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.

CB was originally non means tested as it ensued that mothers had money towards looking after their children in circumstances where their high earning husbands didn't provide adequate financial support / financially abused them.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1802/calculator/index.html

OP is not wealthy. £46k is not wealthy. Not even close.

Your views show HUUUUUGE amounts of jealousy and MEGA MEGA MEGA amounts of ignorance.

If you think this woman is in a privileged position right now, I question your education or intelligence. Stop racing full pelt to the bottom, own your sexism and do better.

(using your own childish style to help you understand)

Absolutely he should. However current rules say she can get 15% of his income. I’m just trying to offer practical help. A lot of people don’t realise they can qualify for UC if they have a decent salary. If the OP gets £730 in child maintenance and £540 UC plus child benefit it should cover 50% of her DCs costs.

This is not a problem isolated to CM. If you look at the gender politics of aid spending, broadly speaking women spend aid money on their children and household expenses while men spend more of it on themselves.

There were very good reasons for having a universal child benefit system, with child benefit going to the mother.

People assume that high earning father = children taken care of, but in an alarming number of families, this isn't the case.

@Pallisers

First off 80 + 46 is 126…. Not 150

But this isn’t about their combined income.

They are not a couple. They do not live together. They are two separate households.

He has abandoned her and is going to pay the minimum he can in maintenance for his child who he will not raise with her.

The government has UC which is an amalgamation of many benefits, one of which is tax credits.

So yes I do think in this instance that the OP does deserve a reimbursement of some of her tax in her particular very difficult circumstances.

That is what benefits are for. To support people in difficult circumstances, to level the playing field a bit and to not drive people into financial hardship.

She is eligible, so why shouldn’t she claim?

Or do you think that a woman should suffer endlessly and be a martyr for a man’s bad behaviour?

I agree with you OP that is an absolute joke, I understand how that amount might look like a lot on paper but taking his earnings into account he should be contributing a lot lot more to his child.

First off 80 + 46 is 126…. Not 150

@Imogenie 🤣🤣🤣

I don’t know how we’re supposed to be talking sense to some of these people when even the most basic of concepts aren’t grasped. 🤣

CM agreed as part of a divorce can be set aside after a year, so those crowing about 'she should have been married' are wrong. Also a year is ample time for the man (as it usually is) to start hiding/diverting income.

@sixtyandsomething yet you can’t see that this situation isn’t fair at all?

There’s a spectrum to education. I think you’re on one end, sadly. I’m sorry you think 44k is wealthy and privileged. And even more sorry you can’t apply your mind to fairness outside of what you may perceive as ‘wealth.’

I’ll try one last time to break it down for you…even if Jennifer Lopez had a baby with a man earning 20k a year, if they spoilt up, he should still pay HALF the costs of raising his child. If you don’t get this concept, I strongly recommend revisiting any education you did receive. Good look.

*split

Yes the OP might be getting more than average but my god it feels unfair that he can bugger off, do whatever working pattern he wants and leave all the responsibility on the OP to manage everything, have all of the load for the child and then have to pay all the high nursery costs. It is much better longer term if the OP can continue to work- she shouldn’t have to rely on benefits. I agree that we are holding fathers to too low a standard.

Just for a little context as to how it is done in Switzerland (which should NOT be one´s yardstick to measure equality between the sexes):

The parent who shoulders the care of the child is the one that supplies child maintenance in naturalia ("natural maintenance). That is the emotional and physical care. It is generally assumed that the other parent supplies the financial maintenance.

Which is done as follows:

First take the salary of the non-resident parent. Then detract what is considered their essential living costs. If there is a sufficient amount of money to cover ALL the financial needs of the child, the parent´s living expenses may be boosted to include non-essentials.

Then you calculate the "Barunterhalt" which would be translated as cash maintenance. It is what the child physically needs aka a fixed amount for food, a share of the housing costs of the resident parent AND also childcare, if that applies.

In a second step you will calculate the Betreuungsunterhalt. Which could be loosely translated as child maintenance for (parental) care. This is the money the resident parent looses due to taking care of the child. If that loss means that the resident´s parents essential living costs are not covered, the resident parent has the right to be reimbursed for that loss by the non-resident parent.
Resident parents of very young children can claim all their (legally recognised) living costs, when the child is school aged it is expected for them to work 50%, but if that does not cover their costs they can still claim a certain amount of maintenance until the child is 16. This is NOT spousal maintenance btw and is in no way dependant on the child´s parents having been married. (= this would probably not apply to you, seeing as you can cover your costs living expenses with your salary).

Or in other words: In your situation your ex would have the right to cover his essential (and due to having sufficient funds) not so essential living expenses.
He would have to cover all the child´s essentials including ALL childcare. If you have to reduce your workload to take care of the LO and therefore could not cover your own recognised living expenses he would have to cover that las well.

And if there is money left over after this calculation, the child would have the right to a percentage amount of that. That´s called the division of the surpluss and is meant to cover complete non-essentials like holidays or extra-curriculars.

