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?

Glittery - are you serious
But as a temporary measure I really don't think it's that bad if the RP picks up the cost until the dad is back paying the normal amount. He will still be contributing to his children, just not as much for that time

But it won't go back to normal because there is another child - can you not see that.

It is downright cruel to tell a chid no football because you have a new borther/sister. Your average 9 yrold would resent the new sibling for depriving them of their activity.
How you can not see that the RP by paying to ensure the child is not disadvantaged because the NRP wanted more DCs but did not think it through is not the RP supporting the NRPs household.

I married the Dickhead and we separated - I did not sign up for supporting his new family because he wants to focus his monies on them rather than supporting his existing commitments.

Getoffyourarse - my Ex wanted 50:50 it last 1 month as the reality sunk in and his new DP did not want the DCS around. So not all done by the judges.

My 2 DCs get £300 pcm from their DF in total.
His other EX gets £1500 because she does pay per view and he rolls over.
Does £150pcm per child cover the cost of bringing them up, providiing 100% child care - because random days when I have paid for care does notcount - still have to pay - does it hell!

i paid for my DCs to go on holiday with their DF - because otherwise they would not have gone. I subsidise his second EX by not claiming what is rightfully my eldest 2DCs. I sure as hell did not sign up for that

45Dithercats

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.

Agree with this, it has never made sense to me. As new partners income doesn't come into the calculation so why should her(usually but sometimes hìs) kids mean you as pwc get less

@AnneElliott

I'd set the level at half what the basic costs are of raising a child. The NRP needs to fund half the cost regardless of their earning situation - so no reduction if they move in the girlfriends children or have more of their own. And the debt wouldn't die - it would come from their pension or lottery win/inheritance.

Childcare should also be included unless the NRP offers to do half of the childcare themselves. Women shouldn't be impacted in their ability to earn and make a career for themselves.

If we sorted out CMS we could make such a difference to child poverty in this country.

How does that work with a huge difference in earning power? My ex son in law earns 2 or 3 times what my daughter does and doesn't have to worry about day to day childcare. He might pay half of the child's cost but where does the lower earner find the money to fund the other half?

The idea of child maintenance is that the children shouldn't be massively disadvantaged by a divorce or separation. If they would have benefitted from having a higher earner as a parent then they should still benefit after a split.

How does that work with a huge difference in earning power?

I think the poster means that half the costs should be the minimum level and the parent is expected to find the money somewhere. As even if they decide not to work, children still need to eat. No more situations where it is assessed that NRP does not have to pay anything at all.

Of course parents who earn more should also pay more.

@knittingaddict it leaves the parent with care unable to provide anything other than a much reduced quality of life. Their ability to work is significantly constrained resulting in their future earnings capacity being limited. The impact of this is felt by the child predominantly but will have a long lasting impact on the Mother's life. If a single mother re-marries there are distinct measurable financial advantages, as she and her children will take precedence as the ''new wife''. If she does not then she will have to do her best alone. That is not to say re-marriage to someone with children does not come without other significant downsides for a child.

The UK is very poor at supporting lone parents hence why child poverty is so high. This is a very short sighted strategy as it impacts a child's life, health, education outcomes and employment prospects through adulthood as has been proven through countless studies. As is so often the case in the UK, it is left to ''personal responsibility'' for people to ''do the right thing'' - contrary to popular political perception, people do not appear to do the right thing, instead when given the chance they will self serve.

If they would have benefitted from having a higher earner as a parent then they should still benefit after a split.

@Orangello - my partner and I are higher earners than my stepson's mum and her partner, which my stepson benefits from when he is here. But then we have 50/50 and mothers who believe their child should benefit from the higher earnings of the ex-partner should agree to 50/50 custody if the ex-partner wants it.

@Finallylostit

Getoffyourarse - my Ex wanted 50:50 it last 1 month as the reality sunk in and his new DP did not want the DCS around. So not all done by the judges.

