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?

What about when a NRP suffers a long term illness or disability after having the child resulting in complete inability to work, assesed to get minimal benefits (just standard UC of £324 a month, no housing element due to who they are staying with owning outright)? Barely scraping by on the essentials to live, with literally nowhere they can cut costs to make any contribution, and no foreseeable changes in circumstance on the horizon?

I appreciate these circumstances will be the minority, but (as is the case with a friend of mine) it does happen. He has to pay for his room, food, towards utilities etc and is counting pennies every month with no luxuries what so ever. He adores his DC and wishes he could contribute, but as the saying goes, you can't get blood from a stone, and he has no viable options to generate any extra income, nothing to sell etc.

I love some of these ideas.

I think there should be an additional percentage of tax on earnings from both parents to go into one account. Money comes out of that account to pay for childcare thus enabling both parents to work; the rest is split pro rata by night spent with each parent.

I find it inexplicable that student loans can be deducted under PAYE but not CM

Oh and yes of course your new partner's children should not mean that you can pay less for your own. Why would it, you're not financially responsible for their costs.

Once you register your child at birth and your not with the father I think CMS forms should be given out and filled in on the same day.
It's about time CMS was deducted off of the paying party's wages.

It's complex though because people have children... don't look after them and then go and start a new family! It's a vicous cycle.

• it shouldn't be reduced if you move in with step children.

• I'm on the fence about it being reduced if you have more biological children. In most families the available pot goes down when more children are born, I don't think it's that unusual. BUT that wouldn't be so much of an issue if it wasn't a pittance most of the time as it is.

• non payers should be made to pay in some way.

• controversial opinion but in the case (and I know it's not super common) where you have a very well earning RP and a low earning NRP I don't always agree that they should be forced to pay out of principal. People often say it's about maintaining lifestyle over both homes when you have a high earning NRP but that's never the tune when it's a high earning RP. Not to say they shouldn't pay anything but I don't see the point in a RP on 100k for example squeezing what they can from a minimum wage NRP just because. Personally in that situation I'd rather my child's other parent spent the money on the kids when they were there.

Poll4 - I am a high earning RP - no intention of "squeezing" anything out of the NRP but they are his children and he has to contribute commensurate to what he can afford. Clothes still need buying, food still needs buying - the RP subsidise the NRPs lifestyle by doing all the providing - we divorced for a reason not for me to pay for his new lifestyle

Non payment is not an option- he is their bloody father.

@ABCeasyasdohrayme

One of my irritations with it is that ex gets a hefty discount because his girlfriends kids live there so essentially they have 3 people paying towards them.

He also cut his hours at work to look after them so his girlfriend works full time now.

If they allow maintenence to be influenced by household decisions then household income needs to be taken into account.

Either new partners are responsible for stepkids or they aren't, but CMS just cherry picks what's better for NRP.

He sounds like a right peach @ABCeasyasdohrayme

@AlmostAJillSandwich

If he has a disability he's entitled to the disability element of UC (£343) and anything up to £600 with PIP so that's almost an extra £1000 potentially.

Children can't just not eat regardless of NRP circumstances.

My biggest gripe is that the NRP can go on and have more children elsewhere, thus reducing maintenance to his other children.

Made even worse when they move in with someone else - so suddenly that child has its parents plus step parent supporting them, yet previous children don't get as much? What is that all about?

I remember many years ago a work mate rubbing her hands together that her "darling" husband didn't need to pay as much maintenance to his first born as they'd just had a baby together and also had her first born living with her. Suffice to say, she didn't bring it up in front of me again...

Like others have said the reduction when the NRP moves in with step DC/has more DC is unfair.

When my ex moved in with his now wife and her 2 DC my maintenance reduced. I then found out he had moved back out of her place and into a flat as she lost benefits when he moved in. I told the CMS and they said it was my job to prove it. The messages i sent apparently didn't count so the reduction remained. Surely the gov can cross reference and see that she was claiming as a single parent and he was paying bills elsewhere.
He moved back on with her and they went on to have more dc. He quit his job because she apparently couldn't cope with so many dc . He hasn't paid a penny in 8 years. He's working again now. And one again the CMS have asked me for evidence. Her income is irrelevant (not that she has any, but hypothetically speaking) when assessing maintenence.

OTOH when I had a partner living with me we had to decide before he moved in if he could and would cover my loss of benefits and therfore effectively pay towards my dc.

That's slightly unfair. Exes new DP has no responsibility towards my dc. My new DP did.

@IstayedForTheFeminism

Like others have said the reduction when the NRP moves in with step DC/has more DC is unfair.

When my ex moved in with his now wife and her 2 DC my maintenance reduced. I then found out he had moved back out of her place and into a flat as she lost benefits when he moved in. I told the CMS and they said it was my job to prove it. The messages i sent apparently didn't count so the reduction remained. Surely the gov can cross reference and see that she was claiming as a single parent and he was paying bills elsewhere.
He moved back on with her and they went on to have more dc. He quit his job because she apparently couldn't cope with so many dc . He hasn't paid a penny in 8 years. He's working again now. And one again the CMS have asked me for evidence. Her income is irrelevant (not that she has any, but hypothetically speaking) when assessing maintenence.

OTOH when I had a partner living with me we had to decide before he moved in if he could and would cover my loss of benefits and therfore effectively pay towards my dc.

That's slightly unfair. Exes new DP has no responsibility towards my dc. My new DP did.

