What does Child Maintenance cover?

[thisistheSEA]

I’m trying to find a list of what Child Maintenance is supposed to cover? Can’t find anything helpful online, just vague statements about food, housing and clothes.

I’d like to ask my ExH for additional money to cover:
school uniform
school dinners
school trips
private tuition (for GCSEs)
music lessons
new laptop
phone (there are two - one for school I currently pay for and he pays for her smartphone)
glasses (we usually top up the voucher amount) pocket money
gifts for friends birthdays
a contribution to holidays to see family (my family all live overseas).

Which of these would be reasonable to ask for - on top of the Child maintenance of £350 a month?

Thanks

[quote thisistheSEA]@fortunenookie Well he also took me to court over family arrangements and lost! The court made no order at all, because DD is too old at 15. It was a total waste of time. He wanted a parenting plan which was selfish and inflexible (every other weekend and Weds eves) and this would have stopped her going to her music and GCSE lessons. He wanted me to use a stupid diary app.

I prefer a more flexible arrangement of her visiting him around her social life and other activities. Also he chose to move 80 miles away after the divorce, which is too much travel time at weekends. She gets tired. This is why he visits her on Sundays more often and only has her to stay in school holidays.[/quote]
She’s bloody 15! You’ve been absolutely awful in all of this - you should have been ensuring she spends time with her father, rather than calling him selfish for wanting to see her when she has extra lessons! No wider she’s tired at the weekends.
His suggested parent plan was perfect. What a shame you refused it. You are the selfish, inflexible one. Oh, and guess what, his contribution will stop the second she turns 18, that I can guarantee.

@Soontobe60

Not exactly true it depends on wether her daughter is in non advanced further education or training then it can be up to age 20 in some cases

[quote Lalala1]@Soontobe60

Not exactly true it depends on wether her daughter is in non advanced further education or training then it can be up to age 20 in some cases[/quote]
Maybe not exactly, but highly likely. And possibly before they are 18 too.

When does child maintenance stop? If child maintenance has been paid under a Child Maintenance Service Agreement, then the law states that maintenance will be paid until:

The child is 16 years old.
The child is 20 years old if they continue in full-time education to the end of A- levels. This implies that child maintenance ends once the child finishes their A-level.
Nevertheless, it is a cliché that children’s maintenance ceases without exception when they leave school after A-levels.

The order can continue if the non-resident parent is unwilling to proceed with the financial assistance through a voluntary agreement. It is possible to apply to the court for a maintenance order. This can cover the child’s time in higher institutions.
However, for this to be binding, you will need to apply before the child turns 18. If you have an existing order in place, you must apply to the court before the terms and conditions of that order expire

You sound awful....

@Soontobe60
My post was about you stating to the op “ Oh, and guess what, his contribution will stop the second she turns 18, that I can guarantee” you can’t know that, there lots of 16-20 year old that go to college in further education and their RP is still entitled to child benefit which is what cms base their info on so while I agree that it’s not always the case I don’t agree that it’s highly likely.

Approved education
Education must be full-time (more than an average of 12 hours a week supervised study or course-related work experience) and can include:

A levels or similar, for example Pre-U, International Baccalaureate
T levels
Scottish Highers
NVQs and other vocational qualifications up to level 3
home education - if it started before your child turned 16 or after 16 if they have special needs
traineeships in England
Courses are not approved if paid for by an employer or ‘advanced’, for example a university degree or BTEC Higher National Certificate.

Your child must be accepted onto the course before they turn 19.
Approved training
Approved training should be unpaid and can include:

Foundation Apprenticeships or Traineeships in Wales
Employability Fund programmes in Scotland
PEACE IV Children and Young People 2.1, Training for Success, or Skills for Life and Work in Northern Ireland
Courses that are part of a job contract are not approved.

As long as child benefit is still eligible for any child then cms is still liable

Wow, the poor bloke.

You earn £25k, and took the majority in the divorce so you could buy a place outright, so you have no mortgage costs.

He earns £30k, and has a mortgage to pay, and sends you £350 a month, and you want more?

Without paying into a pension, his take home will be approximately £1.98k. Likely less if he's sensible enough to pay a pension. Your take home, without paying into a pension, is £1.72k. So there's only £260 a month between your take home pay, but his mortgage cost is likely higher than that, meaning his take home is lower than yours. He's paying his fair contribution, and still you say you can't afford things and want more?

You say you still don't understand the £700 figure. If your ex is paying £350 from his pocket towards the cost of your child, you should also be contribution another £350 towards your shared child, meaning there's £700 in total a month towards raising your child.

