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?

@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

CMS base who the NRP is by whoever is in receipt of child benefit regardless of who opens the claim.

If you’ve been arguing with them for years then you could have applied to court for a cao for 50/50 and then cms would change the claim on that basis. That’s IF you genuinely do 50% of the parenting physically and financially.

Lalala1
Crikey, "If I genuinely do 50% of the parenting physically and financially "
That sounds like you're suggesting I don't.

Just for my own sanity, what do you consider 50% of physical and financial parenting?

@RhubardCrumble

There was no suggestion in my post hence why I said "IF" I don't know if you do 50/50 or don't I simply stated that 50/50 is exactly that 50% percent of parenting and if that's what you do a court would issue u a cao which then would be used to claim no cms liable.

Like I said 50/50 is exactly that 50% of all responsibility's of parenting.

Shared care (days and nights)
Childcare
School holidays
School drop offs/pick ups
School fees/lunches/trips/ uniforms/ travel
Sick day cover
Medical/dental appointments
Activities/sports
Birthday parties/gifts
Clothes/shoes

There's probably more I've missed but the point is 50/50 is only really 50/50 if physically and financially it's equal and not one parent spin the lions share

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

Not if your NRP works on a self-employed, largely cash in hand basis it isn't. My ex hasn't paid maintenance (or tax for that matter) in 13 years. HMRC totally uninterested.

@IstayedForTheFeminism

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.

It is a small amount, yes, but no I don't think they should continue to pay it. You're forgetting they have to house the new child as well as the existing children.

No child is more important than another because they were born first.

[quote Pinkyxx]@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.[/quote]
That's exactly what you would do if you had children within a family unit. You don't automatically earn more for every child. It's unrealistic. Of course the first gets less. It's just how it is.

@ChiselandBits

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%.

You can "explain" until you're blue in the face, it doesn't mean you're right.

I mean obviously they will benefit from the parent more because they live there, but it doesn't mean they physically have more money or a better life.

Often the nrp has walked away from the family set up and therefore has to buy or rent another house, which is big enough for existing children and new children, plus pau bills associated with that plus maintenance.

I think you think nrps are rolling in it, and maybe some are (and the bastards who avoid paying definitely are) but it's certainly not my experience, not at all.

I have never been more skint than when we had our son, and he didn't get as much money spent on him as the maintenance payment, not even close!

Get yourarseoff - many NRPs do not get a house to accommodate their first family children - hence the comments on airbeds, sofa surfing and the continuous complaints of SMS that the SDCs should sleep anywhere but not with their DCS or any new DCS. Sorry the one off cost of an airbed and EOW is not comparable.

The second family ( which invariably includes NRPs DSCs) get access to 84 - 90% if his income all the time.
NRPs DC get access the that 84-90% maybe 100days of the year on EOW and the monies spent on them goes down with each subsequent child in that house hold. They then have access to 10-16% of NRPS income aswell which goes down because of the new DC and unrelated DSCs - means they get not a lot of their NRP in terms of time or monies as a general rule. There are of course excpetions.

Whatever way you look at it the resident DC, DSCs in the NRPs house do better than the NRPs first family from their own related NRP.

Link to HMRC and company accounts and for those in council accommodation - their rent because if they are paying the rent then they have income - pursue them from that.

@Finallylostit

Get yourarseoff - many NRPs do not get a house to accommodate their first family children - hence the comments on airbeds, sofa surfing and the continuous complaints of SMS that the SDCs should sleep anywhere but not with their DCS or any new DCS. Sorry the one off cost of an airbed and EOW is not comparable.

The second family ( which invariably includes NRPs DSCs) get access to 84 - 90% if his income all the time.
NRPs DC get access the that 84-90% maybe 100days of the year on EOW and the monies spent on them goes down with each subsequent child in that house hold. They then have access to 10-16% of NRPS income aswell which goes down because of the new DC and unrelated DSCs - means they get not a lot of their NRP in terms of time or monies as a general rule. There are of course excpetions.

Whatever way you look at it the resident DC, DSCs in the NRPs house do better than the NRPs first family from their own related NRP.

Link to HMRC and company accounts and for those in council accommodation - their rent because if they are paying the rent then they have income - pursue them from that.

Again, that's not my experience at all. I'm sure there are many shit father's but that's not their subsequent child's fault, is it?

It doesn't invariably include DSCs at all. Not everyone moves in with DSCs.

In regards to the time issue, and since you like making sweeping generalisations, most NRPs get what they're given time wise. And standard Is EOW and one night a week. RPs are free to offer more than this, but imr rarely do. Strange, if that's a big concern I feel. Of course this means maintenance goes down.

I don't agree at all that the new child does better than the first children at all. Not unless the nrp simply does not pay.