My 2 DCs get £300 pcm from their DF in total.
His other EX gets £1500 because she does pay per view and he rolls over.
Does £150pcm per child cover the cost of bringing them up, providiing 100% child care - because random days when I have paid for care does notcount - still have to pay - does it hell!

i paid for my DCs to go on holiday with their DF - because otherwise they would not have gone. I subsidise his second EX by not claiming what is rightfully my eldest 2DCs. I sure as hell did not sign up for that

I didn't say that.....

@ChiselandBits

quattro nowhere have I said that child one is more important or worth more than child 2. Literally nowhere. What I have said is that IF an NRP decides to have more children, that should not be at the expense of the first child. If that isn't feasible, then don't do it. You cannot keep saying "oh but that's just how it is with all siblings." A split household is a totally different set-up to a united one. Saying that one child is more important than another is an emotive, straw man position, and not one that I hold. I am not arguing on the basis of more important, but on the basis of existing obligations. As a pp said upthread, if you've maxed out your mortgage you can't just get the bank to give you another one because you just WANT one. if you can't afford it, you can't have it. I think there is a deep seated problem now with people thinking that they must always be allowed to have and do whatever they like and anyone who stops them or suggests they shouldn't do it for solid, practical reasons, like existing obligations, is just being mean, unfair or, of course, always, "bitter".

That's exactly what you're saying though? I've never used the word bitter, either. And you complain about overly emotive...

@ChiselandBits

quattro nowhere have I said that child one is more important or worth more than child 2. Literally nowhere. What I have said is that IF an NRP decides to have more children, that should not be at the expense of the first child. If that isn't feasible, then don't do it. You cannot keep saying "oh but that's just how it is with all siblings." A split household is a totally different set-up to a united one. Saying that one child is more important than another is an emotive, straw man position, and not one that I hold. I am not arguing on the basis of more important, but on the basis of existing obligations. As a pp said upthread, if you've maxed out your mortgage you can't just get the bank to give you another one because you just WANT one. if you can't afford it, you can't have it. I think there is a deep seated problem now with people thinking that they must always be allowed to have and do whatever they like and anyone who stops them or suggests they shouldn't do it for solid, practical reasons, like existing obligations, is just being mean, unfair or, of course, always, "bitter".

This. ^^ 👏🏻

thanks beachcity. Quattro. I AM NOT SAYING ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER. They are not. Not in any way or shape. But you cannot take from one to give to another. If you cannot provide properly for child 2 without depriving child 1, then don't have them. If you do that, then YOU are the one saying child 2 is actually more important that child 1. Child 1 loses out for the benefit of Child 2, unless of course the RP makes up the difference, which they most likely will. If an NRP is desperate to have more, they absolutely can, but not at the expense of existing commitments. If that means getting another job or working more hours or seeking promotion, fine - an NRP can do that far more easily than an RP.

As for "bitter" - I wasn't accusing you of saying that, just that it is frequently used to shout down RPs as part of the "bitter first wives club" and discredit any argument that have on the grounds that they are jealous / bitter / greedy. Much easier to do that than justify why it is right for an RP to bear such a disproportionate share of the cost and burden of parenthood when the NRP elects for CMS only and EOW or less.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro are you being deliberately obtuse? It seems perfectly obvious that an adult need to meet their existing financial obligations before taking on new ones.

Did you tell your mortgage lender and credit card providers that you plan to reduce your repayments because you decided to have another child too or do you recognize these are obligations which are fixed and therefore must be met? Why not?

Or is it just your partners obligation to their existing children which you feel should be pushed onto their mother to make way for the cost of your new child?

[quote Pinkyxx]@Getyourarseofffthequattro are you being deliberately obtuse? It seems perfectly obvious that an adult need to meet their existing financial obligations before taking on new ones.

Did you tell your mortgage lender and credit card providers that you plan to reduce your repayments because you decided to have another child too or do you recognize these are obligations which are fixed and therefore must be met? Why not?