[quote Lalala1]@Soontobe60
My post was about you stating to the op “ Oh, and guess what, his contribution will stop the second she turns 18, that I can guarantee” you can’t know that, there lots of 16-20 year old that go to college in further education and their RP is still entitled to child benefit which is what cms base their info on so while I agree that it’s not always the case I don’t agree that it’s highly likely.

Approved education
Education must be full-time (more than an average of 12 hours a week supervised study or course-related work experience) and can include:

A levels or similar, for example Pre-U, International Baccalaureate
T levels
Scottish Highers
NVQs and other vocational qualifications up to level 3
home education - if it started before your child turned 16 or after 16 if they have special needs
traineeships in England
Courses are not approved if paid for by an employer or ‘advanced’, for example a university degree or BTEC Higher National Certificate.

Your child must be accepted onto the course before they turn 19.
Approved training
Approved training should be unpaid and can include:

Foundation Apprenticeships or Traineeships in Wales
Employability Fund programmes in Scotland
PEACE IV Children and Young People 2.1, Training for Success, or Skills for Life and Work in Northern Ireland
Courses that are part of a job contract are not approved.

As long as child benefit is still eligible for any child then cms is still liable[/quote]
I’m not sure why you’re arguing about what I said in my reply to you by actually quoting the same info I posted?
My original post was a comment about him stopping paying, not about whether or not he still legally had to pay! We see it in here so many times where a parent has stopped paying maintenance the minute the child turned 18, and the other parent wants advice on what to do. He isn’t paying through CMS currently so if he did stop, she would then have to make a claim.

I’m not arguing my comments were solely about your “guaranteed to stop cms when she’s 18” wether you’ve seen it before or not is irrelevant your comment was not true . The OP is receiving the cm through cms even if it’s direct pay they calculate the amount and send them both annual statements so if he stopped and he was still liable she was only need to report a missed payment not “Have to make a claim”

@Lalala1 She has them 8 nights, I have them 6 nights. There are three of them and I earn a fair bit. It's what the CMS calculator came out at.

The real issue of course is that she feels entitled to a bigger bite of my future income for herself partly because it's preferable to working like normal people and partly because my qualifications and experience gained before we even met pay me much more than her getting pissed in her 20s rewards her now. Luckily her solicitor managed her expectations and told her the asset split reflected the difference in earnings (she's done a lot better out of being married to me than she would have done on her own for the past decade).

@AnneLovesGilbert

This is a treat. And a nice reminder that the crazy grabby ex isn’t a fiction. Maybe.

Yep agree!

This is why some of these threads are so frustrating. The NRP is not on the hook to pay 100% of every expense.

@jimpamdwight

I get £400pm for two children, ex h is self employed and earns a lot more than the 400 pm would suggest, but like a previous poster said about their ex, he doesn't declare everything and has clever accountants.

To be fair, men only tend to resort to "clever accountants" when their ex refuses to do as much work as they do. For example, my STBXW expects the same lifestyle as me for having the children 8 days in 14 and working part time weekdays (including the days I have the children) compared to me putting in sometimes 10-12 hours a day. I'm not self employed so I can't do "the fiddle" but if I was, I would absolutely make sure what she got was a fairer amount based on what she put in (e.g. if I'm working 50 hours a week and she's only working 20 hours, I would happily fiddle the books to halve her child maintenance).

Obviously my children wouldn't go without, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want them to understand the link between having money and working full time.

@Unknown83 your statement re clever accountants is bullshit.

I work full time and earn well - the mumsnet 6 figure salary.

My ex still “resorted” to a “clever accountant”.

[quote AchillesPoirot]@Unknown83 your statement re clever accountants is bullshit.

I work full time and earn well - the mumsnet 6 figure salary.

My ex still “resorted” to a “clever accountant”.[/quote]
Your case is a bit different. He probably thought you didn't need the money.

In a great many cases though, it seems to happen where the recipient is a SAHP who insists they have to be home all day when their kid is 15.

Younhave nothing to lose making a UC claim. Im on 29k with no savings and I get UC. Its not masses but it does allow me some extra funding each month, a huge reduction in my childcare costs and when I move from the marital home to rented I will get help with that too. Always worth running your figures through the various entitlement calculators.

Agree there’s nothing to lose but with zero housing costs and one 15 year old it seems unlikely it’s needed.

[quote thisistheSEA]@FairyCakeWings he doesn’t agree with all the lessons - we’ve argued about that. There’s music school on Saturdays and he moans about it because he can’t collect her on Fridays for a whole weekend. In the past he’s said he won’t pay for music lessons. And then reluctantly sent me half.[/quote]
We have an ex who conveniently used to our blockers in the way of contact time at the weekend which my DH was eager to have. Shame on you OP for not encouraging precious contact time wherever possible. No wonder he didn't agree with it.

