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

@Babyroobs Pre Covid. So 2019 I think. To be honest I was pretty amazed. ExH had an entire ‘legal team’, I represented myself. It probably didn’t go in his favour that he had stopped paying anything until I took it to court …. The judge was lovely. Maybe I just got lucky.

But who pays for childcare in this scenario? To work full time you need childcare. Most parents who pay CMS don't also pay half of the childcare bill on top.

And if the other parent doesn't work, it's even more unequal. Someone calculated once that to outsource everything a SAHP does it would cost £200k a year ,(cleaner, childcare, overnight childcare). That's the genuine economic value of what parents looking after the kids most of the time contribute.

The maintenance cost is measly by comparison.

What about compensating for the hit the mothers career and pension take from childcare responsibilities

And that's partly the problem when working out the costs of being a parent.
Some have to pay for childcare. Some don't.
Some make career sacrifices. Some don't.
Some have foreign holidays. Some don't.
Etc etc.

People seem to forget that the contribution is supposed to be for half of the costs incurred for the days the RP has the child over the NRP. It's not supposed to cover the cost of raising the child entirely or even half of it.

This comes up all the time on here and it’s completely incorrect.

The contribution is not meant to be half of the costs.

The contribution is a set percentage of the NRP’s income. The costs of raiding the child do not actually play a factor in the contribution calculation at all hence why some people pay £7 a week and some £700.

The children are meant to have a lifestyle in proportion to their parents income. Not a 50/50 split of costs. That’s not the calculation at all.

DP pays £2100 a month to ex for two DC. There are no childcare costs (both are in school and walk to school, 5 mins away) and they stay with us maybe 30% of the time, alternate weekends and most of holidays.

I fully agree that he should be paying his fair share, although for various reasons it does seem very generous to me. When my parents split, my dad paid nothing and we lived with mum 100%, it was really hard.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned on this thread, is that most NRPs also have to pay for extra space, we have a bedroom etc for 2 DSC here, which will have to increase to two bedrooms soon as they get older. So both parents are paying for extra bedrooms usually.

I feel for all posters getting ripped off, and I agree that raising a child is bloody expensive!

This is why I think that there should be a minimum contribution for the NRP. it should be based upon half of the costs of raising the average child in that region (including half of the difference between the average one-bed and the average two-bed in the region). This should be due regardless of the NRP's declared income - no more working cash-in-hand or just not working to avoid paying anything. You fathered the child, you should pay half of their upkeep. Failure to contribute should carry some real penalties - I hear that in the US your driving licence may be withheld if there are arrears.

You've misunderstood the post: it's not the calculation but it is the purpose. Otherwise, you end up with exactly what the the OP is talking about with a NRP who is funding their share of the child's expenses and a further chunk of the RP's expenses. That makes it maintenance and alimony instead. Of course, that only happens in cases where the NRP's maintenance is above the average level.

The point I made is that maintenance is not, as the poster said “supposed to be for half of the costs incurred for the days the RP has the child over the NRP”

That gets said all the time on here and is completely incorrect.

But who pays for childcare in this scenario? To work full time you need childcare. Most parents who pay CMS don't also pay half of the childcare bill on top.

The reality for many is that tax payers pay the childcare bill in the form of benefits.

I’d say the biggest expense is childcare or reduced working hours. If you have family that look after them it will make a big difference. If they broke down all these things the system would be too complicated and claims would need to be changed constantly. Of all the single mums I know non of them get £700 or any where near it. I’m sure all of them would rather have a had a dad for their kids who actually stuck around/wasn’t abusive/gave a shit.

CMS is only paid if there is a disparity in the amount of time the child spends in the two different homes - ie. if there is a RP and an NRP.

Taking care of a child takes a) time and b) money.

50/50 care agrees with this, as then there is equal time and (in theory) equal money incurred therefore no maintenance due either way.

When one parent has 100% of the time burden, I think the fair thing would be for the other parent to have 100% of the financial burden personally, and that grade down as care becomes more shared.

And since it's not fair to put an extra time burden on the RP to calculate these costs (which are a case of how long is a piece of string), the % of the NRP's salary seems to me to be the imperfect, but probably best tool available for that.

I was that poster and was explaining the purpose of the maintenance, not the calculation.

What does get said all the time on here, and even repeatedly in this thread, is the notion that the maintenance payment is what it costs to raise a child or what they have to raise a child on. It's not. Every poster here who has said, for example, 'my children cost more than £500 a month so that's not a high enough payment' is completely choosing to ignore:

1. their own matching financial contribution,
2. to adjust for the days with RP and NRP.

