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?

I just think the main issue is that once parents split up, the financial interests of the 2 households can naturally end up at odds with each other, especially if there isn't a great deal of money to go around.

Obviously when you're together things ebb and flow, but once you split that is never expected to happen anymore as CM is regarded - often by both sides - as a bill that cannot change. Which isn't really realistic, but I can completely see how it happens when you've got an RP who feels that they do/does actually do the bulk of the parenting and the few hundred quid they get is 90% of what the dad contributes to his children's everyday lives. I can see how a reduction to what is regarded as a minimal contribution to parenting can feel galling.

But equally I can see how some NRPs have no choice but to reduce what they're paying in certain situations where they have been paying more than CM and just cannot sustain the amount anymore for various reasons, which could include a younger child who needs to go into a childcare setting or something similar.

@Finallylostit

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.

Not necessarily. The person you live with might pay your rent?

Maybe I am just lucky to have a decent partner? I don't live in a utopia, though. I had a shit dad who didn't pay so I understand what it's like, actually.

I haven't mentioned anyone being destitute, perhaps you are the one being obtuse.

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

I am also not saying no one should ever have more children. I have said that it is my view that only people who can afford to have more children should go on to have more. '''Afford'' means the NRPs does not need to take money out of the RP's pocket, income they rely upon for their child, to accommodate a choice to have more children with another person.

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.

If you mean a family unit together, and recognize that 2 independent households cannot be considered to be analogous with a together family unit, I can't understand why you are using this as an argument to justify of reduced CMS when one of these household chooses (independently of the other) to bring a new child into the family at the other households clear detriment given the imposed reduction of CMS to the recipient clearly based on that new child?

Agree household income does not increase with every child. Again maybe it's just me, but I don't make decisions which I can't afford to support.

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.

Sorry could you point out to me where I said all NRPs are rolling in cash? I believe I said my ex was, and that is an accurate statement which I stand by. I can't speak to any other NRP. I assume you knew your financial circumstances before you got pregnant, therefore knew the impact would be that you would be '' the poorest you have ever been'' so this was an accepted consequence of the active choice you made. And yes, many family units make the same choice which of course they are free to do so simply not at the expense of others.

@Pinkyxx

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

I am also not saying no one should ever have more children. I have said that it is my view that only people who can afford to have more children should go on to have more. '''Afford'' means the NRPs does not need to take money out of the RP's pocket, income they rely upon for their child, to accommodate a choice to have more children with another person.

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.

If you mean a family unit together, and recognize that 2 independent households cannot be considered to be analogous with a together family unit, I can't understand why you are using this as an argument to justify of reduced CMS when one of these household chooses (independently of the other) to bring a new child into the family at the other households clear detriment given the imposed reduction of CMS to the recipient clearly based on that new child?

Agree household income does not increase with every child. Again maybe it's just me, but I don't make decisions which I can't afford to support.

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.

Sorry could you point out to me where I said all NRPs are rolling in cash? I believe I said my ex was, and that is an accurate statement which I stand by. I can't speak to any other NRP. I assume you knew your financial circumstances before you got pregnant, therefore knew the impact would be that you would be '' the poorest you have ever been'' so this was an accepted consequence of the active choice you made. And yes, many family units make the same choice which of course they are free to do so simply not at the expense of others.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I am also not saying no one should ever have more children. I have said that it is my view that only people who can afford to have more children should go on to have more. '''Afford'' means the NRPs does not need to take money out of the RP's pocket, income they rely upon for their child, to accommodate a choice to have more children with another person.

Would you feel the same if they NRP paid over CM and also paid for other things too, eg new clothes and trainers sometimes, mobile phone and contract, and other things like that? Because for me this is where the waters get more muddy.

I agree that if you're paying the absolute minimum but could afford more that it's tight to reduce payment just because you can, on the basis of another child being born. But if you're someone who has always paid more but now find it's not sustainable, would you still feel that was unfair and that they can't afford further children?

Because to me, I wouldn't regard that money as the RP's income and would think it was fair for the NRP to reduce their CM payment in order that they could afford whatever change has happened on their side - whether wage drop or new child or increased mortgage etc - and so they could still be able to afford to buy things for/do things with their older children themselves too.

