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?

@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.

Surely this depends on how often a NRP is seeing their child?

Why should someone seeing their child 3 nights a week for example (so one night less than the RP) pay £400 a month?

Providing they have a room at their house, clothes, and all the other necessities I think that's a ludicrous amount to pay for the RP having 4 nights a month extra.

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

£300 per month is cheap. If the NRP actually had to pay for 24/7 childcare for their child, that would only cover 2-3 days.

£300 per month is a bargain to have a child taken care of full-time.

Why do people think it is ok for the first born children to have priority over subsequent children’s quality of life?

Of course it’s not your choice that your ex has more children, why would it be? You are not together, that choice no longer applies to you and neither should it.

I do not agree that the amount should be reduced for step children however.

Surely this depends on how often a NRP is seeing their child?

Obviously. You'd calculate the daily rate and divide by the number of days.

To be clear, £300 is not a fortune. It works out at below £10 per day.

Does anyone have a child who costs them less than £10 per day, once food, clothes, books, childcare are taken into account?

@ChocolateMassacre

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

£300 per month is cheap. If the NRP actually had to pay for 24/7 childcare for their child, that would only cover 2-3 days.

£300 per month is a bargain to have a child taken care of full-time.

To me £300 is paltry My ex, as a very very high earner, pays many multiples of that.

But I do grasp that for some £300/400 may be very difficult

Does anyone have a child who costs them less than £10 per day, once food, clothes, books, childcare are taken into account?

Well it depends, is the NRP supposed to pay all of the cost or half? Because then it would be a child costing £20 a day.

Which of course if you're talking about nursery is still not much but if you're talking a school aged child no I can't say I spend £20 a day on my child.

@Poll4. Does your child go to after-school club? Holiday club?

[quote ChocolateMassacre]@Poll4. Does your child go to after-school club? Holiday club?[/quote]
No they don't. And I appreciate that's not the same for everyone.

CMS would be much fairer if it was based on individual circumstances imo. But that's probably impossible.

Generic rules for all are always going to be unfair to some and not others.

@ChocolateMassacre

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

£300 per month is cheap. If the NRP actually had to pay for 24/7 childcare for their child, that would only cover 2-3 days.

£300 per month is a bargain to have a child taken care of full-time.

But why would the NRP need to pay someone for 24/7 care for their child? The NRP also looks after the child and the RP is the parent too.

CM is not meant to cover all of the costs, only half. £600 is not a small amount to cover a child each month.

I do wonder how people manage paying for nursery though, I do think there should be provision within CM for extra payment to be required if the child is needing to be in a full-time care setting before they start school so both parents can work.

Or any childcare through the years tbh, after school club etc.

My issue with it is when the RP refuses to allow 50/50 I think the NRP shouldn't have to cover costs when they actively want the child/children more. 50/50 should be the expected standard and if the NRP doesn't want this then they pay. I also think men who actively don't want a baby should prevent it however there are some (not all) women who lie about birth control. If they want the baby the should shoulder the cost. I don't take CM from my dds dad because I don't need it. I want him to have a secure home and money to spend on her when he has her. I think all incomes need to be looked at as a nrp can earn remarkably less than the RP but still can be skinted by the cost. A NRP still needs the standard of living the RP has. They need additional rooms the children. They have bills etc. I think everyone's should be assessed individually. I agree non payment is a disgrace but I do think a contract drawn up before conception would be the most sensible thing. In a time and age of birth control there should be such less 'surprise' births than there are. Maybe I am a cynic but I know friends who wanted a baby without their partners consent. Had they have known they would be on their own financially then these men wouldn't be fathers. If two consenting adults want a baby and plan for a baby that is different and they should be splitting costs.

@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, my ex still owes me thousands but as our DS is now nearly 23 I can't see it (this was under old system and they still write to me each year to remind me).

DSS mom, pays every couple of weeks but then stops, had reduced because she moved in with a man who has 3 DC's. Tried to use CMS to collect, that worked for 4 weeks then they called DH to say they didn't think that that was in the best interests of the mother and child (they are NC and have been for 2 years), she hadn't paid because she had been in hospital for weeks (he told them not but they said they couldn't prove it oh and they told us she works cash in hand!)

She knows to work the system that as long as she is not a full 2 weeks behind they will not allow the collection service!

I would have been enraged that the system was so designed to help women if I had not had the same shit service off them when it was my ex, so really not sure who the system benefits - no one?

Old system shite, new system shite - go with straight to HMRC based on any taxable income with the same consequences.

But why would the NRP need to pay someone for 24/7 care for their child? The NRP also looks after the child and the RP is the parent too.

Clearly if NRP and RP were doing 50/50 care, no one should be paying anything.