Or is it just your partners obligation to their existing children which you feel should be pushed onto their mother to make way for the cost of your new child?[/quote]
It's really not my fault that you can't understand. A child is not comparable to a mortgage.

No, my "new child" probably missed out so the all important first childs mother didn't have to buy him a single piece of uniform, or pay for rugby training, or in fact anything at all. So yes his payment went down by maybe a few pounds but in reality his mum didn't have to pay for anything extra.

HOnestly, I don't think it needs to be too difficult. It should work similarly to if you combined HMRC & SLC.
-There should be a minimum amount to be paid for each child up to the age of 18 (let's say £300 a month) reducing for each subsequent child until a minimum threshold is reached ( eg £250, £200, £150).
-The minimum amount should be linked to a threshold eg £18,000 and progressively increased like tax.
-Rather than paying as and when and being subject to the whims of deadbeat exes, it should be paid out like a benefit directly from the government.
-Then, rather than paying the RP, the NRP is paying the government directly from their salary what is essentially a debt to them in a manner similar to student loans & tax (which makes it more likely to be followed up & collected).

No concessions for step kids or future kids, every kid's upbringing is of equal value.

Quatro That's in your case, not all. if it was only a "few pounds" then just keep paying it and keep the moral high ground. And I'd be very surprised if the ex in your case, if she is RP doesn't provide a fuck ton of other stuff, or are you suggesting that your DP/DH is providing 100% of all the costs related to his child, despite being the NRP? That would be v v odd indeed and would mean his CMS must be massively high, like close to four figures, if the RP is paying the mortgage / rent / utilities / food / clothes / acitvities etc out of it. In which case, your DP must be a very high earner and what on earth are you caring about a few quid for?

And yes, for the sake of this dispute, taking all emotion out of it, a child is exactly like a mortgage. Its a fixed expense that you work out if you can afford before taking it on. And in the case of an accidental pregnancy, that's on the parents of the "child surprise" to pay for out of their existing means, it has nothing to do with the RP or child 1.

@ChiselandBits

Quatro That's in your case, not all. if it was only a "few pounds" then just keep paying it and keep the moral high ground. And I'd be very surprised if the ex in your case, if she is RP doesn't provide a fuck ton of other stuff, or are you suggesting that your DP/DH is providing 100% of all the costs related to his child, despite being the NRP? That would be v v odd indeed and would mean his CMS must be massively high, like close to four figures, if the RP is paying the mortgage / rent / utilities / food / clothes / acitvities etc out of it. In which case, your DP must be a very high earner and what on earth are you caring about a few quid for?

And yes, for the sake of this dispute, taking all emotion out of it, a child is exactly like a mortgage. Its a fixed expense that you work out if you can afford before taking it on. And in the case of an accidental pregnancy, that's on the parents of the "child surprise" to pay for out of their existing means, it has nothing to do with the RP or child 1.

The moral high ground? Are you joking?

Sorry, no but the moral high ground is just bullshit in this instance. It wasn't much, no, but dss gets far more out of us than ds ever did or ever will, because of his mother. So no, she won't get an extra few pounds a week on top of everything else she demands because of the moral high ground. She can contribute to her own child, like I do for mine.
A child isn't a fixed expense. It varies. It changes over time. It adapts.

His CMS is whatever he gets told to pay. The extras are what make it expensive. His ex will not pay for uniform, school trips, clothes, nothing. So she feeds him (sometimes, he spends most of his time at his girlfriend's house. I suggested maybe we should pay her instead) and he uses water. She doesn't pay to keep him warm because their boiler doesn't work and she won't pay to fix it. He uses her electric when he's there. I would be very surprised if he actually costs her more than what dp pays. Her mortgage is tiny because for years (post split) dp paid that as well and took a very, very small think single digit percentage around half a decade after he left.

So forgive me if I am not crying into my cornflakes every morning because his ex and child are soooooo poor.

@Pinkyxx

It's really not my fault that you can't understand. A child is not comparable to a mortgage.