@Pinkyxx

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

I am also not saying no one should ever have more children. I have said that it is my view that only people who can afford to have more children should go on to have more. '''Afford'' means the NRPs does not need to take money out of the RP's pocket, income they rely upon for their child, to accommodate a choice to have more children with another person.

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.

If you mean a family unit together, and recognize that 2 independent households cannot be considered to be analogous with a together family unit, I can't understand why you are using this as an argument to justify of reduced CMS when one of these household chooses (independently of the other) to bring a new child into the family at the other households clear detriment given the imposed reduction of CMS to the recipient clearly based on that new child?

Agree household income does not increase with every child. Again maybe it's just me, but I don't make decisions which I can't afford to support.

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.

Sorry could you point out to me where I said all NRPs are rolling in cash? I believe I said my ex was, and that is an accurate statement which I stand by. I can't speak to any other NRP. I assume you knew your financial circumstances before you got pregnant, therefore knew the impact would be that you would be '' the poorest you have ever been'' so this was an accepted consequence of the active choice you made. And yes, many family units make the same choice which of course they are free to do so simply not at the expense of others.

Theyre not taking it out of the RPs pocket - it's assessed based on the children. When there are more children to consider, quite obviously it changes. As I've stated, it's a small % anyway.

What I'm saying is that children are always affected by siblings. It's not a new phenomenon.

Of course it was an accepted consequence or I wouldn't have done it. I don't know what you're trying to get at ?

I haven't said wah wah it's so unfair we were skint and his ex got all his money. I'm simply explaining we weren't rich like your ex. That's it.

The NRP makes a choice to move in with someone who already has children and their new partner also makes a choice to possibly receive an income reduction due to this choice. I still don’t think stepchildren should count in the calculation because if the NRP chose to stay single, not move in with his partner or chose a partner who didn’t have children the CM wouldn’t reduce. It isn’t fair that bio children should receive less because Dad is busy playing happy families with someone else’s children.

Also don’t understand why some men demand to know what the CM is being spent on. It’s almost definitely not going on false nails, spray tans and trips to the Maldives. Your paltry amount probably helps to pay for their shoes, clothes, food and all of the other extras associated with children. Note I say help because a couple of hundred quid a month goes nowhere nowadays.

because Dad is busy playing happy families with someone else’s children.

This is such a disgusting phrasing I see on here. Sorry dad wants to move on with his life and happened to fall in love with someone who has children.

@Glitterygreen

I think you hit on what is part of the problem. Some perceive CMS as a calculation to determine 50% of the cost of raising a child. It's not. Others recognize it's limitations and contribute more broadly. Children cost money and there's no escaping that. This cost doesn't change because parents live apart, and generally children don't get cheaper!

I struggle to see any reason to justify a father not making at least a 50% contribution to that cost. I fully expect to cover 50% of the cost myself. It's sad for our daughter that I do 99.9% of the care but that's a choice he made so that he could (to use his words) have the family he wanted I can't have more children you see, really bad pregnancy/birth....). I simply don't accept that there is any justification for me to bear 99.9% of the cost particularly when my means are dwarfed by their joint income and our child struggles to comprehend the stark contrast between her life and that of her step siblings / half siblings. She finds it equally odd why anything her Father gives her must strictly remain in his house (meaning it will virtually never be used.. ).

I don't look at the NRPs income as belonging to the RP, I simply consider the NRP should be held accountable and be responsible for contributing at least 50% of the cost of raising ALL their children. Not just those they have with their current partner.

I want and wish to own a lovely large home, with a garden - this is not a reality I can aspire to as I simply cannot afford it on a single person's income. Even if I could bear more children, I simply could not afford to support another. These are realities I have to accept. I think in life we all have to make choices based on our means, I don't see why this is any different.

quattro I mean 'you' hypothetically just for ease of explanation but can you not see? An RP is being asked to effectively contribute to the new child who has nothing to do with them by making up for the drop in the NRPs contribution. If the RP had a further child, and couldn't give as much to the first, presumably then she could ask the nrp to make up the difference. It's exactly the same.

