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 you are being incredibly offensive not only to the person you are arguing with on here, but to women everywhere.

Stop removing responsibility from mothers to step up and provide for their children after a separation. A NRP is not responsible for paying a RP's rent or mortgage, when they too have to provide a home for the child.

I think quattro has explained very very clearly that her circumstances more than warranted the CMS being reduced and if you can't see that, you are part of the problem.

@QuirkyTurtle my arguments pertain to the OP and the details Quattro shared not Quattro's personal situation which she has only just clarified. I can't consider what I don't know... I don't actually agree with the RP in @Getyourarseofffthequattro case paying what she did, however I maintain she must have very little income to be assessed to such a low payment. If the RP in Quattro's case simply won't work (hence lack of income) and thinks her former spouse should fund her life because she wants him to then that is just as bad as a NRP not supporting the RP. I also never said that an NRP said pay an RP's mortgage or rent, I said they should contribute to the cost of housing their child.

I think mothers should pay 50% and so should Fathers as I've stated many times. I don't think mothers should bear a disproportionate majority of the costs of raising a joint child which is the premise from which I am arguing. I do however recognize some Mothers may have limited earning capacity and or childcare responsibilities that prevent them earning sufficient to ever hope to cover 50% of the cost rely on the CMS for basic needs. This is especially where the NRP chooses to do very little parenting. That is what I am talking about. I find it offensive to suggest a father can leave their child with a mother who has no means to raise that child so this man can go off and get a new family. Children come before adults in my world. You are free to find my opinion offensive, and to take a different view however I will defend the rights of women left to care for children alone to expect support from ex partners for the children they leave behind.

[quote Pinkyxx]**@QuirkyTurtle* my arguments pertain to the OP and the details Quattro shared not Quattro's personal situation which she has only just clarified. I can't consider what I don't know... I don't actually agree with the RP in @Getyourarseofffthequattro* case paying what she did, however I maintain she must have very little income to be assessed to such a low payment. If the RP in Quattro's case simply won't work (hence lack of income) and thinks her former spouse should fund her life because she wants him to then that is just as bad as a NRP not supporting the RP. I also never said that an NRP said pay an RP's mortgage or rent, I said they should contribute to the cost of housing their child.

I think mothers should pay 50% and so should Fathers as I've stated many times. I don't think mothers should bear a disproportionate majority of the costs of raising a joint child which is the premise from which I am arguing. I do however recognize some Mothers may have limited earning capacity and or childcare responsibilities that prevent them earning sufficient to ever hope to cover 50% of the cost rely on the CMS for basic needs. This is especially where the NRP chooses to do very little parenting. That is what I am talking about. I find it offensive to suggest a father can leave their child with a mother who has no means to raise that child so this man can go off and get a new family. Children come before adults in my world. You are free to find my opinion offensive, and to take a different view however I will defend the rights of women left to care for children alone to expect support from ex partners for the children they leave behind.[/quote]
She works. Hth.

I just don't agree. We provide a home with a bedroom for my stepson. His mother also provides a home with a bedroom. My partner is not responsible for paying her mortgage any more than she is responsible for paying mine. He already contributes 50% of costs of housing the child by having a house.

It's really simple in my eyes. In a nuclear family, if there is a second child the first child's resources are reduced. This doesn't change because the first child's parents couldn't make it work. Their resources are reduced because they now have a sibling. Unless their mother is struggling to put food on the table and living paycheck to paycheck, this is just a fact of life you need to accept. But as previously pointed out, the reduction for subsequent children is so low that it shouldn't make the difference between eating and not eating. If that is the case, you are not living within your means.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro If she works based on her CMS payment to you it sounds like she earns NMW. If rather than being incapable of earning more she chooses to do that because she knows your DP will put his hand in his pocket and pay then she's just as bad as the Fathers I'm referring to who pay next to nothing (discounting it for good measure). Her choices impact YOU and YOUR household. Back to my premise: neither the RP nor the NRP have any right to impact each other. It works both ways.