Can I just point out that not all NRP see their children, mine chooses not to see our kids at all and doesn’t want to so not all are providing for the children in their time if they don’t actually see the child at all.

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.

I couldn't have afforded the above, I paid around £160 per month - I'm not a high earner though. I still had a child at home while my DS moved in with my ex (I got £5 per week for DD as ex was unemployed!)

The cry is always NRP has to have a house to accommodate the children and this costs but so often on mumsnet - we here that the SDCs are on blow up mattresses, sleeping in the lounge etc etc, spare room is now an office for wfh.

The majority do not provide their DCs with the same as at their main home and this is deemed acceptable because half the time - they can not be arsed to have their DCS more - so they just let it slide.

@RedCandyApple

Can I just point out that not all NRP see their children, mine chooses not to see our kids at all and doesn’t want to so not all are providing for the children in their time if they don’t actually see the child at all.

Thats the case with a lot of NRPs they “choose” not to see their children but say the RP is stopping contact so shouldn't have to pay. Even parents with 50/50 court ordered contact people say there shouldn’t be any cms due either way but I think that’s only fair if it genuinely is 50/50 financially. There’s a lot of NRPs with 50/50 that don’t contribute to anything yet there’s still expenses out with that 50/50 that more often than not RPs need to provide. I know RPs who still pay childcare and school lunch money on days NRP has contact yet NRP says “but I don’t need to pay anything cms says”

@Finallylostit

The cry is always NRP has to have a house to accommodate the children and this costs but so often on mumsnet - we here that the SDCs are on blow up mattresses, sleeping in the lounge etc etc, spare room is now an office for wfh.

The majority do not provide their DCs with the same as at their main home and this is deemed acceptable because half the time - they can not be arsed to have their DCS more - so they just let it slide.

Yes I made this thread as I constantly seen different views on cms when it suits! When it comes to child maintenance it’s the NRP needs to house the children also electric/gas/food etc yet there’s some People on here who argue that “ their home isn’t the children’s home as they are hardly here they live with mum and “visit” here therefore they don’t need a room/space,possessions etc” it’s contradictory!

I do agree that a reasonable minimum amount needs to be set. I mean, children need to be fed somehow, the resident parent does not have the option to tell them that here's a fiver, see how you manage.

@Jayne35

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.

I couldn't have afforded the above, I paid around £160 per month - I'm not a high earner though. I still had a child at home while my DS moved in with my ex (I got £5 per week for DD as ex was unemployed!)

I also don’t agree or think the flat rate £7 is anywhere near fair it’s actually a joke! There are some NRPs on benefits with more monthly money than a NRP on minimum wage who pays a percentage of that wage yet on benefits it’s a flat rate of £7! And before anybody goes off on one I know that it’s the state that are then paying for it but if it was a percentage of benefits or a higher standard amount then a lot of NRPs wouldn’t stay on benefits especially the ones who specifically go unemployed for cms purposes.

My ExH pays what CMS says he should be. Fair enough to him, he always pays it. But what he pays doesn't cover half the rent, let alone food, heating, water, internet, clothes, after school clubs, after school activities etc. It's a disgrace that he pays so little towards his son.

More than anything... CMS need to know what they are doing.

Two mutual friends of mine have been having a huge row about CM. RP is adamant NRP is in arrears, NRP is adamant he isn't and has overpaid. Both showed me their CM journal/log (not sure what it's called). Sure enough, hers shows he is in £400 arrears, his shows he has overpaid £400 and no payments are due. Absolutely astounding.

I worked out the cost for my ds which is around 110 per week, that includes everything food, clothes, clubs, ect so £55 per week per parent £238.33 PER month i do think its crazy then nrp pay 500 plus per month or more however if child is under 5 they should also split childcare nursery cost on top of that

Its not £X per day, its the cumulative cost over, say, 12 months. Some days my kids will cost me hundreds in new shoes, uniforms, club subs due, a trip to the cinema, nothing ridiculous or untoward, just fairly normal expenditure and others nothing at all. Where the RP is NOT preventing contact, there absolutely ought to be some recognition that they are effectively providing free childcare for the 50% of the time the kids could be with their NRP. Those saying the NRP has so many expenses also - they also have MUCH greater choices of earning, second jobs, longer hours which RPs simply can't take.

And I don't know why posters are still talking about it being unfair NOT to reduce payments for subsequent children - the 1st family have NO input into the exes decision to have another child but WILL end up compensating for the drop in CMS. They just will. The NRP should not be having more kids if they cannot do so without maintaining their existing obligations - you don't ring up the council and ask for a reduction in council tax, or mortgage or ask for % off your shopping at Tesco because you have to buy baby food now too.

@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.

Totally agree. Takes the piss.