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

Whoever is paying for their childcare costs are obviously making lots of money. I earn the average salary and still get a couple of hundred quid UC. My childcare costs were more or less paid for when I worked earning just about minimum wage and had tax credits.

I think not taking into account UC money for dc for low earners again isn't fair. If the cost is to be half than UC should be taken into account as an additional contribution towards dc and not just the lower earners contribution.

My ds is 14 now and I pay 300.00 per month mutual agreement between me and my ex.but I also pay for any games he wants and clothing etc.i think it can be very costly with younger children childcare etc and the cms payments probably don't reflect this enough.

Some of my friends ask me if I begrudge paying it beacuse she cheated on me and my answer is no,beacuse my ex is on benefits has 3 other children none of the dad's now have no contact with their children and pay not a penny.

The other children are not my responsibility but they must suffer with the only household income being on benefits.

Children are expensive but I strongly believe that the non residing parent should financially contribute everything they can to their children.their are many parents struggling and many many cases where they cms contributions don't reflect this.

but the idea is that £700 Is the ex"s half contribution, when combined with your £700, surely you can manage 2 kids on £1400 a month?

the ex contribute but so does the resident parent...

Without dc I could live in a 1 bed flat which would half my bills and probably save me £700 a month alone on my mortgage. I can't do that with dc, I have to have 3 bedrooms. Or at least 2 and sleep on the sofa.

But I do get your point op. I had a male friend whose ex wife was awful. She'd insist on him paying maintenance inline with CMS, but worked out on a monthly basis. He could always predict when she was looking at booking a holiday as she'd stop him seeing the kids and then up his payments inline with him never having the kids overnight. It was one of the many wonderful things she's use her dc for. Thankfully they are older now and choose to spend a lot more time with him.

Whoever is paying for their childcare costs are obviously making lots of money

And? Does that mean maintenance shouldn’t be paid?

If you have nursery fees. £500 alone could go on that!

I somewhat agree. My child doesn't cost much at all. My water bill is perhaps 10 pound more a month, food id say 200 extra, energy is about 150 extra as I put heating for kid. Clothes I probably spend 100 every 3 months so average 35 a month so approx 400 a month extra minus child benefit is 320 then my half would be 160.
If a food bill is 400, the resident parent should pay 300, their portion and the kids 50%.
On the flip side if a child DOES cost more, then the rp should absolutely be receiving that 50% of the child's cost (not their own) but they very rarely do.

The rp is also more limited career wise (am not a single parent so no skin in the game) but if I was a rp then my ability to build my career would be limited as I would not be as free to work and partake in travel for work for example.

What about medical and dental expenses?
What about music/swimming/sports/special interest groups/trips to the cinema/holidays/days out/phone/trips with groups/school trips/electronic devices/equipment for activities/hairdressers/winter coat/birthday parties/party gifts/travel expenses/restaurants/favourite foods/books/tutoring/fuel to bring them to the above....the list is endless.
Children, if given opportunities if available, cost HUNDREDS. Of course you can remove all discretionary expenses but why should the child do without any of the above because their parents separated?

I agree, it does not cost £500-£700 in costs. BUT for me, I have a much higher loss of earnings because my ex partner does not share childcare. I’ve had to change jobs to one with more “child care friendly hours”, I also can’t do the extra shifts that I used to because he won’t have our child.
costs me much much more than £500 a month plus loss in future pension

@Christmasnutcracker they shouldn't, hence why I said if they cost more they should absolutely have it paid for by both parents. I just gave a personal example of how id work it out in my own situation

Plus benefits on top for many. I've never quite understood why of hundred of pounds is paid and benefits often totaling hundred of pounds to support a child. Aware I'm going to get flamed and people will say well CN isn't guaranteed but for many CM is guaranteed and paid very regularly for years on end yet not taken into account at all ? Not saying it should be deducted in full or anything but to not be counted at all ?? Also childcare often paid almost in full be benefits too and NRP benefits by not having to contribute at all.

I'm a mortgaged home owner and ex is renting but he earns more than me, quits jobs when CMS ask him for a cash in hand, and tells his several partners he pays me generously rather than nothing so he gets out of paying their bills (proven by two exes) so don't necessarily think all resident mums are out for their own agenda

Are you a single parent or speaking on something you know nothing about?

When I divorced my exH the judge absolutely took into consideration the lifestyle my DCs had when we were together. We’d decided before they were born that they would have a SAHP and for many reasons I was that parent. My ExH was adamant that I ought to return to work but the judge disagreed. And made financial orders accordingly. £500-£700 a month would not be close to enough …

How many years ago was this ? Would not be the norm today I don't think.

Being a single parent is a drastically different financial experience to parenting and sharing all costs as a couple. It‘s not just a case of working out how much your own kid costs.

You’re right, you don’t have to be single to know what children cost. You don’t even need that much imagination to have an idea which is why the OP’s comments are rather surprising.

When my ex opted out of parenting my main issue was not that the £150 monthly offering wasn’t enough to cover my child’s cost but that as a single parent my own earning potential was shot to shit and I could no longer enough to pay my share of child raising. Blows my mind that a parent wouldn’t want to help give their child all the things they need and all the opportunities they could afford.

Years ago the CSA told me that one of the reasons for child support was also part compensation to the full time parent for not being able to reach the same earning potential as the one not there. Hence it ending when the child was more able to be left alone etc. Mind you this was 1999 and was the CSA lol!

Absolutely blows my mind too!