to think that my ex-DP is being a complete t*sser?

[PintandChips]

he thinks that because i get some of my salary in nursery vouchers i should pay more than half the nursery fees?

bearing in mind i am shelling out to buy a new flat and everything in it for me and the nipper with NO contribution from him, and am therefore up to my eyes in debt and beyond skint?

ChippingIn, child maintenance is 15% of net salary for one child, reduced pro-rata for the number of nights the child spends with the non-resident parent. That's the legal minimum - if the parents can come to some other amount by mutual agreement then great, but I think it's right that a line has been drawn somewhere (not least because child maintenance cases in court were a lottery).

Bearing in mind that the non-res parent doesn't get child benefit and so is not eligible for other benefits / tax credits that are dependent on child benefit, what would you say would be a fairer amount?

I'll be honest, it's largely irrelevant to my as my ex can't be arsed to work so my kids only get £5 a week maintenance, but I'd be interested to hear what you think would be better.

why would you expect your ex-partner to help you pay for your mortgage on top of the money he is already giving you?

ChippingIn, I would just like to say the 15% of my OHs income the CSA requires him to pay equates to approx £250 a month. This is not an insubstasial sum of money to have decusted from your salary every month. Please bear in mind that even if the parents split the care of the child 50:50 the one who claims CB is still able to claim through the CSA for money to maintain the child the rest of the time (albiet reduced by the max reduction of 4/7 - £7) and claim tax credits ettc for the child. The other parent gets nothing.

All this and he currently isn't allowed to see LO as the parent with care has too many other things to do. His court fees can't be decuded from the maintenance.

Why would anyone expect the ex partner to support them? I wouldn't expect my ex to and I have no children by him, I would expect him to support any children but not me. My OH will not contribute directly towards his LOs nursery fees as he was not even informed she was going to nursery. Why should he pay for something that is not neccessary simply because his ex decided that was the way it sould be? He and his family between them could have avoided the need for daycare but the mother was too concerned about the (at the time) 7 month old child's education, plus she wouldn't be comfortable with someone 'like that looking after her child'.

It really needs to be about give and take, consider how much it would cost to live alone. THen consider the amount it costs you currently with LO. How much more is it really?

Snorbs - first of all I'm sorry your ex is such a lazy arse that you only get £5 a month - guess there's usually a pretty good reason they are an EX isn't there!!

Having never been in the position of claiming any benefits etc I don't know what the monetary value of them would be. So it's going to make this more difficult.

What would I say would be a 'fairer amount'?... I'll have a stab at answering that at the end

Anita - it is shite that he's not being allowed to see his LO, there needs to be a MUCH better way of getting access sorted out, not this drawn out crap people currently have to go through. It's very sad.

As for nursery, if she is only sending the LO because it suits her (and at 7 months there is only 1 reason!!!) then she should pay for it. UNLESS she is working, then I think it should be split 50:50 but should be taken into consideration when the rest of the payment amount is being calculated.

I know there are two sides to every story. I don't know how to say this without upsetting/angering anyone, but whichever side ones DP, friend, relative etc is on, always seems to be the hard done by one!

I think there are so many variables that it is hard to say what is fair and what isn't don't you agree?

I wish we could discuss this IRL instead (and with wine!!!). I really, really don't want this to turn ugly and it's such an emotive subject I fear it will...

I have to say though, I don't think you can just consider how much it would cost to live alone, then consider how much more it costs to live with the children and see how much that is. There are so many factors aren't there - size of house (required due to having children whereas something much smaller would be ok without children), career sacrifices (chosen by both parents pre split) made to be a SAHM, childcare, what lifestyle you want for your children...

IF your ex had wanted you to stay at home and be a housewife, not build your career, then when you were say 40, left you for someone else, don't you think he'd be somewhat responsible for ensuring you were able to have a reasonable standard of living? (Genuine question and no, I'm not in that situation).

I don't think percentages work out either because the more you are earning, the less 15% is to you. You really have to take out a standard amount for cost of living first then take out a percentage of what is left over.

Surely if you are sharing care 50:50 (and responsibility for all things financial, schooling, clothing etc) then surely no-one is paying the 15%?? IF parents are GENUINELY sharing care & responsibility 50/50 then IMVVVHO any financial 'gain' should be used to pay for things before either parent has to chip in 50%.

I don't have the answer - percentage wise or otherwise... the children and the parent looking after those children need to have a decent standard of living, but at a level which also allows the parent not living with the children a reasonable standard of living as a 'single person'. IF the parent with the children has a new partner then that should make the payments less as the house expenses would then be less for the parent (now shared with another adult). If the parent not living with the children has a new partner that will make it easier for them (expenses shared again). The parent not living with the children needs to think carefully if they can afford to have another family. Harsh as it is to say, they have to support the family they already have first - whether they live together or not. Of course this is very hard to accept if the EX is a right bitch/wanker!

I am sorry if this is hard to read/make sense of. I am very tired and have something pretty big going on at the moment which is making concentrating quite difficult

ChippingIn, you're right in saying that there are so many variables that it's really hard to say what's fair. Which is sort-of my point. The CSA did used to take into account many factors about the resident and non-res parents' financial situation to try to take at least some of those variables into account, but it quickly turned into a bureaucratic nightmare and there were some appalling decisions. So CSA v2 simplified it down to what it is now which, while still amazingly badly run and with all sorts of inequalities, is at least simple enough for people to have a reasonable idea of what to expect.

What AnitaBlake says about the CSA's view of 50:50 care is accurate - the CSA's says that the parent who doesn't get the child benefit owes child maintenance to the parent who does. Child Benefit goes to whomever has the child more or, where it's a strict 50:50 split, CB goes to the mother.