While this thread is about CMS and I'm talking about a single mum's position because they are overwhelming the RP in receipt of CMS, just like some Fathers are dicks so are some mothers. If you have been so unfortunate as to have to deal with the female equivalent of my ex husband in the form of your DPs ex-wife then you have every sympathy and commiserations for the shit she had no doubt caused in your life. If you want to start a thread about the crap 2nd families deal with dealing with exploitative ex spouses who get the house (mortgage paid), believe in ''pay per view'', cancel contact because Jonny has a sniffle and can't possible visit, send emails offensive texts / emails all day and night with the latest list of expenses / complaints, tell their DP's new partner to ''butt out'' when they discipline the child during contact (because god someone needs to), complain when the SM says she needs 72hrs post birth to recover from a c section so could we just move contact this once (dramatically suggesting the children will be permanently damaged by this selfish act), expect maternity leave to be ''free childcare for me months'' and generally do all they can to extort every drop of money they can out their ex spouse, I'll happily come along, bring a bottle of gin and fight your corner. This needs to change as well as it is wrong too. It shouldn't happen, it shouldn't be possible.

I used to have a friend who did that to her ex-spouse (she had an affair, he left heartbroken - still is). I am no longer friends with this person as I found her behavior to be repulsive and damaging to her children - and I told her as much. Ironically she found me offensive too.

[quote Pinkyxx]**@Getyourarseofffthequattro* If she works based on her CMS payment to you it sounds like she earns NMW. If rather than being incapable of earning more she chooses* to do that because she knows your DP will put his hand in his pocket and pay then she's just as bad as the Fathers I'm referring to who pay next to nothing (discounting it for good measure). Her choices impact YOU and YOUR household. Back to my premise: neither the RP nor the NRP have any right to impact each other. It works both ways.

While this thread is about CMS and I'm talking about a single mum's position because they are overwhelming the RP in receipt of CMS, just like some Fathers are dicks so are some mothers. If you have been so unfortunate as to have to deal with the female equivalent of my ex husband in the form of your DPs ex-wife then you have every sympathy and commiserations for the shit she had no doubt caused in your life. If you want to start a thread about the crap 2nd families deal with dealing with exploitative ex spouses who get the house (mortgage paid), believe in ''pay per view'', cancel contact because Jonny has a sniffle and can't possible visit, send emails offensive texts / emails all day and night with the latest list of expenses / complaints, tell their DP's new partner to ''butt out'' when they discipline the child during contact (because god someone needs to), complain when the SM says she needs 72hrs post birth to recover from a c section so could we just move contact this once (dramatically suggesting the children will be permanently damaged by this selfish act), expect maternity leave to be ''free childcare for me months'' and generally do all they can to extort every drop of money they can out their ex spouse, I'll happily come along, bring a bottle of gin and fight your corner. This needs to change as well as it is wrong too. It shouldn't happen, it shouldn't be possible.

I used to have a friend who did that to her ex-spouse (she had an affair, he left heartbroken - still is). I am no longer friends with this person as I found her behavior to be repulsive and damaging to her children - and I told her as much. Ironically she found me offensive too.[/quote]
Thank you. I could start a thread, but there is no point. Mothers can do no wrong in most of mumsnet's eyes.

It is just frustrating for me that all father's are tarred with the same brush as arseholes like your ex. The system certainly needs an overhaul which stops any parent being an exploitative twat or avoiding paying for their children.

[quote Pinkyxx]@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.[/quote]
It was a question for the op I quoted really, although I appreciate your reply. I do know how it works because my daughter is a single parent. She is in the fortunate position of having a relatively high earning ex, but he would not pay a penny extra on top of what the CMS expect. He doesn't buy a stitch of clothing, doesn't pay towards extra curricular activities, birthday parties, shoes or anything else. He resents every penny that he has to send and tries to control how she spends it. That's the reality for many women.

@QuirkyTurtle

I just don't agree. We provide a home with a bedroom for my stepson. His mother also provides a home with a bedroom. My partner is not responsible for paying her mortgage any more than she is responsible for paying mine. He already contributes 50% of costs of housing the child by having a house.

It's really simple in my eyes. In a nuclear family, if there is a second child the first child's resources are reduced. This doesn't change because the first child's parents couldn't make it work. Their resources are reduced because they now have a sibling. Unless their mother is struggling to put food on the table and living paycheck to paycheck, this is just a fact of life you need to accept. But as previously pointed out, the reduction for subsequent children is so low that it shouldn't make the difference between eating and not eating. If that is the case, you are not living within your means.

