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?

My grandchild’s father has only just started paying maintenance. He was able to own a house in central London, change his car annually and take twice yearly long haul holidays with no apparent source of income for 4 years. Assets should be assessed for maintenance and lifestyle incompatible with income ought to be investigated.

@Lalala1
I'm not sure if you've not been round long but there really isn't opposite opinions on this. Yes, there is currently one thread going where the father does actually appear to be being reasonable but that is extremely unusual. Most, as evidenced by this thread, are appalled by how little the NRP frequently gets away with paying, or more accurately, not paying.

No reduction for living with other people's children why should they have three peoples income and other children get one and a fucking donation?

Fines for refusing to cooperate my ex has refused to declare his income since October they are only now going to hmrc why? What is the delay? Log in look up match the numbers bill him

You would get a lot more people hoping for 50/50 to avoid paying a measly 16% though which would lead to my other point if your going for 50/50 it should mean 50/50 no dropping them back to mum so you can work both parents paying for clothing childcare and leisure activities both parents being equally responsible for this financially and physically and a brand new government department who will deal with it can you imagine someone adding up appropriate monthly expenses for the child and billing the family each month everything extra split new school shoes paid for by parent a? Parent b gets a bill new uniform paid by parent b? Parent a gets a bill casual wear kept at the house wouldn't be included but needs like uniforms school food school trips split

I get £7 a week but only probably a couple of years left anyway.

What i would like them to tackle is self employed/ and none payers.

I also disagree with the reduction for step children .. these children should be getting maintenence from their Dads.

The cms was supposed to be superior to csa.. it seems no better just has charges for setting up and collecting.

• all income should count, so dividends, investments etc should be included
• payment still goes down if the NRP has more DC but not for partner’s DC even if they move in together.
• non payment is treated as unpaid tax, HMRC pays the amount due to the RP and collects it from the NRP with added fees. It could be automatically taken from salary for ex.

[quote arethereanyleftatall]@Lalala1
I'm not sure if you've not been round long but there really isn't opposite opinions on this. Yes, there is currently one thread going where the father does actually appear to be being reasonable but that is extremely unusual. Most, as evidenced by this thread, are appalled by how little the NRP frequently gets away with paying, or more accurately, not paying. [/quote]
I haven't been around mn for long granted but I've read through some past (years) posts and I've seen some people posting things like
" you get enough stop being greedy"
" well what do you expect him to do if they can't afford it"
" you shouldn't rely on cm"
And I'll probably get shot down in flames for this one but posts from current partners of NRPs complaining about their DH " having to pay more cm to their greedy ex and we are struggling"

I'm not saying most posters on mn are saying NRPs shouldn't pay. I started this thread as to see what would people change about the current cms so that it was fair for children but at the same time RPs wouldn't need to be saying their children don't get enough and NRPs wouldn't be saying they pay too much.

On various other sm sites there is different views around cms RPs not getting cm or enough cm from NRPs and then on the opposite end of the scale NRPs and sometimes their partners complaining that they pay too much.

Some people say cms is it and don't ask/ pay for anything else coz it's greedy and the some who say it's a minimum and other things like childcare/ school should be on top of cm.

Some mention that the ex now has a new partner so they aren't struggling yet some go nuts when the RP says the same.

There's lots of examples on MN of both sides so what would people change so there's no reason for RPs and NRPs to complain

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

That should be stopped as both are active choices.

The RP & NRP should each bear 50% of the cost of raising joint children whatever that might be. The cost to a woman's career is huge when a single parent especially with eow, the RP is free to get progress their career with no childcare responsibility..

Definitely remove the discount for new girlfriend /wives children & new children they might have. In our case, ex & his wife's new kids have 2 parents paying for them. Her children with her ex have 3 parents paying for them despite them spending less than 50% of their time in ex's household... My child has just one + child maintenance (which doesn't even scratch the surface). They take 4 holidays a year... in 10 years I've never taken DD away as I simply can't afford it. I've paid all the childcare, every cost as Ex considers his heavily discounted payment to cover ''everything'' - he's literally never contributed a penny beyond on this.. when he pays that is. It doesn't feel reasonable that for a payment gets reduced so a man can support children that aren't his who have a father of their own and new children he chooses to have. Just like couples who remain together have to consider if they can afford another child, seems reasonable to expect in this situation to as well.