I agree that men that go on and have more children/step children should still have to pay for older children also any owing debt should impact mortgages and be enforced. My older children now adult we’re owed a hundred and thirty thousand by the time there debt was written off by child maintenance service (old one) that money would have changed there upbringing completely and was just written off there dad owned houses changed jobs claimed benefits whilst his wife worked they did everything not to pay! Whilst I struggled to pay for childcare and everything else they needed. Also the hypocritical nonsense when they go to uni that step parents income is accounted for but non resident parent no longer have to pay is Not fair why should my partner have to pay when father has never had to pay a penny( he obviously did without complaining at all but it’s not fair) I agree if we sort out the child maintenance for children there would be so many less children living in poverty. Sorry for long post just feel strongly that children deserve so much better!

@Justbecause88

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.

But don't cms make a reduction for your overnights? Precisely because you have those costs.

That is exactly the problem with the CMS. It's a blunt tool. And one size doesn't fit all.

And to the PP who said NRPs on UC should have to pay £1. They are meant to pay £7 per week. I'm yet to see mine.

@ChiselandBits

quattro I mean 'you' hypothetically just for ease of explanation but can you not see? An RP is being asked to effectively contribute to the new child who has nothing to do with them by making up for the drop in the NRPs contribution. If the RP had a further child, and couldn't give as much to the first, presumably then she could ask the nrp to make up the difference. It's exactly the same.

No they're not at all. Bizarre that you even think that.

*ChiselandBits

quattro I mean 'you' hypothetically just for ease of explanation but can you not see? An RP is being asked to effectively contribute to the new child who has nothing to do with them by making up for the drop in the NRPs contribution. If the RP had a further child, and couldn't give as much to the first, presumably then she could ask the nrp to make up the difference. It's exactly the same.*

No they're not at all. Bizarre that you even think that.

What I'm saying is that children are always affected by siblings. It's not a new phenomenon.

Just so I am clear, you're saying the RP should contribute the the NRPs new kids, but not vice-versa. It is this attitude that exemplifies why in step families some children are inevitably more equal than others.

@Pinkyxx Jeez, sorry your ex was so brutal about 'the family he wanted', that's awful.

Financially, I just think the whole thing is so hard and fraught with emotion weaved through it as well. Nobody wants to feel that their child is being short-changed or sidelined because another baby is born, and I can see how a drop in CM could feel that way. People also wouldn't want to feel that their child has a far lesser standard of living on their side of the fence and I can see it must be hard when an ex is wealthy and able to offer so much more.

I'd also say though that there can be complications in that many (not all of course) mums would not want 50/50 or similar even if it was offered and I can understand that feeling - I know for a fact my mum and the majority of my friends who are mothers would never want to be without their child 50% of the time, or close to. I think I would massively struggle with it too. But then this obviously impacts on their ability to work and earn, and leaves them at a disadvantage there. And can also breed feelings of resentment over having to shoulder most of the care burden alone.

As for CM being/not being 50%, I guess that is hard one too because realistically there is highly unlikely to be an overall agreement on how much will be spent on the child each month (obviously as it's just not practical to even attempt that) and the NRP does tend to lose some influence over that side of things due to not being present for much of the time. There is also the fact that a lot of the child's essential living expenses are enmeshed completely with the RP's - housing, electric, heating, food etc. So if you took those things away, perhaps it would be 50%? But obviously those things can't be taken away, they are essential and inseparable, but do also need to be borne by both parents on their own sides of the fence.

The whole thing is just a minefield and I think there will never be a one-size-fits-all or definitely right/definitely wrong approach.

Should a RP only be allowed to use the full amount of the maintenance on the first child? So if they have a second child, that child will be entitled to less than the first child, because the maintenance cannot be considered household income and not a penny of it can be spent on the new child?

The NRP will also 'contribute' to the RP's second child simply because the money is spent on the household and not on just that one kid.

This is exactly the same as saying that the RP is contributing to the NRP's second child by taking a cut in maintenance.

An RP is being asked to effectively contribute to the new child who has nothing to do with them by making up for the drop in the NRPs contribution. If the RP had a further child, and couldn't give as much to the first, presumably then she could ask the nrp to make up the difference. It's exactly the same

See this is where I don't agree at all, because it is not and never was the RP's money in the first place?