@QuirkyTurtle when I became a single mum I had a child with severe health needs who needed specialized care so I could work. It costs me more than my net salary. I lost my home (which I jointly owned) because my ex changed the locks, used it as a base to meet with his mistress and later rented it out when they got their first place (his email informing me stated - I don't want you thinking you can live there). He refused to pay the mortgage. Not wanting to default, I had to pay it. I was homeless with a sick toddler. I had a full time job but frankly our child's medical needs had seriously impacted my ability to work. Ex had no involvement at all - ever. Literally didn't attend one hospital appt over the many years she went weekly then at least twice a month. He didn't pay a penny of child support for 2 years. I was at my Mum's with our child when he did it , we were left with the clothes on our back + nappy bag!! It took me 2 years to get my belonging back, or what was left of them I should say - he'd destroyed much of it. I had bought ever piece of furniture in that house and all the things our child needed. I lost pretty much my entire life that was in that house. He emptied our bank account. He left me to pay all bills until the tenant moved in (they were all in my name as he couldn't waste his time on that nonsense...). He then made abuse allegations which forced me to spend over 3 years in the family courts. I had no money to litigate on the finances so had to agree to whatever he said. The judge at the hearing told me I was insane to agree as I was effectively making myself and my child destitute and homeless. As I said to the judge, I can't afford a lawyer so I have no choice as a settlement must be agreed so the divorce can proceed as he wishes to re-marry urgently. He lied regards his assets and income, there was nothing I could do. He then converted his a large amount of his salary into pension contributions and other forms of income (like regular dividends/share s) reducing the CMS. He then reduced it for his partners kids, and then the new children. Sorry but I feel that's wrong.

You can't get blood out of a stone and there's was only so much I could do to ''live within my means''. Maybe you earn huge amounts and can stretch to cover everything yourself with literally pocket change, I couldn't.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro at last something we can agree on!

You have my deepest sympathies for what is clearly an awful situation, and I'm sorry you had to deal with such a terrible person. I'm glad you've made it work which speaks volumes for your resilience and love for your child.

But I also think that your situation is not the norm (thankfully).

My case may sound bad & its possibly fair to say my ex is a particular breed of man who is not the norm, however the financial outcome I faced is not usual hence why I argue so passionately on this topic.

In 2019 49% of lone parents (>90% of which were women) were living in poverty.

Add to this ugly statistic:

Since 2012, when the CMS began, £421.5 million in unpaid maintenance accumulated. This amounts to 9% of all maintenance due to be paid since the start of the service.

In the quarter ending June 2021, of 153,100 Paying Parents due to pay via the Collect & Pay service:

39,300 (26%) paid no maintenance
113,900 (74%) paid some maintenance:
36,300 (24%) paid up to 90% of the maintenance due for the quarter (further breakdowns of this group are available on Stat-Xplore)
77,600 (51%) paid over 90% of the maintenance due for the quarter

In other words, many NRPs do not even pay the pittance that CMS is.

Research further shows that:

High living costs – particularly rent and utility bills – play a part. Limits to single parents’ incomes are another major factor – especially barriers to enter and progress in work and the disproportionate impact of welfare reform.

Becoming a single parent can reduce you to a life of poverty, and as the stats show the NRPs are by a large margin not contributing. This is wrong, and no society should turn a blind eye to this.

cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/child-poverty-facts-and-figures#:~:text=The%20facts%20and%20figures%20show,child%20poverty%20in%20the%20UK.&text=49%20per%20cent%20of%20children,and%20pay%2C%20and%20childcare%20costs.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/child-maintenance-service-statistics-data-to-june-2021-experimental/child-maintenance-service-statistics-data-to-june-2021-experimental

www.gingerbread.org.uk/policy-campaigns/living-standards-and-poverty/

There should be a minimum amount that they are forced to pay. Obviously there will be exceptions in cases of serious illness etc but we need to get rid of the part time / min wage / self employed ways of not paying when they are perfectly able to pay.

@sparklyponies

There should be a minimum amount that they are forced to pay. Obviously there will be exceptions in cases of serious illness etc but we need to get rid of the part time / min wage / self employed ways of not paying when they are perfectly able to pay.

