To reflect that ‘some chase ex for their salary not child contribution

[Genuinethought]

using ‘ ExDh’ as example as most common situation

Wondering genuinely …

If I was to work out how much extra having a child live in my house ( accounting for the cost of having an extra room for them )
would likely not come to around £500/ £700 a month, what I generally hear is paid in CMS.

Reflecting on the ‘ french private school’ related trending post…

I have seen many people chase and chase for exDH salary….when In reality there is no way that they are spending £700 a month on having a child ( the exDH £500 and £200 contribution of the other parent- due to the fact that the child costs is supposed to be shared , (accounting for them having child more frequently )

I wonder further about this, particularly when people live in a mortgaged property that is going up in price, yet the parent that has paid towards that housing will never have a claim on it …

When I stop and think the cost of my child’s room
their food
clothes
activities
holidays
savings
I just can’t see how it totals £500-700 every 30 days?

when you separate you may loose the ‘ bonus’ of another’s potentially greater salary… continually trying to access it, beyond what is realistic , seems unfair
AIBU

Yep I get £80 a month and dd costs considerably more than that ! Ex has a lot of savings and a big pension, go figure.
maybe it could all be put in a big pot and shared out …£500 a month would be life changing for us !

100%

are you not living in the uk?

unless you are budgeting down to the bare bones it definitely costs more than that.

I live by myself and my food spend is probably double that (granted I could cut down on my spending but even if I ate much cheaper food, it would be more than 500)

The more me and DH earn the more gets spent on the kids tbh. Nicer days out, theatre trips etc. Why would you not want nice things for your child just because you’re split up from their parent?

The lifestyle aspect of it is huge though.

If you are used to having a good income, your lifestyle matches that income, and the kids are used to what they have.

You may well have a bigger mortgage and a bigger house. You're more likely to have bigger holidays.

And then there's also the kids activities- as our incomes have increased, so has what we spend on activities- when you start adding in private music tuition for more than one child and/or more than one instrument (or a 1 hour music lesson for an older child), plus a couple of other activities as well, it doesn't take much before the sums spent on extra curricular activities really adds up.

It's surely fair then, when divorce isn't the kids fault anyway, that when high earnings are involved, parents should then continue to subsidise the lifestyle and activities of the kids- preferably to as close a level as possible to where it was before the parents split.

and this is a great point too

if the nrp is rolling in it and the rp is not earning a lot, why should the children have to suffer? the nrp should contribute according to his or her means so the children have the best quality of life possible.

If you bring a child jnto the world you should be responsible for at least half the costs of raising it.

Your OP implies greed when the motivation may not be greed, it could be wanting what is best for the child.

You’re perfectly welcome not to take maintenance off your child’s father if that’s what you choose. If it’s any consolation to you OP, I’ve never had a penny off my child’s father towards his upbringing.

Exactly.

Any parent hoarding their money away from their child because of a fear that their ex might have an easier life is a terrible person imo.

It’s clearly an emotive topic.
I wouldn’t be happy that anyone hasn’t had a contribution or half towards raising a child.
I fear this is thread going off the original question/ set of circumstances.

Firstly, you’ve plucked £500-£700 out of your backside. I got £200 for years. The costs of having children isn’t just for food/clothes. The resident parent has to house the children. If the kids weren’t there, they could live in a one bed flat instead of a 3/4 bed house. That’s a huge difference in cost. Then there’s the extra bills that come from running a bigger home. Childcare costs are exhorbitant, even just for breakfast club/after school never mind if you’ve got little ones in nursery full-time. There’s transport costs from all the running round they need. Food/clothes/activities/haircuts/presents/presents for all the birthday parties they attend/school lunches/furniture/bedding/holidays… I could go an all day. Kids cost a fucking fortune. My maintenance payment didn’t even cover half the childcare, never mind anything else!

The cost of raising children is mostly the lifestyle. If you're a single mum, with an aresehole x who thinks you should be grateful for a few quid, then you have to 1) take a job that works around your children, 2) deal with the consequences of that job paying less, 2a smaller pension contributions 2b decreased ability to save/get where you're going. These are the real costs.

This is a great post. Loss of freedom, loss of choices, loss of autonomy.

Our household running costs are £3600 per month (that's absolutely everything)

Let's allocate each child (we have 2) 20% each

£720 each per month.

They easily cost us more than 20%. I think our teen son counts for a significant proportion of the food and energy bills.

So I can easily see how it could cost £700 or more per month, per child!

I don't think it's going away from the point, I think you don't understand all of the reasons for child maintenance. It's not just to keep children fed, housed and clothed to see minimally acceptable standard. It's too ensure they don't lose out materially by having their parents split across two homes.

I don't take maintenance payments for my child. I have a house and her dad has a home. He still needs to pay his mortgage and costs when he has her. NRP still need a room for the child. They still have costs. How many NRP or single people live in 1 bedroom flats?

I don’t think the thread is going off topic OP. You said you don’t see how a child can cost £500 per month and we’re saying the children of high earning parents do have these amounts spent on them and why should they stop just because of divorce? The NRP should want a great life for their children, not just a ‘good enough’ one.

This.

7% of a monthly salary per child is ridiculous. I'm astonished it's that low. And that's on the basis of one parent having 100% residency. So if residency is 50/50 there is no maintenance? And if it was say 60/40, the rate would be just 10% of the 7%?

The more critical question is, why isn't any regular (week in, week out) paid-for childcare taken out of the calculation entirely and split 50/50 separately.
My friend gets £200 a month for her son, ex has him every other weekend overnight, it costs her £800 a month to put him in nursery because guess what, she works full time. Ex won't pay because there's nothing saying he has to. It should be treated separately! He should be forced to pay half - but nope. Never understood why childcare isn't calculated separately (although of course, this would come with its own set of problems...)

Completely agree @Foxblue it must keep so many women in poverty.

Take into account that the resident parent will have extra childcare costs or will work shorter hours to accommodate school. A cost absorbed with two incomes/parents.

I get £0 per month, per year, per decade! Career has taken a dive, pension isn't great, social life non existent. Why advocate for men when they usually end up so much better off op???

Idk but seems rubbish in most circumstances..

Working single mums trying to juggle childcare, private rent (which is extortionate) with an ex paying 200 a month but gets to work full time without batting an eyelid..

But then you can get crap scenario for a dad too.

Wish they would put a bit of extra funds to do case by case. Look at both parties finances, and childcare needs to create proper equality for the children..that would probably save money long term as no one could swindle the system. Like the self employed, if you see their bills/rents/mortgage ect and the mothers bills with kids and childcare. Just see so many scenarios of people being screwed over, the system doesnt seem to benefit many at all.

I would agree. My ex pays £200 a month for a teenager. I could get more. But I earn double what he earns (and always did) so as long as he has money to treat DC when they stay with him once a month, and tbh he does, dinner out, new clothes etc. I’m happy. I could possibly get £280 a month (from CMS calculator) but why hassle it when Iv worked hard for my job and can support DC independently. The £200 goes directly to things DC wants/ pocket money etc and maybe a bottle of wine when DC has been a typical teenager 😉