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.

Gross salary, yes.
Net salary, no she isn't.

Yes, the silly little woman should be thanking her lucky stars that she's on more than minimum wage and leave her ex to enjoy his big manly wage in peace.

Why is my income even up for discussion?!

The point is, our son is being funded mostly by me. When it should be half from me and half from his dad.

Ah yes, silly woman, get back in your box. Mother's aren't allowed to earn more than NMW. Definitely can't have a career. We should be sat behind a till in full make up, earning part time pocket money while our husbands work hard at the bank to provide for our children, who are entirely the woman's responsibility otherwise.

Thank god she does earn more than NMW, seeing as his father buggered off and doesn't even want to see him, never mind provide for him.

You are actually on more money NET per month that your ex (after he has paid his CMS, and that's not including child benefit or anything else you might get.

Which is a lot. Calm down.

And after her costs for the child are subtracted how do those sums look then?

@Bunnyasmyname i then spend almost half on our son including nursery fees. Whilst he spends zero.

Let’s see your maths, then.

I actually disagree @whatnowws

I think that things should be split proportionately to be fair.

For instance if one partner earns 25k and the other earns 75k then the higher earner should pay 3/4 of all costs in the household, as otherwise 50:50 disproportionately benefits the higher earner and leaves the lower earner struggling. Or the higher earner could set up a trust fund or something for the DC in addition to paying half costs.
Jlo could defo manage a trust fund 🙌

So. Assuming there are student loan repayments + 10% pension contributions….
XH earns £4114/month - £730 CM = £3884/month with no further contributions to the child (nursery, housing, clothes, food, etc).
OP earns £2631/month + £730 CM - £1700 nursery = £1661/month, with all further DC obligations: housing, clothes, food, etc.
So XH has more than double what OP has. Plus she has to fund everything else DC will need in the month. Pretty basic maths, really.

@whatnowws

I don’t think you are getting this.

Up to 85% of your childcare costs could be covered by UC.

You don’t have to pay them all. You are choosing to pay them all and haven’t filled in applications to give you support in your new circumstances.

Yes it would be great if he said 50:50 and you didn’t have to apply for anything, but he isn’t.

Overall I think you will end up with more, so I think you will be ok.

From an outsiders perspective, this appears to be more that you want him to financially hurt for what he has done to you, and you are appalled the authorities can’t hold him to account and ‘make him pay’.

Or maybe she doesn't think it's right that any parent can just walk away and the taxpayer then has to fund her child, just so she can go to work.

Why do you think that's acceptable?

taxpayer here. I don’t want to ‘see him hurt’. I just want to see him pay for the child he created, rather than forcing her to go to the state. I don’t want my taxes paying for this feckless arsehole’s nursery fees when he can well afford it. Here are plenty of much more useful things the Uk could be using the money for.

Couldn’t resist…

Because the system is set up to support single parents and allow them to reclaim some of their tax to get through difficult circumstances so that the child is provided for and doesn’t grow up to be a burden on the state.

The system is what it is and I really don’t think OP should be having herself and child suffer.

Yes he should pay, he’s horrible, and there may be a legal way to approach this… meantime she has to provide for the child and claim what she is due for her single parent household.

That’s the reality.

If they’d been married and had assets she could get up to 70% and a better arrangement but they weren’t so she can’t and has to deal with what is possible.

@Cotopoxy

We all want that, but no amount of giving off or moaning from us on MN is going to practically change how things are.

All we can do is practically advise OP of where she can get financial support. And to tell her to see a solicitor, but there might be nothing to be done.

So because the system is set up, parents don't have to pay? The system being in place doesn't make it right. That's what you aren't getting.

Personally I'd much rather my taxes were spent on the NHS. Or the school system. Or supporting children who have lost their parents or suffered abuse. This father not providing for his child means other "systems" don't get the funding because single parents are having to claim when their co parent turns out to be a deadbeat.

Nope the woman can also walk away, pay cms and be done with it Gender is irrelevant

Wrong - CMS is an arbitrary fine paid by the parent who has the child on fewer nights to the parent with the child on more nights.

It has no relation to what's fair to either parent nor what the child or either parent needs.

Frequently it will leave the resident parent in poverty, other times it will push the paying parent and their family into poverty.

It was designed by people who're mathematically and logically illiterate, to win votes by punishing "absent fathers".

What's fair is irrelevant.

Well I agree with you, of course he should pay.

But equally they have two separate households now, two sets of bills so that in itself brings up the eligibility for UC and similar.

And I don’t think any child should suffer hardship because their father is being a knob.

She has stated already that she is not entitled to UC.

Fathers household doesn't count if he's not having the child. He could live in a share house, or something within his means, after he's provided for the child he willingly created.

If he doesn't want to equally provide for a child, he should have taken precautions to ensure he never had one. As it is, his options following having a child should be:

1. Stay with the family and everyone contributes together.
2. Leave the family, but have the child 50% of the time and be financially responsible for everything in that time.
3. Leave the family, have the child less / never but contribute equally to all essential child related things.

Anything else is putting it on the tax payer, which is not acceptable in the eye of the majority of tax payers.

What percentage of women does that compared to men?

Based upon the information provided by the OP and mortgage payments of £1000 p/m, the OP would be entitled to UC.

I think that might unlock free childcare?

The OP has stated that she’s not entitled to UC.