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?

@Toanewstart23
A lot of these issues would disappear if a sensible minimum amount was set for CM. Say £300-£400 per month

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

If your child costs more than £6-800 pm i think it's reasonable to say you need to consider your lifestyle CHOICES. if £800 pm is inadequate I'd assume its private school etc so they're already high earners so getting more than the base minimum.

I think the amounts should be raised to something more realistic (no more £5/week) and, most importantly, it should be paid without fail. No more dodgy blokes not working, or going self employed in jobs that mysteriously make no money, or constantly pissing around. And no cutting the first family's money so you can start family no. 2.

And YY to withholding passports and driving licenses for those that wont comply.

The problem with withholding driving licenses is it could affect NRPs job and then they still won't be able to pay.
My ex is a delivery driver. He doesn't pay any maintenance, but taking his driving license away won't solve that. He'll then just be unemployed and not paying maintenance.

@IstayedForTheFeminism

The problem with withholding driving licenses is it could affect NRPs job and then they still won't be able to pay. My ex is a delivery driver. He doesn't pay any maintenance, but taking his driving license away won't solve that. He'll then just be unemployed and not paying maintenance.

If he is so concerned about his job he should pay for his kid then.

They still won't pay if they lose their license, but they will be more inclined to if it hits their pocket. Would they rather 'lose' 20% of their wages, or their whole wage?

@IstayedForTheFeminism it's not about solving the problem it's about punishing the offence. Right now he doesnt pay and it doesn't affect him one bit. If it meant the end of his job and his wages he might think again.

I never understand how it varies and how NRP’s sometimes manage to pay so little. Child maintenance has always been terribly managed and doesn’t look like it’s gotten any better. DH signed over everything to his ex for her and their children and took all of their debt bar the mortgage as she wanted the house. Me and him are still paying it off and it’s been years. His bills bounced because he was giving all he had, to the point where I was feeding him as he no money. His ex told anyone who would listen that he didn’t pay her anything when the truth was he paid her £600 a month and left her debt free. The system has never worked, nothing seems to change.

And no cutting the first family's money so you can start family no. 2. but most people do this when they have a subsequent child. I know the difference is the consent of both parents but the point is that there IS less money for the first child if you have a second unless you're very wealthy. We had a second, had twins. Of course there's less money for DS as I can't cover all their costs on £26 CB

I never understand how it varies but the cost of raising different children does vary. My friends two kids go to private school, mine don't. They have a foreign holiday and three UK holidays a year. We have 1 UK holiday. Both parents drive, my kids have to get the bus. They go to tennis and ballet, mine go to gymnastics. They're dressed new from online, fair trade, organic, handmade, MC lines. Mine are dressed from George or Vinted. They both earn good salaries, DH earns an OK salary and I don't work. Beyond the basics there is no standard cost and why should kids with wealthier NRPs only get the minimum it costs to raise mine, or why should my "ex" have to put himself into debt to give the kids a standard of living they'd never have had if we were together

CMS should take in to account that a child born after the cut off for tax credits costs the parent with care way more than the NRP. I have to work term time only, so that there is someone to look after the 3 children, ex won’t have them during the week even if he is off work and childcare would cost so much so I am a lower earner and now claim tax credits. My ex changed jobs, and reduced his hours, and also works cash in hand over time so that he only has to give me £65 a week for three children who he has overnight 6 nights a month. I don’t get any tax credits for the younger child, which obviously wasn’t an issue when we had him and both worked. I don’t think 21 pound something is enough towards a child per week! He has such a better quality of life and leaves me to deal with everything
the children need and begrudges that!

Child maintenance should be based on an assumed salary. My ex is just not working so I get nothing. Move more to US system of an imputed salary. Arrears build based on that assumption. They follow the payer around for life - pension payments if need be until settled.

There should be an ISO standard that employers should adhere to where the csa debt should be flagged to potential employers.

They are either not employed if they have debt or they have to sign terms and conditions to actively reduce the csa debt whilst employed with that company and agree a set amount straight from their wages/salary.

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

Ex chooses salary sacrifice for an expensive bike which enables him to pay less.
There's a max rate which hasn't risen in 15 years so very high earners actually pay a very low percentage of earnings to support a child.

Honestly? My ex would rather not work. He's only gone back to work because he had to. If he lost his license and then his job he would just claim he can't work anymore.

Taking away driving licenses might work for some NRPs though. I believe CMS already have the power to do it. They just don't.

Was there a ama thread with someone who worked in the CMS or did I dream that? I think I might have suggested it ages ago but I don't think there was one. I wish someone would and answer questions like why they can't enforce payments and what other difficulties they have.

@SleepingStandingUp but why should the lifestyle choices of the NRP (having more kids) have a financial implication for the RP?
The RP doesn’t get a say in whether the NRP has more kids or moves in with someone who already has kids but does have what little maintenance they may get reduced.
That’s not a fair system.

It's less than I thought its only 12%for one child

I don't see that forcing NRP into debt or unemployment, or forcing second families into poverty because first families always have to have the same income would really solve anything, but I do think that maintenance could and should be collected more efficiently. I don't understand why it doesn't work more like student loans, or similar, where repayments are just taken directly from salaries.