Like dps ex though, some people just are in minimum wage. What should happen? Demand more and tough shit if they can't afford it? Whilst it was a tiny amount which in reality didn't pay for much, you can't get blood out of a stone? You can't force someone to get a "better" job...

I think if they knew that if they didn't pay the minimum, the state would and they'd accrue it as a debt that doesn't get written off nrps might find the motivation to find that minimum. As said above the biggest problem for RPs is the barrier of childcare so they can work. Nrps largely don't have that in a typical eow scenario. Different arrangements would be needed for genuine illness etc but ti's comes back to the point of massive investment needed in providing a more tailored solution.

What I found hard is that cost is split 50/50, my eldest started university last year, I have to pay 50 % of his accomodation and ex paid the other half despite him earning nearly 2 x more than me, if it was fair he should contribute more than me. The maintenance he gave me for our youngest only cover half the cost of our childminder, every other expenses related to my youngest have to be paid entirely by me.

Powerful stats from @Pinkyxx. It should become a cultural thing to abhor non or partial payment of CMS, like it has become with drink driving. I assume self employed NRPs, or cash in hand NRPs, or those who don't even make it on to the CMS books are not included. In other countries non payment is tackled much harder, why not in the UK?

@ChiselandBits

I think if they knew that if they didn't pay the minimum, the state would and they'd accrue it as a debt that doesn't get written off nrps might find the motivation to find that minimum. As said above the biggest problem for RPs is the barrier of childcare so they can work. Nrps largely don't have that in a typical eow scenario. Different arrangements would be needed for genuine illness etc but ti's comes back to the point of massive investment needed in providing a more tailored solution.

But some people genuinely won't be able to make that, is it fair to punish people based on their ability to earn? I'm not sure it is to be honest. Not just illness but some people won't have the qualifications etc to get a better job, and before you suggest two jobs as the solution, that's not right either, it's preventing these people spending any time with their children.

A more tailored solution I agree with, but demanding more money from someone who doesn't have it, and may have no means of getting it, leaving them in massive debt out of principle, is not the answer for me.

I think the biggest, best, probably easiest step in the right direction is to focus less on those who genuinely earn little (because the likelihood is they always have, and did when they were together with the person claiming and decided to have a child) and focus more on those who earn and don't pay anything, or those self employed who earn lots and declare little. Simple steps like only taking a certain level of pension contribution into account. It's really not rocket science, it is very irritating that they don't do this already.

I think if you create kids you need to do all you can to provide for them. If you're kid free 26/30 days yes you can do two jobs, or train for qualifications to get a better one. Or, take 50% of the time or childcare . I completely accept that there will be genuine cases where people can't do any of those things which is why we need a fit for purpose system to assess was is and isn't possible but you cannot argue with the stats provided upthread that by and large it is RPs who are by far the worst affected by the current system. I agree that non payers and loophole dodgers should be first to be targeted but the whole system needs overhauling.

Or, take 50% of the time or childcare .

This is my problem with discussions like this and statistics about awful NRPs. I personally know two situations where dad is begging for 50/50 custody and mum is fighting it til the ends of the earth. These people don't pay a penny more than what CMS tells them to, and why should they? I'm sure there are many fathers in this position but this never seems to be considered.

@ChiselandBits

I think if you create kids you need to do all you can to provide for them. If you're kid free 26/30 days yes you can do two jobs, or train for qualifications to get a better one. Or, take 50% of the time or childcare . I completely accept that there will be genuine cases where people can't do any of those things which is why we need a fit for purpose system to assess was is and isn't possible but you cannot argue with the stats provided upthread that by and large it is RPs who are by far the worst affected by the current system. I agree that non payers and loophole dodgers should be first to be targeted but the whole system needs overhauling.

That goes for every parent though doesn't it? Not just NRPs. Arguably 50/50 would be a better solution that one parent getting two jobs and not seeing their children barely at all. I know to you, that the cash is far more important than the access and therefore the quality of the relationship, but I disagree. If a person can't earn thousands more, perhaps they should contribute their time, allowing the other parent to work more if they so wish (or not as the case may be).

It does make me smile that you think training for other qualifications is just sooooo simple. It costs money. It takes time. It is a huge commitment and often you need the basics first which so so many people dont have (and guess what, their ex will have known that when they chose to have a baby with them!)

