How would you change child maintenance?

[CountessaExplainsItAll]

I’d make it direct pay as standard, coming from PAYE wages, like an unavoidable tax which is paid when they are.

I’d make arrears payable over the next tax year. If unpaid, assets should be seized.

I’d increase the percentage of salary paid by NRPs with no overnights significantly. NRPs who do weekly overnights have much higher costs than those who don’t.

I’d stop the reduction for NRPs living with other children they haven’t created or adopted.

I’d make maintenance count towards means-tested child benefits. If the NRP legitimately can’t pay (for instance because the parent is dead) then the state should.

I’d punish self-employed tax evaders more severely (not sure exactly how).

You?

Id make all assets of the NRP count towards child support, so stocks, shares and other wealth and stop them from being able to put extra in their pension to reduce their cms.

I think both parents should pay a percentage of their oncome into a CMS account. The receiving parent would get a CMS debit card to spend on the child and the spending is recorded.

I don’t see how that’d work. You’d have to do the child’s food shopping separately and how would you account for utilities?

I’d also make the website clearly state what the funds were for. So many RPs seem to think it should cover their rent, whereas if the NRP is also having overnights, those costs should be equally borne by both parents.

utterly daft. Coercive control victims would be subject to ongoing abuse.
The pressure around how to work budgeting and accounting for the resident parent would also be ridiculous!

That’s a silly idea for several reasons

I can see where @Cabdiraxman is coming from; that a lot of RPs think maintenance should cover all the costs of the child, or even half the costs, without considering their own contribution and the fact the NRP is also running their own house.

Unless there’s no overnights at all (in which case a much higher percentage should be paid), both parents have to pay mortgage/rent, council tax, travel costs, standing rates for utilities, clothes for their own house, etc.

Maintenance should be a contribution to the extras on top of that. So extra food, extra childcare, extra clothes. Not everything.

No. It’s just a stupid idea. There really is no “seeing it from their side.” Genuinely stupid ideas do not need to be given consideration. It is ok to simply say no.

I would include nursery fees in the calculations so one parent isn’t left paying £1600 a month for one child to attend nursery and £400 for wrap around for the other child whilst the other one is only assessed at having to pay £500 per month total….!

I’m talking about the concept, I already said it wouldn’t work.

NRPs aren’t on the line to pay for 100% of their household costs plus 50% of their ex’s household costs. The child maintenance service website should outline what the contribution is actually for.

I agree with everything you’ve said, OP. I don’t see why the state is made to step in when drop dead dads disappear. You father a child, you support that child 50/50 until he or she is 18/21. Take the money from these ‘fathers’ any way you need to. Send them to prison if they don’t cough up, like they do in the US. Illness/disability obviously excused. The children shouldn’t suffer but the rest of us shouldn’t have to foot the bill because some fool had a one night stand without thinking about the consequences. It beggars belief that people vilify single mums. The absent dads should be seen as the scum of the earth that they are.

Absolutely agree. It’s not fair for a NRP doing overnights to have to pay for two houses. I’d also like to see the NRP being able to buy essentials for the child like clothes, shoes, school uniform and equipment etc and have that taken into account.

Its very different where we live, I have no idea how successfully its enforced.

Here the parents have to submit how much the child/ren actually cost to raise.

So lets imagine they cost £1,000 a month and the RP earns £2,000 and the NRP earns £4,000, the NRP would be expected to pay £750 and the RP £250 towards their childs costs. It isn’t entirely as simple as that as the housing costs are also taken into account. So if the RP is mortgage free and the NRP isn’t that would reduce maintenance so the NRP can suitably house their child.

Its decided by courts, if the NRP pays for twelve months the court stops being involved and allows them to transfer the money directly.

If the NRP is a low earner and can’t afford to pay the RP then receives maintenance from the state which is about £180 a month.

People who give their children up to the state should have to pay it in the same way an NRP should

That is also a monumentally stupid idea. Controlling men will use that to control their exes. And I’d bet it wouldn’t take long for a man to take their ex to court to demand to see an entire inventory of all spending just because their ex got her hair cut once.

Child maintenance is not “for” anything specific. It is to help with the cost of raising a child, and simply goes into the household pot and is used however the parent sees fit. If it all goes on bills and they have no disposable income left then that’s totally fine, if it allows the parent to put money into savings then that’s fine. It doesn’t matter.

Too many men think that the woman should spend all money on bills and the child, and if she has any money left for a hair cut or to go out for lunch with friends then she is “spending my maintenance on herself.” No. There is absolutely no need for anyone to record their spending and no need to stipulate totally unworkable rules. It is truly idiotic.

Imputed salary based on previous earnings unless a person goes to court to show they simply can’t continue to earn at the same rate due to health or job market changes. Deciding to be a sahp, retiring, or choosing underemployment should not be a way to avoid supporting you children.

childcare costs should be shared regardless of custody schedules. Being able to earn is critical for avoiding household poverty and improving childhood outcomes.

unrelated children in the household should never be a part of maintenance calculations.

So much depends on nuance. If the NRP only has them weekends and holidays they dont have to live in the catchment of a good school so cheaper housing. If they are there x nights but only in the holidays they can have somewhat temporary arrangements such as a bunk bed but if its their main home, own room much more needed, especially with teens. Utility bills will be more if kids are in the RPs house using water and electricity all the time.

I would have a minimum nrp contribution based on NMW and if they cant pay it, the state does and it accrues to the NRP as debt (unless illness / disability prevents work). You could then, and only then link it to any other state benefit the RP receives. That link was broken for the very good reason that RPs were left high and dry when NRPs didn't pay.

What about paying council tax gas electricity etc?

I was thinking about this but I think it’d be impossible to govern. Who decides whether they use a childminder or a fancy nursery? Can an unemployed RP sign a child up to 60hrs a week nursery? Who gets the “free” hours?

I think the current percentages probably balance out over time. Kids are most expensive at nursery and teen ages but not that expensive at all in primary.

I reckon u and OP have an axe to grind re maintenance.
This all seems a bit complicated.
Not all single parents get maintenance and not all NR fathers are the scum of the earth.
Too much generalisation and prejudice.

My first suggestion would be that the rules around the financial settlement on divorce need to be taken into account.

I would also suggest that s in pre CSA days it should be possible to offset a higher lump sum against maintenance AND/OR the parent with care should be able to ask for a higher lump sum in lieu of maintenance if there was any issues about the likelihood of the paying parent not paying.

If you send them to prison though how does that help? They won’t be working so CMS will be nil.

when they get out they’ll be pretty much unemployable with a criminal record.

you won’t be taking money from them doing that. And you’ll be costing the taxpayer double with benefits for mum and child, prison costs, and likely benefits when he gets out and can’t work.

i think probably one of the best ways would be to make childcare more affordable so mum can work full time.

issue is unless you are a high earner or asset rich a single household is never going to be able to split and the same money support two homes and similar lifestyles. You get into a cycle where the nrp can’t afford suitable living, so can’t have overnights as much as they want to, so they pay more cms, so they can’t afford rent on a family home….

we could also increase social housing to make the housing split fairer. If at least one party has access to affordable housing it means the finances will go further.

THIS. This one especially enrages me (and I don't even have children!). Women trying to work to support their home and DC and having to meet the care costs as well!

I would change it so that it is included as income for the resident parent when applying for benefits etc. and included as an outgoing for the non resident parent when applying for benefits etc.

Actually tbf I’m getting involved but I would have child maintenance as an exception only, with 50:50 care being the norm unless there are safeguarding concerns