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?

Reducing CM because you shacked up with someone else and THEIR children should be illegal.

I've said ti's on other threads and it's been mentioned here too but I absolutely cannot understand why the cms simply isn't rolled into a dept of hmrc. Shared computer systems, shared info, deduced at source or added onto tax bill if not paye. In the latter case, hmrc can pay the RP what is due and reclaim it. And yes the rates should be higher. My ex pays what many would consider be a good amount but it still doesn't touch the sides of their actual cost and if you add in the additional loss of earnings / pension that I take in order to be a present parent (I do work full time but don't go for promotions etc) then that's even more true.

@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.

That’s like my ex, he’s been on disability benefits for 5 years, not worked in the 5 years since we split up as he gets pip etc... only he has a 3 bedroom house that he rents out to 3 lodgers so certainly isn’t struggling financially but I don’t see any of it as it’s all cash in hand... so on the outside people would feel sorry for him being on pip and not being able to afford to pay but I know the truth.

@ChiselandBits absolutely agree with you

There's loads wrong with CM

I think that for cases where the CMS is used, the government paying the CM and chasing the NRP would end up with more revenue collected. They could use the infrastructure that chases people for VAT. There are people owed 5 figure sums which is unacceptable. The government should have paid the resident parent and chased the NRP.

There needs to be more cross referencing. If a NRP claims to earn £150pw, then that's the figure that should be seen when the NRP applies for a credit card or mortgage. Non payment if CM should appear on a credit report

If a NRP moves in with someone with kids he shouldn't get his CM reduced. If they have another child, his CM shouldn't be reduced. If that relationship breaks up then CM should be payable. The current rules around this are as ridiculous as the RP getting more maintenance when they have a child with a new partner.

I would say the cms desperately need to train their staff better. The number of times I’ve phoned up and spoken to different people who say completely different things. Spent an hour once trying to explain to someone that my XH did not need to be repaid any money that he had “overpaid” because the amount of money referred to was simply in a letter but never initially paid by my XH. Suddenly after trying to explain in so many different ways, the member of staff just went quiet…. the penny had dropped! It was a hallelujah moment I can tell you!
And another thing is that every time there is a minor change in amount to be paid, like 30p, they send out a new letter with a thick pamphlet of info. I received 8 of these letters in as many weeks recently, which given that my XH now only pays £20 per month is a little overkill I would say.

@Shostaklovhich that has been my experience too

I'm appalled at the number of people saying it shouldn't be reduced if the NRP has another child. In a non-broken family adjustments are made when another child is born and the same should apply in that case.

To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile.

@AndAsIfByMagic

I'm appalled at the number of people saying it shouldn't be reduced if the NRP has another child. In a non-broken family adjustments are made when another child is born and the same should apply in that case.

To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile.

I may be wrong but i certainly meant when another partners children are used to reduce cms. Not natural children to the nrp.. New partners children should be claiming their own cms

@AndAsIfByMagic

I'm appalled at the number of people saying it shouldn't be reduced if the NRP has another child. In a non-broken family adjustments are made when another child is born and the same should apply in that case.

To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile.

This is why I'm on the fence about it.

In a nuclear family, there would be less money to go around each child when you have more. It's not uncommon in fact it's totally normal. Obviously with CMS it can be a piss poor contribution anyway so when that's further reduced it's a further piss take. But in general, money needs to go further when you have more children which may mean you have slightly less to spend on each of the children but all should be equal. A new child shouldn't go without so an older sibling can keep getting designer clothes and expensive holidays for example, however the basics shouldn't change.

I know people who argue against this will say the RP doesn't have a say over whether their ex goes onto have more children so it's not fair to reduce the contribution. Unfortunately that's the same with lots of things in separation. We don't have any control over our exes and what they do once you start co parenting as a separated couple.

I may be wrong but i certainly meant when another partners children are used to reduce cms. Not natural children to the nrp..

Yes this is totally wrong. A new partners children shouldn't reduce maintenance but I don't think it's so abhorrent that new biological children would potentially reduce it. Depending on circumstances.

@AndAsIfByMagic

I'm appalled at the number of people saying it shouldn't be reduced if the NRP has another child. In a non-broken family adjustments are made when another child is born and the same should apply in that case.

To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile.

It's absolutely vile to have one child being given less than another, but I'd like to see something put in place to stop NRP from just moving on and having more babies, that they can't afford, whilst turning a blind eye to their older children.

My ex didn't give a shiny shit that by moving in with a woman with her own child, and having 2 subsequent children with her, that it meant he couldn't afford to support DS. He couldn't have cared less. Simply shrugged his shoulders at me.