I think it would also be reasonable for dividends/investment income to be taken into account.

The system is poor. Payments for this year are based on income from last year. Unless it changes by 25% they will not review the claim during that time. So in effect if the non resident parent changes jobs in April after the 6th and their pay goes from say 30k to £37,499 then the cms will not review this until the following April. In effect the non resident parent is almost always favoured. This also means as a result the final year maintenance is received for the child it is based on old income meaning the child loses out. It should be set up as a percentage of pay each month based on normal wage. If they earn more it should be paid at the increased amount and if they earn less for example time off due to ill health it should be reduced. Employers do this by having a cut off date for wages. So this should be done in a similar way.

@SleepingStandingUp

And no cutting the first family's money so you can start family no. 2. but most people do this when they have a subsequent child. I know the difference is the consent of both parents but the point is that there IS less money for the first child if you have a second unless you're very wealthy. We had a second, had twins. Of course there's less money for DS as I can't cover all their costs on £26 CB

I don't think its the same. The non resident parent is paying the cost of maintaining their child in another household to make up for the time they are not supporting them in theirs. They usually pay a tiny fraction of the actual cost anyway. I doubt many people would chose to have a second child if their first was gong to go unfed, or unclothed or unhomed because of that choice.

@AnneElliott

I'd set the level at half what the basic costs are of raising a child. The NRP needs to fund half the cost regardless of their earning situation - so no reduction if they move in the girlfriends children or have more of their own. And the debt wouldn't die - it would come from their pension or lottery win/inheritance.

Childcare should also be included unless the NRP offers to do half of the childcare themselves. Women shouldn't be impacted in their ability to earn and make a career for themselves.

If we sorted out CMS we could make such a difference to child poverty in this country.

This. Almost like a student loan but without it being aged out. It needs to be paid.

Like many the system just need enforcing more. I know so many women who get little to no maintenance as the ex husband has fiddled their books. They just get away with it. Why? It’s so unfair and it’s children who suffer from it. My eldest’s father never paid a penny towards him. Angers me so much - no-one ever chased him for it either.

@SleepingStandingUp

I think the proboscis is that there isn't a single solution that suits everyone. PP the other day wakes away with 70% assets and brought property outright. Assuming daughter costs half of all bills etc it came to just over £300 in total. Mom got £350 so didn't financially pay a penny for daughters living costs and she still wanted him to go e her money and had wanted spousal support (they both worked). On the same calculation someone else will get barely anything and it won't come near half the costs.

You can't bare it in actual lifestyle costs because the resident parent could deliberately increase them to cost the ex more and screw them over.
Salary leads to issues above.
If your deduct for new kids, your imposing that in the first family, but the reality is if you have more kids, you are likely to adjust what you spend on the older one anyway.

Perhaps there should be a basic minimum payment and if you can't afford to pay it, the govt g go but it's deducted from your benefits / added on like a loan

I’ve commented on that pp the “assuming daughters costs” was randomly made up by another poster no one knows what that child’s costs are. Yes she gets £350 pm cm but how can you say she doesn’t pay a penny financially for her daughter? Are you saying the cost to raise her child is fully provided for by her ex’s £350 pm? Really

@Pleasebeafleabite

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

@Pleasebeafleabite You have absolutely nailed it .. both your points are blinding 👌🏻

Of course student loans are owed to the government which may have influenced them getting the admin and structure correct for that …..

The thing about second families is crazy - it is absolutely pertinent that in "nuclear" families, both parents of child one would agree together to slice the pie smaller in having further children. In the case of "second" families, the RP of child one gets NO say in this decision but is directly impacted by it as they WILL end up covering the shortfall if CMS reduces, leaving themselves with even less disposable for themselves. ..too many NRPS, including my ex seem to be under the impression that 100% of an RPs income should be used up on the child and any evidence that the RP is spending on themselves is seen as wasting "their" money and that they don't "need" the CMS.

NRPs simply should not go ahead and have second families without doing very careful affordability calculations and if they don't, and belatedly realise that new partner's mat pay or new child's childcare fees is £££ then that is for them to deal with, not pass the cost on to the RP of child 1 by reducing CMS. If the NRPs income genuinely reduces for good reason, then it goes down proportionally yes, that can't be helped, but not, for instance, deciding to be a SAHP to child no2 and claiming no income. If that is going to be the situation the earning person in the second relationship should be liable for the CMS owed to child 1. That's a hard pill to swallow but morally would be right and I have read some posters on here who do that - effectively pay their partner's CMS because the partner is staying at home providing childcare for their child saving £££ in nursery fees while the other works in the higher paid job.

I'd set the level at a fixed amount plus rent. So for example, for each non-resident child, NRP pays £300 per month plus half the LHA amount for a single adult. There could be a means-test override to limit the payments if they are unaffordable.

The fixed amount would be expected to cover defined costs, e.g food, clothes, utilities. Anything not on the list either parent would be entitled to ask the other for contributions to the extra cost.