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?

@Finallylostit you sound bitter at your EX for not being dictated to by you and getting on with his life. Get over yourself .

[quote Yellowshirt]@Finallylostit you sound bitter at your EX for not being dictated to by you and getting on with his life. Get over yourself .[/quote]
Oh, the irony

I think the current system is hugely flawed and there's so many different scenarios. In my experience:

Scenario 1: family friend who hasn't seen his kids for years and works cash in hand, is always living in the pub like a 22 year old. Two issues here, I pay a colossal amount of tax every year and cash in hand people make my tits itch. Somewhere I'm subsidising his lack of contribution. His poor exw is also 100% raising the two children he chose to have with her.

Scenario 2: DP walked away leaving all of the house equity with his wife for the kids benefit and she now has a very nominal mortgage and very generous maintenance ++from DP. She has worked part time until both kids left school, only went back when the maintenance ended and alienated the kids constantly by telling them that they couldn't have nice things because DH didn't give her enough money. DP on the other hand had to mortgage a house from scratch along with all the associated costs and ran into his overdraft constantly trying to fund the kids. She bought a brand new car every 4 years, extended the house and bought a horse.

Scenario 3: friend of ours has the kids 50:50 and pays £1500 a month into a joint account with the ex wife, no questions asked. She works in a very low stress, short hours job and has no plan for what she will do when the maintenance stops. She's currently clinging on for dear life to a wealthy man who is clearly using her as a FWB.

I don't know what the solution is and as the 3 above show it's not always clear cut, but starting to tax NRP's at source would certainly help. I know that DP's maintenance each year was calculated by HMRC's declaration of earnings, in my view half of the CMS could be rationalised by collecting via tax codes. But I guess no government department really drives for efficiency. Too much budget and too much back scratching going on

Thank you Yellowshirt - for provng my point.

I have gotten on with my life whilst subsidising my Exs new lifestyle with free child care and being a responsible parent.

You are right I can raise my DCs on what I earn and do not need his financial help if it really came down to it. However, my ability to provide for our children does not negate hs responsibiity to provide for his children.

And before you ask -
I bought him out of the house 50/50 - ignoring I paid the mortgage solo for 2 years and out in a bigger deposit!

During the pandemic when he was not earning a great deal and not offered furlough by his company just a reduction in pay to 40% of his usual. I took not a penny from him, topped up his pension and helped feed him - whilst the parent of his third child demanded her full whack of CMS and more. So both sides of the argument.

Am I better off now than him - yes - emotionally, financially, health, stress - got over that long ago but do not underestimate how hard it is. I used to fall asleep on the sofa in my coat after putting DCs to bed in the early days.

However, I do expect him to pay for his DCS appropriately when he can - back working, pay almost back to normal However, like you he thinks the reduction should be permanent because obviously I don't need it. Court order on its way if he has not paid by the end of March - I am not a charity and his DCS deserve his input emotionally and financially.

You are an absolute .........

@Yellowshirt
Just have your child 50 50 and then you can afford to move?

@Yellowshirt as a women who experienced years of violence, financial abuse, sexual abuse & coercive control I'm curious what ''support'' you think there is for women?

Also, banks don't hand out 7K personal overdrafts to people earning what your CMS payment suggests you do. I can't help feeling much of what you say simply does not add up.

To all those who say the cms calculator should not be used when it's 50/50.... try telling that to the cms!! See how far you get!! I've been having this argument for years with them

@ChiselandBits

its ok raisin - yes there are instances of female absent parents but the statistics massively bear out the FACT that the vast majority of NRPS are male and the millions, owed in unpaid maintenance is overwhelming owed by men. And no, this is not because all "crazy, bitter ex wives" deny access or restrict contact. I would LOVE my ex to do 50/50 and never take a penny from him, but he doesn't want it and nor do the vast majority of the exes I know from my single mum friends. Not one of them is saying "no, you can't have the kids more, I don't need a break, I'm fine doing 26/30 days without a break". In the cases where they the exes have taken up more contact, its lasted a month or two and then reverted as the NRP "is busy" "has an extra shift" "is entitled to a life", or they are asked to buy new shoes, or sort a haircut or a brownie uniform and fuck it up, or forget and the RP has to swing in with an emergency fix. So lets please not have this thread descend into "but what about...." CMS is shit in SO SO many ways. That really can't be argued with. The real question is which party / MP or prospective MP is going to have the guts to really stand up on this? At present, none, because the status quo suits the (male) power base in all parties far too well.

Check out the Women's Equility Party!

I would like to see enforcement action actually mean something. My ex-partner currently owes over £21K and has been self-employed for years.

How can he drive a van and pay insurance but yet they can't find a valid address?

How can he be self-employed and not have completed a tax return for four years without being investigated.

I've had years of hell with him and it's not about the money now. It's the principle that he refuses to pay that still hurts😞

@Mumofsend

I understand the need for the NRP to still be able to live as well as pay matinence. However it does give me the rage that if they move in with a woman who has children or they have new children it reduces the amount they have to pay by a good chunk.

That should be stopped as both are active choices.

It's not a good chunk it's a small %. I agree it shouldn't go down for step children, but a new child of that person should be considered as they are just as important as the first children.

we've done this quattro - several times, if you'd like to read all 13 pages. And you and I have gone to toe to toe on previous threads also (had an name change). Have a scroll back and you'll see the arguments why CMS should NOT go down for subsequent children when the RP of the first children has no say in those childrens' creation but ends up effectively helping to pay for them by making up the difference in the drop in CMS.

