To be AMAZED at this cms calculation?

[whatnowws]

Recently split from DS’s dad. He won’t communicate or see ds, so after several weeks I contacted cms. They are getting in touch with him but… the claim is for 730 a month?!? He earns almost 80k? How can this be right?

meanwhile, I’m earning 46k and paying 1,700 in nursery costs and all other costs for ds?

how on earth is that supposed to be fair?! This calculation is also assuming he continues not to see ds. If he wants him a night or more then costs reduce further… basically he can do what he wants and I’m expected to pick up the financial pieces no matter what.

Genuine question - should it be half of housing? I don't think it should but not wanting to derail. Surely both parents need somewhere to live?

£300 pm for 2 kids over here 🙃 it's despicable

Ok. So either you agree that it's totally fair that one parent can walk away and pay a pittance and the remaining parent has to pick up all the responsibility both physically and financially. Or you just like to shoot down anyone who dares think something should change, with no real solutions or thoughts of your own to offer.

Which is it? You support child abandonment or have nothing constructive to offer the world?

So what? Just because she has a decent income doesn’t mean he should abdicate all responsibility. It’s not a race to the bottom.

My ex pays £13 per week, per child. So £39 a week, and still complains that I'm somehow scamming him. It's disgusting, i completely agree with you and you have my sympathy. It's just another battle for us to fight when we're already fighting battles on every front 😔😔

CMS needs to change massively. Tbh, I think it would be worthwhile for the state to save on having to make up the shortfall. It's the same reason that a living wage is better. Otherwise you need benefits to save fathers/employers money.

I used to receive £193 a month for ds. They didn't care about our nursery fees. £700-odd is huge!

I don't have all the answers. But I do believe that circumstances should be accounted for, rather than a blanket "pay x% and leave the other parent to pick up the slack".

You are absolutely correct - it should be 50/50 of the child's costs (no matter how many other children he may choose to have) and the fact that it isn't is a national scandal.

If it were up to me that is what the required payment would be based on, regardless of income, and any failure to pay would be an accumulated debt to the mother and state jointly, affecting credit rating etc. until paid.

You are also correct that many women are brainwashed to turn against other women who happen to receive more than them under the current system rather than the useless so-called men with no decency and the absurd national structures that set up and maintain this state of affairs.

And I say this as a happily married woman who has never been at the sharp end of this either as a child or adult. Any fool can see it.

That sounds a lot. He won’t take that home after tax etc. Do you get help with nursery costs?

Exactly. The child has the right to be supported by both parents in accordance with their means. That means some link between the father's standard of living and the child's (even if not complete correlation).

It is the child's cost. Unless the DP is willing to look after the child half the time, or give the OP money to stay at home.

since when is 46K MASSIVE income?

Partly because it sounds like she's either chosen an extremely expensive option, or she's not claiming the tax-free childcare she's entitled to. If he's over 6 months (so 9 months by September) she should be getting 2 days a week free from September onwards, so already that should be bringing the bill down to £1020 and his payment makes up the bulk of that. And that's covering 3 meals a day plus snacks for 5 days a week, so the only expenses she has to pay are weekend costs and the minimal amount of hot water and electric used by a baby.

You are absolutely correct - it should be 50/50 of the child's costs (no matter how many other children he may choose to have) and the fact that it isn't is a national scandal.

So the parent left with the children decides to choose the most expensive nursery in the area because the other parent will pay half of it? What happens if the other parent earns less?

The CMS and before that the CSA was set up to force the other parent, mainly fathers but not always, to pay for their children's upkeep.

I suspect the hope was to get them to start paying then there would be enough influence from society so it was normal to pay towards your children. (Just like random example most people drive with their seat belt on.)

Do you want help or not OP? Or did you just come here to moan?

Your ex obviously isn’t going to pay more regardless of whether you want it or not. Write a letter to your MP if you want to feel like you’re doing something to change that but it’s not going to happen overnight just because a load of people on mumsnet think the system should be changed. People are trying to give you advice and signpost to help that is available to you and quite frankly you’re just being rude.