Here's a solution, work towards a promotion, or a qualification or something that will get you into a higher salary. Your child doesn't stop you from doing anything for yourself at her age and in a few years you might be a little bit screwed when you dont have a gun to your exes head

[quote Unknown83]@Lalala1 She has them 8 nights, I have them 6 nights. There are three of them and I earn a fair bit. It's what the CMS calculator came out at.

The real issue of course is that she feels entitled to a bigger bite of my future income for herself partly because it's preferable to working like normal people and partly because my qualifications and experience gained before we even met pay me much more than her getting pissed in her 20s rewards her now. Luckily her solicitor managed her expectations and told her the asset split reflected the difference in earnings (she's done a lot better out of being married to me than she would have done on her own for the past decade).[/quote]
Apologise I read it as u had 8 days(more than her) hence the RP comment and query of cms amount.

@Unknown83 so he has no obligation to support his children as per CMS levels. Nice.

[quote AchillesPoirot]@Unknown83 so he has no obligation to support his children as per CMS levels. Nice.[/quote]
It's not as simple as you suggest. It is when the recipient fails in their duty to provide that the payer tends to resort to reducing what they pay through clever accounting. And quite right too. I'm sick of SAHPs who refuse to get a proper job after divorce and then moan about not having enough money. If they are selfish with their time - refusing to give up sleep in sit on botty phone and telly time - then why the bloody hell shouldn't their ex be selfish with their money in return?

Because I’m most cases that’s what the ex wanted when they were together?

@AchillesPoirot

Because I’m most cases that’s what the ex wanted when they were together?

Whether or not the ex wanted that (and sorry, I don't believe in the fairy story of all decisions in marriages being joint, often in bad marriages they are the result of manipulation, coercion and control) it is entirely irrelevant after a divorce. After a divorce, "breadwinners" need to be able to reduce their working hours to spend time with their children as there won't be someone else around the house to help them out. They also need to find time for all the other stuff their ex used to do.

So quite why "breadwinners" are expected to magic time out of their bottoms whilst "SAHPs" think they should go on being paid a living from their ex is beyond me. If a "breadwinner" has to make time, then a SAHP should equally be expected to make money. It's a fair swap and an equalisation of responsibilities as both partners become independent adults with both financial, childcare and homemaking responsibilities of their own.

SAHPs who tried to restrict access to children in order to get more money or who believed they were entitled to money even though their ex did a decent share of the childcare were taking the piss and the law has caught up with them to an extent. Child maintenance though can remain incredibly unfair when one parent doesn't pull their weight financially because their ex earns enough to do all the legwork.

In my case, I see absolutely none of the last £15k of my salary because it is all spent on commuting and child maintenance. I'm basically doing a gruelling job with a long commute solely so my STBXW can get more child maintenance. I could (and plan to) take a job locally earning £15k less. I won't notice the difference to my income after commuting costs, but she will get something like £150 less a month. I pointed out that me working locally means I can share all those days the kids are sick etc, I can do more school runs etc. Which means she can work more hours and make far more than an extra £150 a month (and also be in a much better place career wise when the youngest turns 18). Should be win win, but - no real surprise - she's stropping about it!

@Unknown83 your projecting your experience on to mine. They are not the same.

I wish you well with your job hunt but I won’t be responding to you any longer. All the best.

[quote AchillesPoirot]@Unknown83 your projecting your experience on to mine. They are not the same.

I wish you well with your job hunt but I won’t be responding to you any longer. All the best.[/quote]

Unknown always turns up mansplaining on other peoples threads, making it about him.

@Unknown83 you just, literally, mansplained mansplaining.

Mansplaining doesn't not have to include talking over someone.

[quote Unknown83]@Nadjathedoll

And of course people like you always use the term "mansplaining" because it's easier than presenting a counter argument.

It's not even possible to "mansplain" on an internet forum anyway. The whole concept of mansplaining is about men who talk over women about things they understand less well than their audience. Now, let's think about that for a minute shall we? First of all, can anyone talk over someone else on an internet forum and prevent them replying? Quite clearly not.

And second, as a man and payer of child maintenance, am I less qualified to give a male payer's perspective on child maintenance than a woman who is a payee of child maintenance? Again, probably not. Indeed, in this instance I think I'm rather more qualified to provide this opinion than you.[/quote]
You literally patronised and mansplained and projected at me til I decided to leave the thread. You are rude. You are aggressive. You are entrenched in your own view and cannot see past it and won’t listen to any other viewpoint.

My only mistake was not hiding it.