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.

Childcare is expensive. They can always cut their hours and do their share of it, rather than expecting to outsource it to others without paying a fair rate.

Of course it is if it is covering 24/7 childcare because they can’t be arsed to parent their own children. How much do you think it would cost Op to have 24/7 childcare for a week?
The choice is theirs, take on some of the care, or pay for opting out - equal responsibility.

The fact he isn't seeing the child and has no overnights will already be taken into consideration with the amount she receives.

That calculation of £3k a month suggests that the NRP should pay the RP the nursery rate for the time the child is not in nursery. Or am I missing something?

And how are they going to take this money. Can't take direct from wages if it's more than they earn?
Send them to jail? Then RP gets less as they won't be working at all.

I'm all for making sure that NRP are supported to 50:50 when the RP is preventing it. I'm all for NRP having to take on responsibility child care when they are refusing (but not sure how you could enforce this)

but be realistic you can not pour a gallon of water out of a 1 litre bottle. You can not take more money off someone than they earn full stop. You can not leave someone with no money at all because they will die if they can't afford food (meaning they aren't working at all so no income) you can not leave them with nothing so they live on the street because I'm pretty sure RP don't want their kids staying over night on the street with Dad. In also guessing the may struggle to hold down their job.

No bank is going to lend them the money each month knowing they won't ever earn enough to pay it back.

Here's an interesting idea... The NRP should pay the RP the cost of outsourcing childcare for half the week (so £12-18ph babysitting rate), plus the usual expenses (food, trips out) that one would fund for a nanny or babysitter.

No, you are not missing anything: NRP will have to pay RP for the childcare that RP does instead of NRP. Or are you assuming that NRP childcare work is not worth anything?

Strange how many men are happy to leave their kids with no money for food.

Yes we know that, that’s the whole point of this thread, that he doesn’t have to cover childcare in his maintenance payments! I’m talking about what I think would be fair.

The OP has calculated the figure as over £700 - I think the child is going to be fed

life isn't fair

Well let me ask you, what happens to the resident parent if they work full time but leave the child at home with no childcare because they can’t afford it? Do you think a court shrugs and says fair enough, if you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it?

I don't see the logic in that. It implies that all parents should be paid by "someone" for being parents. The nearest we get to that is child benefit, which the RP will be getting anyway.

Thanks Captain Obvious

Again, I do not see a problem here: just treat this money as a personal loan (from RP to NRP) with all the standard legal consequences. That is, the right of lender to claim the loan and to bankrupt the borrower with ceasing the asserts if more than £5K owned and not paid.

If the NRP is not working, they can take more hours of childcare I thought it is obvious. Nobody wants to leave NRP with no money, but if they can't pay for their share they can not be an NRP being NRP is a luxury, not a right.

@Naunet

The 2 situations aren't the same are they. The NRP isn't leaving the child home alone. If either parent left the child at home alone that is illegal.

If NRP has child at their house and needs to go to work, out for any reason they need to take child with the. Or sort child care via a paid for provision or with a trusted adult or their choice.

Exactly the same for the RP

Great so Mums are just going to allow their children to live full time with dad and they will pay the £3k a month right to dad.

Now you are missing something: they will not be paying "someone", they will be paying the person who is doing their work instead of them (i.e. RP). The parent that personally takes care of a child 3.5 days a week will not have to pay anything to anyone.

👍

They’re not the same, exactly because the law allows the NRP to opt out of their responsibilities. In OPs case he never has responsibility for childcare, it’s all on her, because he’s opted out. So why shouldn’t he have to pay more for that luxury? Is he not just as responsible for his child as she is?

What if OP wants to opt out for a week?

I would like a world where on separation that it is the norm for truly 50:50 care and this is set up as standard.
No need for maintenance and child benefit split between both households.

In cases where 1 parent tries to stop this or the parent doesn't do their 50% that the court them steps in and the guilty party is fined accordingly

But I do t believe that this will happen because I think too many mothers wouldn't want their child with dad 50% of the time

You've missed my point, actually. The "someone" is doing the paying. The implication of your calculation is that all parents should be paid childcare rates for looking after their children - who is the "someone" who pays parents when they stay together to bring up their children and they both work?

There was a long thread on this a few months ago.

Lots of women in relationships don't seem to know this stuff prior to getting pregnant!

Good riddance to him.

It's better than him claiming 50/50 then paying you zilch!

You are still not seeing it. Let's do it step by step: both parents have equal responsibility, right? This implies that in any given week each parent should contribute 3.5 days of childcare, right? If one parent decides to contribute zero, they are contracting the other parent to do 3.5 days EXTRA. This must be paid for, no?

No, because parents are not paid to provide care for their own children. There are associated costs - food, housing, heating, clothing, entertainment - but no-one is paid to be a parent. CMS payments are meant to cover the NRP contribution to the costs for the time the children are not with them.