No, my "new child" probably missed out so the all important first childs mother didn't have to buy him a single piece of uniform, or pay for rugby training, or in fact anything at all. So yes his payment went down by maybe a few pounds but in reality his mum didn't have to pay for anything extra.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro As I said before, you ought to have considered the affordability of another child before having one. If you reduced the CMS and your child still missed out then it is 2 children who have been disadvantaged by your choice.

Money is a finite resource. It can only stretch so far this is why responsible adults consider whether they have the income to still meet their existing commitments before taking on new commitments. A child is known to be a considerable expense. A child is exactly like a mortgage, you don't have 2 mortgages unless you can afford to pay both.

Your choice left the RP with less money to care for your DP's existing child so you claw back money to allocate to your household. Your DP's child already existed and was a commitment & responsibility that superseded adult wishes and which deserved to be factored into your decision. You choose to reduce the income available to the RP caring for that child. She had no say in the matter, your choice enforced that outcome on her. If you put your own child in that situation then that's on you & your DP. Not a choice I would make.

Can you please stop telling me I shouldn't have had my child? It's vile and offensive. My child is not currently missing out, but did miss out because of dps ex and her demands. Ie pay this or don't see your child. That's really not my fault and no, weirdly I didn't know that was going to happen when I decided to have a child. If you have a crystal ball please send me it.

His child was clearly factored in to the decision. Same as he was when we bought a house with a bedroom for him, moved closer to his school etc etc. You can make me out to be the big bad step mother who doesn't give a shit about him if you want, but you're talking utter bollocks. It's embarrassing. He lived with us as well can you bloody believe that! His own mother kicked him out but I suppose that's my fault too. And guess what! She paid us a whole £26 in maintenance! I suppose that's absolutely fine, though. Of course it cost us much less to look after him

i haven't put my child or anyone elses child in any kind of detrimental situation. I would appreciate it if you keep your frankly offensive, stupid and I'll informed opinions to yourself, unless you know the full situation, which clearly you don't.

Quattro if the RP in your case is that bad, why is she the RP? Why hasn't your DP gone for full residency? If the child is old enough to have a girlfriend he can choose who to live with. I think we are slightly at cross purposes here anyway as you are talking about over and above CMS causing problems. I am talking about someone being allowed to reduce the basic CMS due to future children. While I think the CMS rates are appalling and other things should be factored in, I agree that "extras" are going to have to be done case by case. If the RP in your case really wouldn't provide heat, clothes etc, you should have got SS involved and gone straight to court for contact if she was obstructive. Your situation is difficult but there are other answers than pulling funds from one to the other. And please don't take the comments about not having a child personally. We're talking about general principles here, and one off examples aren't really helpful in the context of the wider discussion about how CMS should be managed.

@ChiselandBits

Quattro if the RP in your case is that bad, why is she the RP? Why hasn't your DP gone for full residency? If the child is old enough to have a girlfriend he can choose who to live with. I think we are slightly at cross purposes here anyway as you are talking about over and above CMS causing problems. I am talking about someone being allowed to reduce the basic CMS due to future children. While I think the CMS rates are appalling and other things should be factored in, I agree that "extras" are going to have to be done case by case. If the RP in your case really wouldn't provide heat, clothes etc, you should have got SS involved and gone straight to court for contact if she was obstructive. Your situation is difficult but there are other answers than pulling funds from one to the other. And please don't take the comments about not having a child personally. We're talking about general principles here, and one off examples aren't really helpful in the context of the wider discussion about how CMS should be managed.

The child in question did live with us for a period of time. Unfortunately he got a girlfriend and we imposed rules. He therefore decided to move back in with his mother who thinks it's A-OK for him to sleep at his teenage girlfriend's house 5 to 6 nights a week. This worked for him, and as he is a teenager there is no point going to court because they will (rightly) support his wishes. It's a difficult situation and not one either of us are particularly happy about.