Agree very much with your last point. My DS is off to Uni later this year, he will get minimal loan due to his step dads wage, yet when his Dad was married, his wife's income meant nothing - not that I would have wanted it, but I don't get the double standards

@AlmostAJillSandwich

What about when a NRP suffers a long term illness or disability after having the child resulting in complete inability to work, assesed to get minimal benefits (just standard UC of £324 a month, no housing element due to who they are staying with owning outright)? Barely scraping by on the essentials to live, with literally nowhere they can cut costs to make any contribution, and no foreseeable changes in circumstance on the horizon?

I appreciate these circumstances will be the minority, but (as is the case with a friend of mine) it does happen. He has to pay for his room, food, towards utilities etc and is counting pennies every month with no luxuries what so ever. He adores his DC and wishes he could contribute, but as the saying goes, you can't get blood from a stone, and he has no viable options to generate any extra income, nothing to sell etc.

A lot of RP are barely scraping by on the essentials to live also but they still need to feed their children, they are still financially responsible for the children they don’t just say “can’t get blood from a stone” they still pay all the things your friend pays and a lot of them don’t have “luxuries” either. A NRP has the same responsibility even if they are on benefits( health related or not) so your friend should be paying his £7 a week contribution which quite frankly is the most ridiculous cms amount there is and one thing that really needs changing with the system!

I don't think partners should factor into it at all, likewise step children. I do think biological children should be considered though because I don't think it would be right to say 1 child should take priority over another.

My friend won't take any money off her ex as thanks to covid he's currently earning less than £200 a week. He's barely had any work, she knows what it's like as they work in the same industry but she's been lucky to find work elsewhere.

He pulls his weight in other ways tho and as he's hardly in work these days does all the childcare.
I think id do the same if my ex and I were to split and he found himself in a crap situation but if they can pay they absolutely should do.

Never received a penny. Raised 3 on one wage and my kids have grown up being proud of who we are as a family.
It's been hard though.

• no reduction if the NRP has more children or moves in with other children
• inclusion of what it costs the resident parent to house the children (I say this as a person who lives in London)
• inclusion of school uniform, school lunches and nursery/wrap around care
• inclusion of cost of university so that the children are able to continue their education without major disruption.

I can’t help feeling that children are not at the heart of the current way CM is calculated. I’ve suffered much financial hardship (despite me working full time in a fairly well paid job) due to a unique set of circumstances that in no way are taken into account as ‘he pays what the CMS calculator says’.

First, we need a realistic assessment of what it costs to raise a child.

Then, recognition that it doesn’t change even if NRP is living with other step children or subsequent children.

Both parents need to contribute equally to the absolute basics of raising a child. That means food, clothing, shelter, and childcare where applicable.

People who do not support their children should be stigmatised. I have no objection to using the phrase deadbeat dad (or mum) when appropriate.

If people are on UC, they still need to pay 50% of their child’s basic costs. No exceptions! That may require a review of UC elements, for example, adding a parenting payment alongside housing or PIP.

And enforcement. It should be a criminal offence to not support your children. Loss of passport or driving licence as in other countries, right up to jail time.

It should be a debt that doesn’t die and remain payable through bankruptcy, no matter how old the children get.

@Poll4

- it shouldn't be reduced if you move in with step children.

• I'm on the fence about it being reduced if you have more biological children. In most families the available pot goes down when more children are born, I don't think it's that unusual. BUT that wouldn't be so much of an issue if it wasn't a pittance most of the time as it is.

• non payers should be made to pay in some way.

• controversial opinion but in the case (and I know it's not super common) where you have a very well earning RP and a low earning NRP I don't always agree that they should be forced to pay out of principal. People often say it's about maintaining lifestyle over both homes when you have a high earning NRP but that's never the tune when it's a high earning RP. Not to say they shouldn't pay anything but I don't see the point in a RP on 100k for example squeezing what they can from a minimum wage NRP just because. Personally in that situation I'd rather my child's other parent spent the money on the kids when they were there.

Ohh I don't agree with this. Someone could be on min wage.. but come from a supportive family ie grandparents who have a good input. Perhaps the NRP lives in a mortgaged house on a min wage.

I've read through a lot of comments and the issue is. Is your willing to create a new family with someone else..... that's your tough luck! This should be a consideration before you go on to further more kids.

I have one DC. It is my choice and I would be bloody well Pissed off if my ex went on to have other children and told me he would have to reduce his payments.

I told the CMS and they said it was my job to prove it.

Sounds like CMS is not fit for purpose. In my home country, the child support payments (if not paid voluntarily) go through bailiffs, who get paid a percentage - their fee is paid by the non-resident parent. So of course it's in the interest of bailiffs to get the money and they will do the legwork to find out if the debtor is working or if their lifestyle does not match the poverty they claim.

@Piggyk2 that's fine, you don't have to agree.

Just had a look at the percentages they have to pay, 12%?! I'd make it 30. Kids cost a lot, just because one side has fucked off doesn't mean they suddenly cost less.

And yeah close all the stupid loopholes and actually send the pricks who don't pay to prison. Don't want to pay? Fine can ruin your life, no problem.

I never received a penny from my exH and worked myself into the ground raising the kids alone. He now has 6 properties and has been living the life of riley. There was nothing I could do about it.

The amounts are ridiculous. 7 quid, what's the point even? Does that mean the resident parent should contribute equally and you can somehow house, clothe, feed a child for 14 pounds per week? Magic!

The CMS staff need to be better trained and actually communicate with each other as every time I speak to someone they tell me something different to the last person and 80% of the time it’s completely wrong. Also non payment should be treated as a crime. Try not paying council tax and see what happens! Whereas I’m owed thousands despite the fact that my dc’s father has been working the whole time and buying cars and holidays, and the CMS have done absolutely nothing. to be completely fair sometimes they have not legally been able to do anything so the law needs to be changed.

threat of jail would probably be the only way to get my alcoholic ex to pay up... the loss of alcohol would prompt some action!