you and say £250 per week for 2 DCs . ( I take 2 weeks holiday to cover the rest) packed lunches £40 per week. = easily £1700 for the summer holidays.

£850 per parent - your £250 per month is gone in a blink and in fact is 3 months worth of your annual contribution. Don't worry your DCs don't need clothes, more food, more entertainment, wifi etc

You want to know where the money goes- open your eyes and stop being such a bitter twisted misogynist.

@Escargooooooo your talking out of your backside.
Men in the UK not supported if abused by a woman. They are supposed to man up.

Where do you want me to live with 3 CCJS from financial abuse on my credit file until 2023.

Yes my Ex did take my bank card off me and run up a £7000 overdraft. My debts were between £20000 and £30000 in total.

We did have two cars but then one had to be sold immediately under value as her financial control continued.

I even approached her parents in a desperate bid to stop tbe abuse but they refused to help and it got worse.

Would you like any more details of my life with my EX?

Do you want pictures and bank statements?

I was a good dad but I had no choice but to walk away from the family home. I did more for my daughter than my Ex ever did.

But she became RP and can dictate everything. This has included cancelling the only real hobby my daughter had which was swimming club. She was going 3 times a week but her mum put a stop to it and my daughter is heartbroken as she misses the socialising and friends she had.