Or the OP lives in an expensive area like London?

I’ve only read some of these comments but appalled at how people are trying to say it’s ok he contributes a tiny proportion of both his salary and the actual costs just because they get less. Why should the child suffer? Why should the mum give up work? As for saying the nursery fees are huge they are very average for a full time place where I live. In fact most of the nurseries are over £2k per month here so even with some free hours it will still be over half the amount the dad is paying. Plus if he doesn’t agree to pay it there will be recovery costs on top. Saying it’s ok because others get less just perpetuates why single mothers often cannot work as much as they want, and are affected by their pension contributions reducing and also having the emotional costs of raising a child alone too. We should be arguing for a better system not fighting each other

I’m getting £7 a week. Haven’t had more than that for the last 16 years. It’s an absolute joke. Over £3000 in arrears as well.

She's not being rude. Quite frankly it's many other posters that are being rude to her.

I imagine. We’re in London and our (very cheap) nursery is £1350 for full time with the 15 hours. Most others are at least £300-500 more even with the “free hours”

Basically yes - you have a financial penalty for being a woman and having a child and not choosing to walk away.

It is absolutely crap, CMS rates are a joke, men are (often) bastards and yes the cost of raising your child will fall largely to you for the next 20 odd years.

It is true that many, many mothers deal with this without having two decent salaries as a starting point - and I can’t begin to describe how stressful and unpleasant that is - so in some ways you are in a fortunate position compared to others. But the position is still crap and I really sympathise if you didn’t have any idea of ow this would play out financially, you must be having a complete shock.

I’d only say, for your child’s sake, try not to make your life and your/his relationship with his dad (if one develops) about money - it’s a toxic dynamic for you both to live with. It’s bloody difficult, but it really is better for everyone if you can separate these issues.

It is sadly true that you may be marginally better off financially In the short term if you drop some hours and pick up UC input, especially in nursery fees (you can earn a decent salary and still get this). At the very least make sure you’re doing the tax free childcare thing. But with the long term in mind I would do everything I could to maintain and even increase your salary, even though it means taking a financial hit until you’re entitled to some free hours etc, get to primary school etc.

Be mindful of the fact that a secure job, and any job with some flexibility in hours/working patterns, where you are trusted and there’s some give and take etc is gold dust when you are in this position. Also be mindful that, while nursery is a massive cost, children also do get expensive on other fronts as they grow and you can’t get much help with utilities/food/rent or mortgage/activities/clothes/uniform/shoes/
birthdays/ christmases/presents at birthday parties etc etc So if taking less hours now is possible then great, but don’t get trapped on a low income if you aren’t confident you can quickly bounce back in your career once free nursery hours/primary school start, or the pain will just carry on even longer.

Welcome to single parenthood. It sucks.

That's some quite extreme mental gymnastics you've done there.

The state cannot get involved in squabbles between parents. They have worked out an amount that is supposed to support roughly 50% of costs for a child averaged out across their lives (so yes, it might be less than 50 when they are a toddler in full time childcare and more when they are in school) without causing financial hardship to the other parent.

It does not always work out as fair and there are definitely kinks to be ironed out.

However, suggesting that CMS should be used as a some sort of punishment to deal with bad spouses is ridiculous.

My son’s dad only has our son every other weekend (his choice) as a result he only needs and apparently can only afford a 1 bedroom flat. Whereas my son is with me every single day and except 3 days a month - this means he needs his own bedroom.

I'm in the south east and the difference between a 1 bedroom and a 2 bedroom here is 300+ pounds. Not taking into consideration how much more my gas and electric and water bill is because my son lives here. Don’t get me started on how much food shopping costs (especially since my son is ND) but his dad only pays barely even a fraction of the costs

She earns 46k!!! Do you think thats reasonalbe that someone on that income would be able to claim UC?