You're focusing on the wrong people here. There is no way in hell I would have expected dps ex to accrue massive debt, or get two jobs or re train, she was not an academic high earner when they were together, it's totally unreasonable to expect her to become one years after the fact simply because we think her son cost more than she paid. He obviously did, but unfortunately it was tough shit for us.

I just think if you had a child with that person, then presumably you knew their financial situation and it's unreasonable to demand more post split. We NEED people to do minimum wage jobs.

Hiding income is very different and should be tackled as we have already agreed. But yes the whole system does need an overhaul, but I don't think we should tackle the working "poor" as it were, and punish them for simply working (hard!) At a minimum wage job. It's unreasonable. It's actually a bit offensive.

I think both parents circumstances should be taken into consideration to get the actual best outcome for the child, not what one parent thinks that outcome should be as is often the case.

@QuirkyTurtle

Or, take 50% of the time or childcare .

This is my problem with discussions like this and statistics about awful NRPs. I personally know two situations where dad is begging for 50/50 custody and mum is fighting it til the ends of the earth. These people don't pay a penny more than what CMS tells them to, and why should they? I'm sure there are many fathers in this position but this never seems to be considered.

I think there is likely plenty of men in this situation, but like everything we usually only discuss the negative on MN, the bad relationships, the awful in-laws rather than the ok, or good situations.

But 50/50 may not be in the best interests of the child. It takes a specific set of circumstances for it to be, parents who can communicate, distance from each other, and many more criteria. So discussing 50/50 in terms of finances, which this thread is about is not right

@Soopermum1

But 50/50 may not be in the best interests of the child. It takes a specific set of circumstances for it to be, parents who can communicate, distance from each other, and many more criteria. So discussing 50/50 in terms of finances, which this thread is about is not right

Sorry, we can't discuss it because some people dont want to do it or can't? It's directly related to maintenance, of course we can discuss it. It's a real option and for some people a good one. We have already said it needs to be assessed individually, not that it works for everyone and therefore let's abolish maintenance.

Eow is not in the best interests of many children. We are still discussing that!

@Soopermum1

But 50/50 may not be in the best interests of the child. It takes a specific set of circumstances for it to be, parents who can communicate, distance from each other, and many more criteria. So discussing 50/50 in terms of finances, which this thread is about is not right

Maybe, maybe not. But parental alienation is certainly not in the best interest of the child. And the mother is certainly not always the best caretaker, but how often do you see full custody going to dad?

You can't discuss something as tricky as CMS in a vacuum. If we're talking statistics then ALL factors need to be considered. And I may be biased as a stepparent but I strongly believe that parental alienation of biological fathers is as much an issue as the lack of child maintenance payments.

I'm not sure it's as much as an issue, although I have seen it with my own eyes and it does make it something that continuously plays on your mind. It definitely happens more than we think. Mothers are supposed to be kind, responsible women who love their children. It is quite disturbing to see that this is not always the case, certainly. I think a lot of mothers don't go full blown alienation, but many do make it difficult for father's definitely. Likely not the same mothers like those in this thread that want their ex to take responsibility!!

I think lots of people don't believe in parental alienation by women because they can't understand it, and wouldn't do it themselves. I was one of those people before, believe me. I saw it from one side, had a shit dad and all my mum wanted was for him to step up and he didn't. My view that if a parent wasn't involved, that was why. Then I was unfortunate enough to see the other side, where someone was trying desperately to be involved and getting shot down continuously, the child was being told completely untrue and frankly inappropriate things and we had no power to do anything as explained previously.

Court is not a solution to this because if residency stays with the alienating parent, as it often does, they simply don't comply with contact and you have to take them back to court. It can go on for years, and in the background they have of course convinced the child that the other parent is this that and the other and they choose not to see them. There is no real solution to this unless judges decide to come down harder on it, but it's doubtful because it's often one person's word against the other. We had solid evidence but it made no difference unfortunately. The mediator didn't care, and advised if we went to court he likely would never see his child again so... What do you do.

I am much more open minded now and try to see if from both parents pov. If the relationship is toxic it's very hard indeed.

Sorry, that's a big tangent there.