They respond from an emotional place with 'bare minimum' and 'what kind of man?' etc. but, when you look at this from a purely mathematical standpoint, there is a clear tipping point. Below it, the RP is covering more than their share of the child's costs and so easing the life of the NRP. Above it, the NRP is covering more than their share of the child's costs and so subsidising the life of the RP.
That's the point the OP was making.

who looks after them in the school holidays? Or after they come home from school?
If he makes enough that he is asked to contribute £2100 he must be a very high earner. Does he not think his children should benefit from that? Would he want them to buy secondhand clothes while he makes hundreds of thousands?

And I was making the point that your statement was wrong.

There is no “matching” contribution. That’s my point. Parental financial contributions are not necessarily meant to be 50/50. The child’s lifestyle is meant to be a percentage contribution of their parents income. Some NRPs and RPs will pay 50/50, some will be 70/30 and some will be 20/80.

The sentence I quoted is perpetuating the myth that maintenance is to pay for half of the expenses if the child (as it literally said) when they are with the NRP and that is not correct.

Yabu

How much a child costs to raise is flexibile and adjusted according to the affluence of the parents.

Of course families living on the breadline manage to nake ends meet on a tiny amount. Other families where one or more parent earns 6 figures will spend way more on each child.

When the parents split they are not divorcing their child, they remain their parent. The non resident parent absolutely should contribute in proportion to their income. The child has a right to live in a lifestyle/affluence bracket reflecting their parents affluence. The amount calculated by CMS is a pittance and a decent person who is the NRP and not a selfish arsehole should contribute much more. The money is for the child, not for the ex.

But the purpose of child maintenance is to cover a proportion of the cost of raising the child. The mismatches within the ratios are because of the way it's calculated using an imperfect system. The fact that the amount changes when there's a change to the days with RP and NRP demonstrate this.

In a perfect world, the costs of raising a child should be split equally between the two parents who created that child. When it's not, one side of the balance is subsidising the other and, in that case, the payment (or lack of payment) is no longer 'for the child'.

@Itsbeginingtolookalotlikexmas
we look after them in the school holidays, we are happy to, they are lovely kids. He doesn’t earn hundreds of thousands, he chooses to pay roughly half of his salary. The kids want for nothing, he buys them new school shoes whenever needed (£100 usually!) and they have brand new iPads and phones. I don’t think they know what second hand clothing is.

I just wanted to add this perspective because it sounds like he is in the minority, but it does happen. He loves his kids very much and wants the best for them.

The purpose of maintenance is for the child to have a lifestyle in proportion to their parents joint income. It is not for the NRP to pay a set half of the costs while the child is with the RP, which is the point I was correcting.

That one parent pays more than the other does not necessarily mean they are subsiding their ex. It means they are paying for a lifestyle proportionate to their income.

Should the child of a CEO and a binman live a lifestyle that is 50/50 based on the binman’s salary? Or a child of a professional footballer and a cleaner? Or a nurse and a banker?

Paying more toward your child than their other parent because you earn more is paying for your child’s lifestyle. Not subsiding your ex. And that attitude is why so many men get away with the “I’m not paying, she just uses is for her hair and nails” bullshit,

just thinking of some of our monthly costs and it hits that level

food: £100-150
share of housing costs to cover: £150 (which wouldn’t be near the real cost)
childcare (wraparound) £100 (way more in the holidays!)
piano lessons £75
football £80
cubs £10
a child’s day out or activity a month £100
clothes £30
school trips averaged £20
school diners £80
school shoes £20
otger stuff that come up I.e school pictures, kids parties, swimming, school fayres etc £20
minimum one holiday per year averaged per month £60

thats nearly £1000 a month

YetMoreNewBeginnings
That one parent pays more than the other does not necessarily mean they are subsiding their ex. It means they are paying for a lifestyle proportionate to their income.

But this is only true if the payments are used purely for the child's expenses and if the other parent is also making their own reasonable contribution. Otherwise, there is subsidising happening.

If there is a NRP who is paying a tiny amount of maintenance, or none at all, it isn't said that he's just paying his proportion and that's fine. It's recognised that the RP is picking up the lion's share of the tab and, in effect, subsidising the costs that should be covered by the NRP. This thread proves it with it's 'deadbeat dad' and 'not a real man' and 'bare minimum' statements.

So when the opposite is true and the NRP's payments cover more than their share and the RP is paying a small percentage of the costs of raising their shared child (in effect, being subsidised), why don't we hear 'deadbeat mum' or 'a real woman wouldn't do this'?

Just as there are examples of the RP doing everything and the NRP gaming the system or being a lazy fucker and not pulling their weight, there are also examples of the opposite. That's what the OP was flagging and asking about.

It’s a contribution to the rent / mortgage / portion of bills. It’s not just their food and club costs. You are being unreasonable