Andasifbymagic - the new DC is not less worth - they benefit from between 88 and 84% of the NRPs income. Hardly less worthy. Even if you calculated the days - EOW and one ON per week - then the previous children still benefit considerably less from the NRP than the new child.

@AndAsIfByMagic

I'm appalled at the number of people saying it shouldn't be reduced if the NRP has another child. In a non-broken family adjustments are made when another child is born and the same should apply in that case.

To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile.

The NRP needs to be looming at their finances, including the amount of child support and deciding if they can afford another child based in that

There's no point comparing it to separated parents because if they were together they would make that decision together, if they are apart its the NRP deciding to have another child and the RP taking the financial hit

Even worse when the RP takes the hit for someone else's kids.

Tbh although it clearly has issues, I can't really think of a better way to do it than based on a percentage of the NRP's income and based on time spent with the children, as it is now.

It has to take into account that NRPs need to maintain a separate household and also need to spend on the children when they are with them.

I also think it's fair for it to be based on paying for 50% of essentials and not on additional costs like school trips, hobbies etc as these would be optional even if the family were together. Ideally the parents would discuss these and agree on whether to do them, and then split the cost.

The NRP needs to be looming at their finances, including the amount of child support and deciding if they can afford another child based in that

There's no point comparing it to separated parents because if they were together they would make that decision together, if they are apart its the NRP deciding to have another child and the RP taking the financial hit

Even worse when the RP takes the hit for someone else's kids.

This will never work though because it applies both ways.

Lots of RPs go on to have further children and then obviously the NRP's child support will get used on new children too. Even though they are not theirs and the NRP could argue in the same way that their children are losing out due to the RP's decision to have more children and stretch the money further.

People can never be allowed to dictate their ex's life due to money.

But the reality is that many. Nrps simply won't contribute to these major expenses and don't have to cope with the fall out of the trip not happening or stopping the hobby or whatever. My ex is refusing o contribute even anything to a trip my DS whole year group is going on, let alone 50%. He sees them less than eow and simply doesn't get what it would mean for him not to go. So I will find it, on credit cards, because I have to.
I disagree that payments should be reduced for subsequent children. In together couples, a further child and its impact on finances for child 1 would be a joint decision. An NRP is perfectly entitled to increase his progeny with a new partner but not at the expense of the first one(S) and the ex who in practice, ends up making up the difference and effectively subsidising the new child. The new child has access to 84% or so of his parent's income, and gets to live with them 100%. The first gets maybe 4 days a month and 16%. I know which one is 'worth less'.

Sorry no, it's not 'obvious' that maintenance for one child would be used for another. The RP who goes on to have more will be supported by their new partner or get maintenance from them for the new child.

The different perspectives go like this

Step mums - always thinks the CM paid by their partners to ex’s is always grossly generous and unfair

RPs think it’s inadequate

NRP think it’s too much

This will never work though because it applies both ways.

No it doesn't.

Lots of RPs go on to have further children and then obviously the NRP's child support will get used on new children too. Even though they are not theirs and the NRP could argue in the same way thattheirchildren are losing out due to the RP's decision to have more children and stretch the money further.

Still no, there's another father responsible for paying towards the other child. Very, very few NRPs pay anything even like half for their children as well, so 'their money' wouldn't be getting used for another child considering it isn't even a dent in what their actual child costs.

People can never be allowed to dictate their ex's life due to money.

NRP is dictating a whole other person's finances due to their decision to have another child. The RP still has the same outgoings, but their money has been cut due to a baby that has nothing to do with them, or children who already have 2 parents paying for them.

* Lots of RPs go on to have further children and then obviously the NRP's child support will get used on new children too. *

How come?

A lot of these issues would disappear if a sensible minimum amount was set for CM. Say £300-£400 per month. Non-negotiable and if the NRP can't/won't pay, the state pays for them and defers their state pension.

@ChiselandBits

Sorry no, it's not 'obvious' that maintenance for one child would be used for another. The RP who goes on to have more will be supported by their new partner or get maintenance from them for the new child.

I disagree. I don't think many RPs ringfence their CM to purely be used on their first children, that would be unrealistic unless they are very wealthy themselves.

I think it totally stands to reason that it goes into the household pot and is used as the rest of the RP's income is.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that NRPs and RPs are in the same position when it comes to being free to have additional children and it impacts them both.

^^ Obviously the above only applies to NRPs paying a decent amount though, not those paying £9 a month or whatever!

@ChocolateMassacre

A lot of these issues would disappear if a sensible minimum amount was set for CM. Say £300-£400 per month. Non-negotiable and if the NRP can't/won't pay, the state pays for them and defers their state pension.

But what is a sensible amount for one Is laughably inadequate for another Or simply impossible for another