@Pinkyxx. There is a lot more support for women than there are for men. Thats a fact

Men are left to suffer and deal with things on there own. Thats why male suicide is so high in men between ages 30 and 50.

Ask Halifax Bank why they allowed my Ex wife to continue to transfer money from my bank account to hers allowing my overdraft to get bigger and bigger.

Ask West Mercia police why they wouldn't investigate the abuse.

@Dithercats

Reducing CM if you live with another woman with children - or if you have another child should be stopped. Men should pay for their children regardless of who they go on to be with.

This just about sums in up and the snakes that are self employed or cash in hand

@Yellowshirt as a woman who has been supported by social services, Women's Aid and local DV services I can tell you that in reality there is little they can do other than encourage you to leave (or insist you do while threatening to remove your children if you don't). Again, I ask you what it is this support you think women receive that you did not?

If Halifax bank allowed your wife to move money from your personal account (not a joint account) to her own without your consent and then stood idle when you contacted them asking them to freeze your account due to this illegal activity this is very serious indeed. You are suggesting the Halifax were complicit in knowingly breaking multiple financial regulations & enabling your wife to commit fraud. You further suggest that despite your protestations that your account was being illegally accessed & request they act according to their duties that the Halifax refused to freeze your account and instead simply increased your overdraft on and on (without any financial test being applied) further enabling her to remove money from your personal account. If this is correct I strongly suggest you contact a solicitor and seek no win no fee basis to sue the Halifax. The legal fees would be deducted from any settlement you receive, if you lose you pay nothing. You would undoubtedly win significant compensation if indeed the fact are as you present them.

@RhubardCrumble

To all those who say the cms calculator should not be used when it's 50/50.... try telling that to the cms!! See how far you get!! I've been having this argument for years with them

@RhubardCrumble

But why would CMS be involved if 50/50 care is in place? Is it because contact has changed? Or a parent is claiming that it isn't truly 50/50?

If one parent opens a case with the cms, they seem to take their word for everything they say.
And also, the CMS say you can have the children 6 nights a week and still be the NRP.
Unless the parent who opened the case agrees to it, there is nothing I can do to stop them calling me the NRP

@RhubardCrumble

If one parent opens a case with the cms, they seem to take their word for everything they say. And also, the CMS say you can have the children 6 nights a week and still be the NRP. Unless the parent who opened the case agrees to it, there is nothing I can do to stop them calling me the NRP

Oh that's crap!

@RhubardCrumble

If one parent opens a case with the cms, they seem to take their word for everything they say. And also, the CMS say you can have the children 6 nights a week and still be the NRP. Unless the parent who opened the case agrees to it, there is nothing I can do to stop them calling me the NRP

I've had the opposite which just shows how shit and inconsistent the CMS is!

@ChiselandBits

we've done this quattro - several times, if you'd like to read all 13 pages. And you and I have gone to toe to toe on previous threads also (had an name change). Have a scroll back and you'll see the arguments why CMS should NOT go down for subsequent children when the RP of the first children has no say in those childrens' creation but ends up effectively helping to pay for them by making up the difference in the drop in CMS.

I don't have a clue who you are? Presumably you have name changed.

Subsequent children are equals and should be treated as such. It's nothing to do with the rp, and frankly the reduction is so small there is not much of a difference to make up anyway!

I can see the arguments, none of them really convince me that treating a subsequent child like some kind of second class citizen is a good thing.

But the subsequent children already get a far larger percentage of the parents income. My ex used to pay me 14% of his income. This was dropped when he moved in with someone with children then dropped further when they had another child. How is that fair? My dc got far less of his income than his subsequent dc yet apparently they (the subsequent children) are the ones being treated like second class citizens
And if "the reduction is so small there is not much of a difference to make up anyway!" then the NRP can continue to pay it. Can't they. I mean either its such a small amount that its negligible or its not.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro By all means they can reproduce like bunnies that's fair, their choice - what is offensive it the expectation a former spouse subsidize this choice. If I apply your logic, the first born should no more be treated as 2nd class citizens than subsequent children. Except that is not the case, the first born must make do with less. You say it's nothing to do with the RP yet it is absolutely is because the RP is expected to take on a larger share of joint costs based on NRPs choice; a choice they have no stake in. The NRP makes this choice in the full knowledge it will require their former spouse to subsidize the cost of these new children through a reduction of CMS hence reducing the support to their existing children.

If we are going to treat all children equal then you don't take from one to give to another.

I know you don't know me Quattro .. As I said in my post, I've name changed. But I recall your stance on this from other threads. I'm not going to restate my position on this again but if you scroll back, I and others have explained why reducing payments on the addition of more children to a second family is unfair and actually treating the 1st set less equally. As pinkyxx said, a child you live with gets access to and benefits from over 80% of the salary, a child you don't live with gets about 16-18%.

Not read the whole thread so apologies if repeating.

My ex is self employed with his partner in the same business. He "earns" £80 a week. So I get £30 a month for 3 kids. However, universal credits assume he is getting 35hours x nmw and reduce his payments accordingly, why can't cms assume the same? If he's meant to be earning £1.2k then I should get 19% of that!

Yes we've discussed upthread about linking hmrc and cms directly as a fairly swift way o address a lot of the dodges and loopholes which is the most immediate problem but there are also significant issues with the basic premise of how its worked out, what can be taken as a reason to reduce etc.

[quote Pinkyxx]@Yellowshirt as a women who experienced years of violence, financial abuse, sexual abuse & coercive control I'm curious what ''support'' you think there is for women?

Also, banks don't hand out 7K personal overdrafts to people earning what your CMS payment suggests you do. I can't help feeling much of what you say simply does not add up.[/quote]
Spot on