CMS also needs to consider all forms of income (not just salary), factor in housing, childcare, university costs etc - i.e. the real cost of raising a child. There seems to be an assumption that the wife got the house or is eligible for housing benefit. That isn't always the case, certainly isn't for me. I didn't get the house and I don't qualify for housing benefit. Clarity on what it covers and what parents should share the cost of would also help. Childcare is often the RP's problem and uni well.. no responsibility there either.

absolutely. The new partner may well lose some single parent benefits by choosing to co-habit but that is for them to decide and do the sums. If they want their new partner to make up the difference, he needs to be able to do that NOT at the expense of his existing children. I'm more on the fence about new biological children but overall feel that they should not allow a reduction for "new additions". The argument that if the original couple had had more the pot would be divided in smaller portions doesn't hold because they would have made that choice together. With a 2nd family, the the 1st wife gets no input in that decision and is faced with either making up the drop in CMS herself or explaining to the children why they have to stop their hobby / go without whatever. It's rarely the father that has to have that conversation or bear the brunt of the childrens' reaction. Most often, the RP goes without to make up the difference, so she ends up contributing to the "new" family. How can that possibly be right?

@LovelyLovelyWarmCoffee

- all income should count, so dividends, investments etc should be included

• payment still goes down if the NRP has more DC but not for partner’s DC even if they move in together.
• non payment is treated as unpaid tax, HMRC pays the amount due to the RP and collects it from the NRP with added fees. It could be automatically taken from salary for ex.

I wish this happened.

It's literally 14% for one child 16% for two honestly even I could pay that out of wages and still afford to live if I didn't have to pay for child care kids food fuel and I could work proper hours none of this "around the children" malarkey I would be laughing

I wish there was actually punishments for not paying; my ex paid nothing for 3 years and told me they wouldn’t investigate because he “could be living off a partner” he wasn’t. He then was ordered to pay £7 a week for 4 kids because he went on benefits which he still never paid.

It should be a criminal offence to not pay. Loss of driving licence etc .like in other countries.

It should be a realistic amount not the pittance it currently is and if the resident parent can't work then the nrp should make a contribution to her pension.

I don't think you could realistically get anywhere with the pension thing - you want as little co-dependence between exes as possible - hence the vast majority of "clean break" divorces now, but paying half for childcare so the RP can work, yes.

It’s a very complex issue because there are sooo many variables in lifestyles, types of pay etc. But I am definitely in agreement with PP’s who say the amount they pay should NOT be lowered if they have another child living in their household. My XH’s amount was lowered when he moved in with new GF and her daughter. But why should he be paying less for his own children who he decided, along with me, to bring into this world?? His own children did not get any extra from anyone else to make up the deficit because I have been single since he left 12 years ago, so it’s not like the deficit made up from somewhere else somehow. Where does the ethos come from for this? It can so easily be manipulated!!

It's a fairly fixed proportion of their salary irrespective of how much they were spending on their children before the split. So if someone had 3 kids under 3 and was paying their half of £3k a month nursery fees before the split, which was effectively all their disposable income, just so both parents could keep working. After the split just pays a third of their salary or whatever which is usually way way less than childcare. Meaning the resident parent has to give up work or find a cheaper alternative.

I'd like to see 50% of the basic costs of raising a child become the norm...it'll never happen, but it would be great if it did

but you can't quantify basic costs. There are far too many variables.

CM should be calculated before salary sacrifice to stop people using this as a means to reduce their payments

And the bullshit of reducing payments if you are shacked up with someone

So they should close the loopholes

No discount for living with someone who has children

Lifestyle looked at when they are "self employed"

Wages before deductions dividend taken into account

Actual real punishment for non payment

I have ideas

Cars clamped for non payment the clamp should read non payment of child support in big letters

Adverts in national newspapers a weekly round up of persistent non payers

Licence loss

Passport loss

@Dithercats

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

This entirely.

Stop reducing payments if they move in with someone who has kids
My ex moved in with a women who has kids. My payment got reduced. Why should she technically have 3 people supporting her child (her, her kids dad maintenence payment and my ex) and my child get a reduced amount. I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

I have paid extortionate amounts in child care / holiday clubs etc which would have been at least half if he had done his share of child care as he did before he left.

I paid childcare so I could keep working and make sure the DCs were cared for

Lets not start on clothes - whihc seem to disappear all the time.

Sports lcubs on sports he wanted them to do.

No his paymens did not cover a fraction of that.

on100K plus per annum

In my home country, the system is not ideal. But there's a minimum amount you have to pay that in theory should be sufficient to cover the basic needs of the child, there's no 5 quid per week type of joke payments.
If you don't pay, bailiffs will absolutely go after your assets. You can't just claim you have no salary and that's it.
And not only can you lose your driver's license and other permits, non-payment of maintenance when you were financially able to, is a crime.