I agree payments should be made, and I agree linking to HMRC is a good idea. I think council house rent shows how oblivious you are, though. Ooh because you can pay your rent you must be loaded you don't necessarily have income if you pay rent at all.

I finally closed my child maintenance claim today (well I closed it ages ago but it’s taken a long time to even close it so I chased it today) 5 years, pretty much not a penny in that time unless you count the £7 payments we would occasionally get, and even that was rare, not a penny for 3 years with cms unable to chase it or do anything about it. No arrears due to being on benefits. My ex isn’t involved in my children’s lives and doesn’t see them at all so in all honestly it was a relief to close it and accept we will never see a penny. I once asked him for Maintenance when we split and was told “you don’t have kids to get paid” the cms are completely useless.

Quattro
If your ex had an additional child with someone else, would you be OK with being asked to contribute toward that child because her expenses have gone up and she couldn't give as much to yours? I imagine not. But that's what you're saying your ex should do.. Effectively subsidise your contribution, more than she already does as a result of YOU choosing to have another child over which she has no say or input. It's bonkers.

@ChiselandBits

Quattro If your ex had an additional child with someone else, would you be OK with being asked to contribute toward that child because her expenses have gone up and she couldn't give as much to yours? I imagine not. But that's what you're saying your ex should do.. Effectively subsidise your contribution, more than she already does as a result of YOU choosing to have another child over which she has no say or input. It's bonkers.

I wouldn't be asked to be contribute to the child would I?

I don't have an ex .. certainly not an ex wife!

I only have one child, who lives with me, who clearly I pay for. Hth.

That's exactly what you would do if you had children within a family unit. You don't automatically earn more for every child. It's unrealistic. Of course the first gets less. It's just how it is.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

No actually, it's not the way it is and honestly your reference to the 2 homes a child of divorce being a ''family unit'' is absurd. By your logic the RP, NRP, former, new children and partners are all one family unit - which is patently not the case. A family unit makes joint decisions considering every member of the household. The RP and NRP are separate family units, they live separately, & they are financed separately. Neither of these separate family units has any right to impose on the other - except that is precisely what CMS allows the NRP to do at the expense of the children they already have.

It was your choice and wish to bring another child into a situation which judging by your comments was clearly was not affordable to your family unit. This was a choice that you made as a family, nothing to do with the RP. You're of course free to make your own choices in your own life, but it's incredibly entitled to think that a child should bear the consequences of your wants/wishes.

Personally, I could not be with nor have a child with a man who was willing to detriment the children he already had responsibility for, but maybe that is just me.

@Pinkyxx

That's exactly what you would do if you had children within a family unit. You don't automatically earn more for every child. It's unrealistic. Of course the first gets less. It's just how it is.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

No actually, it's not the way it is and honestly your reference to the 2 homes a child of divorce being a ''family unit'' is absurd. By your logic the RP, NRP, former, new children and partners are all one family unit - which is patently not the case. A family unit makes joint decisions considering every member of the household. The RP and NRP are separate family units, they live separately, & they are financed separately. Neither of these separate family units has any right to impose on the other - except that is precisely what CMS allows the NRP to do at the expense of the children they already have.

It was your choice and wish to bring another child into a situation which judging by your comments was clearly was not affordable to your family unit. This was a choice that you made as a family, nothing to do with the RP. You're of course free to make your own choices in your own life, but it's incredibly entitled to think that a child should bear the consequences of your wants/wishes.

Personally, I could not be with nor have a child with a man who was willing to detriment the children he already had responsibility for, but maybe that is just me.

Clearly that's not what I meant. It's pretty clear I meant a together family unit. That is what happens. You don't earn more for every child you have.

By your logic nobody should ever go on to have any more children ever.

It was affordable. We could still pay all the bills but it is the poorest we have ever been. Similar for lots of people. Not unusual in the slightest. I'm just showing that not all NRPs are rolling in cash like you seem to think they are.

Good for you. Do you want a gold star?

Dps child has never been at any kind of detriment caused by us. His mother on the other hand, yeah, but not by us.

It is a small amount, yes, but no I don't think they should continue to pay it. You're forgetting they have to house the new child as well as the existing children.
Then they need to consider that before having subsequent children. Same as I had to make the decision not to have any when I was in a relationship. Because we couldn't realistically afford another child without seriously affecting the 2 I had. (Just as well really as it ended in tears)

No child is more important than another because they were born first.
No but subsequent children have access to 80-90% of the parents money. The 'first' family get a pittance.

@IstayedForTheFeminism

It is a small amount, yes, but no I don't think they should continue to pay it. You're forgetting they have to house the new child as well as the existing children. Then they need to consider that before having subsequent children. Same as I had to make the decision not to have any when I was in a relationship. Because we couldn't realistically afford another child without seriously affecting the 2 I had. (Just as well really as it ended in tears)

No child is more important than another because they were born first.
No but subsequent children have access to 80-90% of the parents money. The 'first' family get a pittance.

