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?

@previouslyknownasall of this !

I agree with what you’ve said but add that payments don’t reduce because you’ve had more dc. You knew you had dc already so if you chose more dc then you have to pay for them from what’s left in your account.

It's on them, and partners 2, 3 and 4 to decide if they are able to afford to have the baby. Though I'd bet if they were actually expected to pay up, there wouldn't be many 3rd or 4th families.

The way it's set up now, the most the NRP pays is 19%, and that doesn't change wether they have 3 or 10 children. To a certain type of man, once they have 3, there's really no reason not to shaggy around, they can spread their genes as far and wide as they like with no further cost or care responsibility.

CMS are shit.

they’re not funded properly and the training is poor. there is no political will for them to become better at using their powers.

When I finished training I asked the trainer if we referred cases to a specialist team for certain powers/sanctions that hadn’t been mentioned. He’d never heard of those powers. Staff can never escalate to use further powers if they are never trained that they exist. I knew of them as I’d read up when my ex was being a prick about paying.

Then even if you do things properly you get grief. I got told off for being “too aggressive” with a non-payer. He requested an extra month to pay. He hadn’t paid for four years and had previous for moving jobs to dodge enforcement. I said no. He complained about me.
I was told that my manner was fine, I wasn’t rude or verbally aggressive, and technically I was correct in procedure, but I was seen as “too aggressive” for denying him the payment extension and looking to take a one off sum from his bank account (which CMS should do way way way more before people can move their savings again).

I agree with you that the cost to the NRP should still go up after 3 kids.

Thr current system though, is it 12% of gross salary for one? So you think it should be 24% for two? 36% for three? Most single people couldn’t afford to live on 64% of their salary, and families with three kids don’t spend 3x only child families. They make do.

If there was a universal minimum that NRPs were expected to pay towards each kid then it’d be easier to calculate what you can afford. Especially if there were actual penalties for non payment.

That's nonsense. Tje majority of uni students still go 'home' in the 22 weeks of uni holidays and more now are actually staying local anyway and living at home. While they are in education and being supported by a parent, it should not fall on only one of those parents.

That is not the problem of the first RP and their children. Im guessing the subsequent ones know he already has children? They will get state benefits if their household income is low enough..an NRPs commitment to maintenance could be factored into any calculation so long as measures are in place to ensure its being paid.

I think making the CMS a dept of HMRC would, at a stroke, have a massive impact. No more mucking about with SE..if you declare a low amount to pay less maintenance, you'll be committing tax fraud and they WILL go after you. I remember reading during Covid furlough schemes that some NRPs were howling g that they weren't getting anything because they appeared to be earning nothing.

Let me guess, you’re a first RP and your ex has more kids?

I still disagree with you unless it moves to a system where each parent provides half of the minimum amount the child requires. Under that system, the first NRP is no better or worse off if her ex has more. Each parent could easily calculate their own ability to afford each child, and assess how much spare they wanted for extras.

Nope. My ex has a step child and actually doesn't include them. He's cockwomble but fair on that front. We earn about tje same. If I ring fenced the cms amount and only used that on my kids, Id be SO much better off. I pay way way more than 50% of costs even including his contribution.

Does he pay more than c. £250 a month per child? Do your kids cost you more than c. £500 a month, not including rent/mortgage or childcare?

No and yes. I'd rather not get into specifics.

Im a "first" RP as you've put it. I've had to decide that i can't afford more DC which has impacted relationships.

My ex didn't have to make that decision because he had paid less, and then no maintenance when he had more DC. Who gives a fuck about the 2 he already had eh!

Paying half the bill still wouldn’t mean someone unemployed could chuck the kids in 60 hours a week. They have to pay the other half.

And once not in childcare anymore and cheaper, both parents benefit as the payment would reduce accordingly.

The current system means my ex gets to work full time and pay 1/4 the childcare bills his kids would
require if he was still here and I work full time (exact same job) and pay 3/4 for the same kids! And I have to do every single drop off, pick up, sick day etc etc

Exactly. Two parents in the same job but the one who leaves gets to pay hardly anything and keep the rest of their income for themselves whilst the parent who stayed with the kids struggles to afford childcare to support a household alone when they have no other choice - absolutely shocking!

Well then you’d be better off under the pay-what-it-costs model than the current one. And him having future children wouldn’t impact you either.

Calculations for low earners should also take into account the living, communting & housing costs of paying parent so that they are not put into a situation where they can't even afford travel costs to visit their child. Calculations need to also take into account any tax changes which affect take home pay. Paying parents should also get some automatic parental rights.

That’s why it should be a set minimum per child, topped up by the government if he doesn’t pay, and clawed back directly from his wages / assets.

I agree that a universal minimum based on half the cost of raising a child would be better, though it would be considerably higher then most NRP's pat now.

As a resident parent, I really can't imagine spend less then 20% of my income on the kids, and keeping 80% for myself. My kids get way more spent on them then i send on myself.

I don’t think the answer is extra maintenance here, I think it’s a better and cheaper early years education system.

Absolutely, and maybe if the costs were higher and actually paid, we’d finally get some decent research into a long-lasting male contraceptive…

Most of our costs are housing costs and childcare. If I divorced, our costs would be for childcare and 2x housing costs. Nobody would be rolling in it because it costs more to run two houses than one.

I’m not saying you’re lying but that was vastly untrue for my cohort. I don’t know anyone who went home except for a week or two here and there. Most people had jobs in their uni town.

I do think the policy of resident stepparents’ income counting towards loan entitlement is wrong though. It should be both biological parents, with an option for the student to declare themselves estranged.

Whilst I still agree with you, I've realised how much of a different angle I'm viewing this from then you.

My DC have additional needs, so paid childcare isn't even an option for them (we'll technically it is, but would cost 5x what I could earn). We also live in a cheap area, so housing costs for myself and ex are low.

The main 'cost' of my DC is that I can only work during school hours, meaning I had to give up a much better paying job and their actual running costs. I spend a fortune on therapy, assesments, specialist clubs/activities, sensory equipment, spercific dietry needs & outings. Whereas their dad has non of these costs, and has more or less gone back to his pre-kids lifestyle and disposable income level.

Not sure quite what point I'm making, just thought it was interesting how different situations can be, which is why there's never going to be a one size fits all.

Increase the amount from the other parent if on benefits - it’s usually £1 a day, £7 a week so the huge amount of £27.50 a month

yet he gets over £800 plus full rent paid of around £650 so over gets £1400 , yet still i get £27.50

financial assets should be included - not just salary - my ex husband got his share of the house equity and promptly quit job so no CMS even though sat on tens of thousands of pounds

prolonged periods of out of work which are clearly because they can’t be arsed to work should accrue a CMS debt so that when they return to work they have to pay off the debt - refusal to take on any work should incur higher penalties

no time limit - CMS debt should be reclaimable from the deceaseds estate and also from inheritance