Social services don't care about broken boilers, btw. They don't care if you kick your child out if they've another loving home to go to. They don't care if your teenager sleeps at his girlfriend's house. She's not abusive, she's just lax. She has different priorities than me but nothing any authorities will do abything about, unfortunately. We tried. He did go through mediation and applied to court when she decided to grant regular access again. I don't know what else we were supposed to do. Clearly though, we are awful for reducing maintenance and shouldn't have had any more children.

I still think the reduction for other children is fine (not step) but also believe maintenance should be calculated differently, so...

I'll re word that. She was abusive to us, and probably psychologically to her child, but not physically or neglectful. Social services couldn't care less!

@Getyourarseofffthequattro No I won't stop challenging your view that it is justified that first children receive less in order to allow 2nd families to have the children they want.

Please show me where have I said you shouldn't have had your child? I've stated it is every individual's right to have as many children as they want provided they do not neglect their existing financial commitments and responsibilities. I've also said that if that choice made your or your child's life difficult financially that is your responsibility to accept. You stated that you had never been so ''skint'' and then that your child missed out as justification for the reduction and to evidence the duress your household faced. I simply responded to your comments. I've said your decision to have a child took money away from the parent who supports that child. You have acknowledged this to be a fact repeatedly and defend that it is just to do so. I simply take a different view and find it bizarre you did not anticipate a reduced income might be problematic for the RP... most people struggle when their income is reduced. In any event, I can see you'd rather interpret in the way you have as it suits your narrative.

I've also not said you do not care about your step son, I don't know you but would assume you are loving and caring towards him?

If your DP pays for the extras you suggest then he is certainly doing a lot more than most - rightly so. I'm sorry you resent him supporting his first child, but it's what a decent Father does. Contact is the right of the child, therefore if she withheld it, I'm not sure why you didn't apply for to the courts for enforcement, the court fee would have perhaps been less expensive? That said, I am not sure how you can be the judge of the impact of the CMS reduction on the RP. It benefited you and impacted her - I would argue only she could elucidate as to the impact to her life and ability to care for your step son. The fact she was assessed to pay only £26 CMS suggests she has very limited income indeed therefore I would be surprised if the loss of the ''small %'' was not actually very difficult for her.

[quote Pinkyxx]@Getyourarseofffthequattro No I won't stop challenging your view that it is justified that first children receive less in order to allow 2nd families to have the children they want.

Please show me where have I said you shouldn't have had your child? I've stated it is every individual's right to have as many children as they want provided they do not neglect their existing financial commitments and responsibilities. I've also said that if that choice made your or your child's life difficult financially that is your responsibility to accept. You stated that you had never been so ''skint'' and then that your child missed out as justification for the reduction and to evidence the duress your household faced. I simply responded to your comments. I've said your decision to have a child took money away from the parent who supports that child. You have acknowledged this to be a fact repeatedly and defend that it is just to do so. I simply take a different view and find it bizarre you did not anticipate a reduced income might be problematic for the RP... most people struggle when their income is reduced. In any event, I can see you'd rather interpret in the way you have as it suits your narrative.

I've also not said you do not care about your step son, I don't know you but would assume you are loving and caring towards him?

If your DP pays for the extras you suggest then he is certainly doing a lot more than most - rightly so. I'm sorry you resent him supporting his first child, but it's what a decent Father does. Contact is the right of the child, therefore if she withheld it, I'm not sure why you didn't apply for to the courts for enforcement, the court fee would have perhaps been less expensive? That said, I am not sure how you can be the judge of the impact of the CMS reduction on the RP. It benefited you and impacted her - I would argue only she could elucidate as to the impact to her life and ability to care for your step son. The fact she was assessed to pay only £26 CMS suggests she has very limited income indeed therefore I would be surprised if the loss of the ''small %'' was not actually very difficult for her.[/quote]
Haha. So it's okay for her to pay a pittance because she's a low earner. But if a man paid that it would be pathetic etc and how could anyone expect to raise a child on it bla bla bla. But a woman paying it? That's absolutely fine.

I've had enough of engaging with you. You're so narrow minded it's embarrassing.