Anyone think the UK is a joke when it comes to not paying child maintenance?

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

You hear a lot of stories especially in the UK where courts are not that strict on individuals who are no longer together to pay maintenance for their child. Unlike the UK, USA is much more stricter and it is much harder to avoid paying child maintenance.

Anyone think the rules need to be a lot stricter in the UK? How can it be better enforced in the UK and what is the minimum amount a month you think someone should pay for maintenance assuming someone is on around £1.5k-£2k after tax a month.

Your point was that a small child cannot cost that much, and that's why the calculation is unfair.

My point was that they absolutely can. Especially given that a woman married to a man on £156K probably has an okayish career as well, and would absolutely have significant childcare costs.

£100 a week is a lot (though I don't agree with it being capped)

I don't think most people spend £200 a week on their child do they? Unless they're in FT nursery! (But then you'd have to take into account UC or TFC)

I don't spend anything like that on mine in all honesty.

But she didn't agree to be impregnated. She acted independently stopping the pill without my knowledge. Should she still be awarded the standard in your view? Totally theoretical question as there is nothing I can do about the amounts and how the child was conceived is irrelevant for child maintenance calculations. Just find the discussion interesting. I don't know if I am right or wrong.

@forinborin I bet it's statistically more likely for a woman married to a man on 156k to be a SAHM than have their own good career.

@forinborin

So if your ex's family should pay you child maintenance then surely, you would agree, that your family should pay you child maintenance too? If your ex's new partner should pay you child maintenance, then surely if you get a new partner, then your new partner should pay you child maintenance too?

I thought I answered that. They don't have to pay for my children, what I want to be recognised for the child maintenance purposes is that his income is drawn in their names. As simple as that.

A lot for how many kids? The fact is CMS is the minium meaning the paying party is not by any means left living on the breadline. CMS state the set figures for everyone. I don't think £100 per week is a lot of money tbh not when I'm th parent incurring costs because I'm having to do all the school runs and pick ups, live in a bigger house rather than a house share and save... I've also missed out on job prospects. There's many single mums relying on childcare in school holidays.. it isn't cheap £160 a week and I only have the one child and thats based upon my 4 day working week. That's £1,120 to cover the 7 weeks summer holidays. That's not even the other 6 weeks included in that figure.

You are arguing with a point you have invented yourself.

I have no statistics to support or reject that, but in my experience, people tend to meet each other and marry within similar income bands. At work, in university doing similar degrees, etc. Certainly true in mine and my ex's case.

A lot for how many kids?

For one.

The fact is CMS is the minium meaning the paying party is not by any means left living on the breadline

This is a myth. Its the reccomended amount. They don't actually say it's the minimum. You can choose to pay more, but you must pay their calculated amount.

CMS state the set figures for everyone. I don't think £100 per week is a lot of money tbh

Lucky you! Were not all rich.

not when I'm th parent incurring costs because I'm having to do all the school runs and pick ups, live in a bigger house rather than a house share and save

So if you were the nrp you'd voluntarily live in a house share and never have your kids stay overnight would you? Thought not.

I've also missed out on job prospects. There's many single mums relying on childcare in school holidays..

Yes and the rest of us, that's not just single mums!

it isn't cheap £160 a week and I only have the one child and thats based upon my 4 day working week.That's £1,120 to cover the 7 weeks summer holidays. That's not even the other 6 weeks included in that figure

yes I'm aware, weirdly as a working parent I also have to pay childcare and know what it costs. As I've said in an ideal world you'd have 50/50 care and only half of those holidays to fund.

How are people not paying? The P60 obviously isn't good enough. There's no escaping a bank statement you can see exactly what's been spent!

Yep, and then they have children and the woman (usually) gives up work. Not unusual in the slightest.

What's been spent is irrelevant. What's been earnt matters.

The issue is they know what they've earnt (when they're employed) they just don't enforce them paying it. They don't need a bank statement, they need to be quicker to do an attachment of earnings.