Wow, I just realised that this is a massive wall of text. [laugh]

TL;DR:
The Swiss system recognises that the parental care of a resident parent (aka the natural maintenance) is as valuable as financial maintenance and tries to distribute the entire burden of financial and "natural" maintenance equally between both parents.

Edit: This is not legal advice. Contact a qualified attorney if you´re in Switzerland and are considering a child maintenance claim / considering a child maintenance claim that may be subjected to a ruling made with consideration to the Swiss system.

I’m on your side generally but that Jennifer Lopez point is a bit weird to me. If one parent is excessively wealthy, like a millionaire, I think getting maintenance off of someone who is on the breadline is a bit petty and actually cruel. That is not your situation though.

This is a known issue. It’s also a major problem on divorce / separation threads when a woman asks for advice on leaving with loads of posters (who clearly don’t have a clue) confidently charging in to post that if a woman leaves her husband / partner, of course he will have to pay half the nursery fees. Those of us who actually know the law sometimes get drowned out.

It is appalling and shouldn’t be allowed. It’s also one of the reasons people say don’t have kids with a higher earner without being married. It’s not some weird Victorian morality (as I was notably accused once), it’s because the court can give greater assets to the partner doing all the child care in a marriage split which they can’t when an unmarried couple separate.

Just because the system is shit doesn't mean we need to validate that!

The JLO point is an extreme example to make OPs point.

It doesn't matter what each parent earns. The principle should be that each parent contributes equally to the child they equally made.

Why should Joe Average get to keep all his 20k while JLO pays for all the food, childcare, housing, clothing etc as well as being the parent physically responsible? Same as why should OPs ex get to keep all his 80k (minus 700 quid a month) while she pays for literally everything else, and works, and does all the physical and emotional side of child rearing?

Only if JLo is prepared to raise her child in line with her ex’s income. Otherwise, I could see this rule being used by vindictive exes to financially abuse the poorer partner (usually the woman).

To continue the JLo analogy, if she wants nannies, private jets and limos, she doesn’t get to send an ex on £20,000 a year the bill (and obviously this is a hypothetical and she hasn’t done anything of the sort).

Ok so you will get the child benefit and tax free childcare which should help towards childcare cost, plus the 30 hours.

I do think its odd that cm calculations don't require parents to split childcare bills but i suppose it would become very difficult to work out everyone's precise arrangements with part time hours, some nurseries are extremely expensive so people would argue over using cheaper options etc

But those are lifestyle choices, not essential things for raising the child. Essential things are as I stated before, food, clothing, housing, childcare. Why shouldn't dad be expected to contribute half of the essentials just because mum is a millionaire? Just the same as he should be expected to contribute half of the essentials if he were the millionaire.

Reverse it. Joanne Public and Ben Affleck have a baby and he walks away. Is she expected to use her entire 20k salary to raise their child? Or should he pay half?

Yes I see that you are offering help, and OP should follow your advice, but I just think it’s shocking, really shocking that this is what it’s come to. That man ought to be paying the costs of bringing up his child. And he’s not. and no one is holding him to account.

@whatnowws some ppl can be so cruel and selfish - no one knows your situation but you and at the end of the day cm is a joke - although that doesn’t seem a lot when you look at your own sums it’s huge in comparison to others - still isn’t fair when your the one having to cover the costs to support your child.
mine has to dropped to £170 pm for 3 children as he would rather quit his job and go part time and cash in hand than contribute- however after years of giving it energy , I have just decided to roll with it! It seems as though they can live beyond their means and the parent that parents have to struggle - you can raise an investigation whereby the Cms will look deeper , such a shame their are so many that don’t choose to contribute as a necessity for their children - it maybe worth looking at dropping some hours so you get nursery assistance and help from uc - I’ve known others who have done so and they end up not far off where they were before but also gaining some home time with the children.

That would be ridiculous through as Jennifer could decide to buy her child diamond encrusted toys (because she wants to), someone on £20k can not afford to go half but this doesn't mean they are deadbeat and bad person.

Many dad are involved and they have to provide a home for their child too so women can't demand any figure they feel is half of costs that the dad doesn't get a day in how it is spent at mums house.
A percentage of wage is the only fair way

She lives in a $65 million mansion (one of several houses she shares with her children) and her childcare bills (multiple nannies) run to several hundred thousand dollars a year. At least. Plus she dresses her children in designer clothing ($600 for a child’s t-shirt).

If she is prepared to live like someone on $20,000 a year then sure, expect the hypothetical father to pay half. If she wants to live a luxury life (and why shouldn’t she, she’s earned it) then, no, she doesn’t get to send a bill to her ex.

And no, I don’t think Ben Affleck should pay half if he had a child with someone on $20,000 a year. That would leave his child with a far lower standard of living than he has or his other children have. He should be paying a lot more than half.

I don’t actually see how this is relevant to the OP, though. Based on the fact she earns £40,000 and her ex earns £80,000, I take the view he should be paying 2/3 of the child’s full expenses (whatever those expenses may be).

@sixtyandsomething op is far from ‘mega loaded’. She is on £46k. Friends on £250k basic, plus £2 million bonus, are mega loaded. Op is simply on a bit more than minimum wage.