Who's saying they're not considering it?

No, they don't as I have already explained.

Can you define a "pittance" considering people pay based on their income?

I think it's very privileged to think hundreds, potentially thousands a month is a pittance and yet these are amounts people do actually pay.

The basic rate for benefits, you could say is a pittance, yes. Bigger amounts? No.

I can only base it on the experience of me and my friends. There is no way my ex considered how he would pay for his existing children. As evidenced by "well its not my problem if you have no money", "its not my fault my wife is pregnant" and "I do have other children to pay for you know".

Most RPs aren't getting large sums are they? So the outliers are just that. Outliers.

No but subsequent children have access to 80-90% of the parents money. The 'first' family get a pittance.

Where does this number come from? Does the percentage of income that is spent on rent, mortgage, bills etc count towards the 80-90% these subsequent children are getting access to?

@IstayedForTheFeminism

I can only base it on the experience of me and my friends. There is no way my ex considered how he would pay for his existing children. As evidenced by "well its not my problem if you have no money", "its not my fault my wife is pregnant" and "I do have other children to pay for you know".

Most RPs aren't getting large sums are they? So the outliers are just that. Outliers.

Of course, so can I. I can wholeheartedly say the maintenance dp pays is not even close to a pittance and considerably more than we spend on ds, who lives with us. That's obviously our choice, but I don't feel the need to spoil my child in the interest of equality.

I'm sorry your ex is a twat. Im sure many are, but many aren't as well.

You haven't told me what you consider a pittance? What's an acceptable level of maintenance to you?

A large sum could also mean different things to different people.

@QuirkyTurtle

No but subsequent children have access to 80-90% of the parents money. The 'first' family get a pittance.

Where does this number come from? Does the percentage of income that is spent on rent, mortgage, bills etc count towards the 80-90% these subsequent children are getting access to?

Well it's what's left after they've paid maintenence. Yes of course some of it goes on bills. But its a much higher portion than the first child gets.

By this logic, if both parents remarry and have another child, does this mean no maintenance should be paid at all? Because the RP's second child would get access to 110% of household income but the NRP's second child only gets 90%?

Things are never going to be completely and entirely fair in blended families from a financial perspective. It's the chance parents take when having a child.

Getoffyourarse - your experiences are vry different from the 4 fellow single mums I know. You seem to live in utopia where NRPS are concerned.

"Ooh because you can pay your rent you must be loaded" - dont be obtuse. Where did I say that. However, if you can pay your rent private or council, then you have access to income/benefits etc.

More NRPs do not pay/ or pay there fair share of child rearing costs.
If giving up 12% of your income per month means you are destitute then you need to take a look at what you are spending.

I agree that it should be impossible not to pay. That a measly £1 should be taken from uc if they have no job and given towards the care of their children. I also think that the amount should not be amended if one ex then goes on to have more children or lives with their current partners children. The existing children don't just disappear and if you were still together but had a 3rd or 4th child you would have to cut your cloth accordingly. It would hopefully make men think before they start new families as to whether they could afford it. If they insist on this stupid clause then the whole family income, including that of stepparents should be included in any calculations.

I know a feckless father who lives with his new partner and her kids. He is the lower earner out of the two and does reduced hours so he can be on hand to do pick off and drop offs of her children, meanwhile his own children get a pittance putting further pressure on their mother.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro of course. Basing it on our own experience is all anyone can do. Which is why no one can ever agree on what's wrong/right with the CMS. Some RPs are screwed over. Some NRPs are screwed over. Some cases everyone is happy.

Whats a pittance? Well it depends on so much. Housing costs etc etc. If I didn't have my DC I could rent a room including all bills for £400 per month.
I rent the cheapest 2 bed in my town (my lovely landlady hasn't increased my rent for 11 years. If she does I'm screwed.) I pay £800 rent. Plus all bills on top. So my children "cost" an extra £400 in rent alone. Then clothes, shoes, food, bills etc etc.
Even allowing for benefits the £30 pw my ex used to pay didn't cover half of what was left.

I disagree with the comments that subsequent children get the full remainder of their parents income. Firstly CMS is calculated on gross income not taxed. Secondly our costs for housing and bills etc is increased by having a DSC by making sure we have a house big enough, additional bill costs when they stay etc. Plus all additional expenses of course which CMS don't cover (school uniforms etc). I have absolutely no issue with what my DH pays in CMS and on top for DSC but the overall cost of DSC is far far more then 12% of DH income. So I think it's unfair to say it's 'only 12%' of their income being spend on the child.