She doesn't give up work forever, and certainly after the divorce most professional women with ability to earn would choose to return to work rather than survive on welfare. I think you are arguing for a very rare scenario.

I don't really know what you're getting at. I'm suggesting it's unreasonable to expect to have as much money single as you do in a couple. All I said is that statistically I bet many women with high earning husband's give up work.

What's your point?

Do I think maintenance should provide an equal lifestyle to that of the couple when they were together?

No. Its unrealistic.

Okay let's not be pedantic here. CMS is the minium the paying party pays and if dad wanted to pay more.... I suspect there would be no need to go down the CMS route in the first place. Unfortunately though break ups can be messy!

Sorry the rest of us? But EVERYTHING is halved when you live with a partner unless there's some sort of finicial abuse.

I'm not rich at all. However I'm sick of mums selling themselves short I don't recieve quite £400 a month. But to be Frank I have recieved a few comments as though I should be grateful/thankful sorry if I come across as ungrateful but I'm not grateful why would I be a dad has legal responsibility just like the mum and we don't get praise so why should the dad? I don't get it.... its your duty to pay for your own child.

As for childcare well again when there's 2 in one household in a lot easier to juggle its not just about the money either.

I do agree with the poster that said you can't expect to live as a 2 parent household also though. £300/£400 per month is hardly rich though FFS. I would just say its a decent amount.

rushflat please have the common decency to report that the suicide % rate was the same in males and females and that
Although date of death is held, the cause of death is not, therefore no causal effect or link between a CMS case in arrears and mortality can be assumed from any information provided”.[3].

Quote papers by all means but be bloody honest

Is that the people in your circle?

Yes @Hatsoff5 it's not just single mums who have childcare to pay for.

That wasn't my point, I am not sure where you are reading this. I said that it is likely that a woman married to a 156K-earner has a career of her own, and therefore will have significant childcare costs, that, in many cases, can easily reach £2K/month. And those costs are then a genuine expense that has to be borne by both parties. And yes, that can then mean £1K/month maintenance.

Yep, and then they have children and the woman (usually) gives up work. Not unusual in the slightest

i’m always interested in why it’s nearly always women that give up work. Why is it so incredibly rare for men, or even for both partners to reduce hours so they can share the childcare load.

i see on here it’s always “my wage doesn’t cover childcare”. It’s never a joint expense, it’s seen as the mums responsibility. Loss of pension is never taken into account, nor is the fact that childcare is only very expensive for the preschool years, and is likely to be outweighed by the long term positives on a career.

i think it’s a societal issue. Pay gap doesn’t help, or the attitude of many workplaces that are flexible for women but not so much for men.

it is a catch 22. While women predominantly are giving up work then they will always be dependent financially. The opposite downside though is if it becomes more normal for women to maintain a career, and men step up more, will we have to compromise our pretty much automatic right to RP? Because as far as I can see women don’t want to do that either.

CMS have the power to take to court and get a regular deduction order so why don’t they? Always see complaints on here but if there is no proof the NRP is paying then why don’t the CMS apply for one?

Its not really fair to demand half of childcare costs if the other party doesn't have a say in it though, is it?

This is the issue. If it's mutually agreed childcare so both can work, they've both had a say, agreed on the setting and cost then yes, by all means.

But if one parent chooses it, then demands half I'm not sure that's okay, the other parent might have other family childcare or prefer to drop a day or have flexible working or whatever.

This is why it's not simple.

I can see how maintenance could get to 1k a month for very high earners, but I don't think this is very common because most people simply don't earn enough to pay that.

I agree, it's a societal issue. We still see women as carers and men as financial providers. Men often earn more and have less flexible employers. This has to change. For most people it makes more financial sense for the woman to quit or reduce hours because the man earns more. People can't afford to make a different choice a lot of the time.

Does this apply to the self employed though? Because from what others are saying... that's the issue.