CM payment is either calculated based on the dad's income and the children he needs to contribute to or it is based on a private agreement that the NRP has agreed to at one time - it was never based on anything to do with the RP and always on what the NRP has to/is willing to contribute towards his children's lives at their other home.

Saying the RP is subsidising new children because the NRP has reduced payment doesn't make sense at all to me when it isn't money that originally came from them.

I don't think it is at all feasible to start asking to micromanage the money once it has changed hands. Most RPs do put it in the household pot because it simply isn't practical to do otherwise. In the majority of set ups, if an RP went on to have further children those children's father would be contributing to them, so no need for the original maintenance to be stretched. However, when an NRP reduces cms due to subsequent children there are two choices 1)the RP picks up the difference, thuss subsidising the exes household or 2)the first child has to go without something, a hobby, a school trip or whatever. And I bet a million pounds it would the RP having to explain that. If the family unit is united and the decision for more children was taken together thats fine. Its absolutely not OK for one households choices to impact on another.

glittery but cms does go to the RP to put food on the table etc. If less comes from the nrp so that it can go to his further children, that money has gone direct from one household to the other. The RP will likely make up the difference if they possibly can, so they are, in effect, subsidising the other parent and by extension, the new child.

@Pinkyxx

*ChiselandBits

quattro I mean 'you' hypothetically just for ease of explanation but can you not see? An RP is being asked to effectively contribute to the new child who has nothing to do with them by making up for the drop in the NRPs contribution. If the RP had a further child, and couldn't give as much to the first, presumably then she could ask the nrp to make up the difference. It's exactly the same.*

No they're not at all. Bizarre that you even think that.

What I'm saying is that children are always affected by siblings. It's not a new phenomenon.

Just so I am clear, you're saying the RP should contribute the the NRPs new kids, but not vice-versa. It is this attitude that exemplifies why in step families some children are inevitably more equal than others.

No, I'm not. Hth.

@ChiselandBits

I don't think it is at all feasible to start asking to micromanage the money once it has changed hands. Most RPs do put it in the household pot because it simply isn't practical to do otherwise. In the majority of set ups, if an RP went on to have further children those children's father would be contributing to them, so no need for the original maintenance to be stretched. However, when an NRP reduces cms due to subsequent children there are two choices 1)the RP picks up the difference, thuss subsidising the exes household or 2)the first child has to go without something, a hobby, a school trip or whatever. And I bet a million pounds it would the RP having to explain that. If the family unit is united and the decision for more children was taken together thats fine. Its absolutely not OK for one households choices to impact on another.

It's not subsiding the exs household. If anything it's paying more for your own children.

@SartresSoul

The NRP makes a choice to move in with someone who already has children and their new partner also makes a choice to possibly receive an income reduction due to this choice. I still don’t think stepchildren should count in the calculation because if the NRP chose to stay single, not move in with his partner or chose a partner who didn’t have children the CM wouldn’t reduce. It isn’t fair that bio children should receive less because Dad is busy playing happy families with someone else’s children.

Also don’t understand why some men demand to know what the CM is being spent on. It’s almost definitely not going on false nails, spray tans and trips to the Maldives. Your paltry amount probably helps to pay for their shoes, clothes, food and all of the other extras associated with children. Note I say help because a couple of hundred quid a month goes nowhere nowadays.

Blunt but very true.

quattro yes, paying more for your own children to replace the funds redirected by the nrp to their new child. It's one step removed but still there.

In concrete terms, let's say the nrp reduced the cms by the exact amount that covered child one's football subs to help cover the difference in his household by his partner being on mat leave. Does the RP have to find that amount now, increasing the % of her own income that goes on the child, or does child give up football? What is the fair solution here Quattro ?

There is too much focus here on 'fairness'. Things aren't always fair. That is the case with parents who are together and parents who are not.

I am the high earner in my household. My stepson can do certain things now because I contribute to his life. When I go on maternity leave, I will have less money and my stepson will have to give some of these things up.

Stop thinking in terms of pure equality and fairness, that's not how life works.