Child maintenance

[Bluebaron1]

Bit confused on the .gov calculator. I’ve entered my income and details etc and come up with a. Figure I should be paying.
however there is nowhere to enter my partners income I assume it only works if she is unemployed?
I’ve entered her details and she had to pay me!
Or do we do both and then take one from the other?
ideas?

It tells you before you click Start that it isn't applicable for shared care scenarios.

The option it gives for 'half the time' is not in fact 'half the time' if you times the number of nights by two. That's because you don't use it in a scenario of shared care. See first page. Don't start using it when it tells you not to!

Occasionally someone might fit a case of not being in a fully shared care situation and still wanting a baseline minimum on how much cm to pay. So they can use the calculator to help them. Hence that option.

I have no idea what you mean about it offering both options. You choose the one applicable to you. If you are the parent receiving cm you might want to know how much to ask for - if so, use it as 'receiving'.

If someone gets different figures all the time they are probably not very good at calculating their income after pension contributions have been deducted but before tax.

Your income is only relevant if you are paying.

It tells you before you click Start that it isn't applicable for shared care scenarios. and also this! Its not their fault you don't read the instructions!

If it's COMPLETELY 50:50 - I.e all drop offs/pick ups are shared, all school holidays are shared, equal number of nights throughout the year etc then you shouldn't be using the calculator in the first place because it states it's not for parents who share equal custody.

Exactly

All the best to your ex OP. My goodness she is going to need it

It's different here in Aus, but in the UK. NRP pays a percentage, regardless of the income of the RP. Here, as the RP with a 37/63% split to me (so I had 63%) I had to pay CS as they base it on child has the right to similar standard of living with both parents.

Are your previous examples of wages true, as in you earn around three times your ex wage?

If you earn so much more than your ex, would you not want your child to maintain a similar standard of life that she had pre break up, in both 50% of her life?

You seem to be focusing on what’s the least you have to pay, maybe give some thought to what would be best for your child.

@Magmum75 I think this is so that parents can try to ensure the children have a similar level of lifestyle across both households and one can top up the other if there is a large disparity in incomes.

No, this is a myth that regularly does the rounds on Mumsnet. Neither the CMS nor the courts have a requirement to ensure a similar lifestyle across both households. The CMS is based on the same calculation for everyone, regardless of what they are earning up to £150k. It's 12% of gross after pension contributions for one child; 16% for two and 20% for three or more. It's then adjusted based on how often a child is with each parent. It's based on what parents ought to be paying for their children for their half of the time, irrespective of where the child lives. That means even if the person with the majority of care who receives child maintenance earns £1m a year, they can still demand CM from an ex on benefits (of course, in that extreme scenario, this may be netted off somewhat by spousal maintenance)!

The courts are not particularly bothered about similarity of lifestyles either, at least not for very long. Their objective is an equal start on the road to independent living. So someone playing to be a CM recipient who chooses not to maximise their earning capacity will similarly not enjoy an equal standard of living with an ex.

Can someone actually confirm what the difference is between paying and receiving? Who decides? I assume it only works if one parent has more than 50% custody and hence becomes the “receiver”.

The payer is whoever has the children less than 50% of the time. If there is a 50/50 split, there is no payer or receiver.

However, beware if you are a much higher earner (£120k + these days I would guess). Paying no CM because of 50/50 can sometimes open the door to being able to afford spousal maintenance, which is a much more onerous obligation because it doesn't automatically cease with a loss of employment and can even drag on beyond the children reaching adulthood. If you married someone who is a bit lazy and has no dignity like my ex-wife, you don't want to get stuck paying spousal maintenance because it might never end.

Yes

If it is 50/50 no one pays

It's nothing to do with similar standard of living

What isn’t?

My post is questioning what is in the child’s interest rather than the minimum legal obligation.

But this is just an emotional blackmail approach which tends not to end well. A child's interests are not financial alone and often the higher earning parent wants to make life changes after divorce to provide something more valuable to their child than money; time.

Certainly in my case, when I no longer had the shock of my ex-wife's reckless credit card spending to deal with every month, I realised I didn't need to do my London based, long commute high paid job anymore. I could maintain my lifestyle (albeit in a smaller home) with a local job and therefore be more present for the children.

That's often what arguments about money at the point of divorce are really all about. It's about lifestyle, not money. It's not that men like me don't want to pay for our children, it's that we are already fed up of being out the house from before 7am and after 7pm every day and never having any time for our children. Often at the point of divorce, we have wives trying to pin us down to that kind of routine because they either want to work in pissy little low paid part time jobs with minimal stress themselves or to not work at all.

Of course, the default reaction on this site and others is "oh, he doesn't want to provide" but that is nonsense. Normally, the real problem is the weaker financial party who refuses to be self sufficient and insists an ex burns themselves out to provide for them rather than do their share of the load.

This is also why the "similar lifestyle" argument is such a weak one. My ex-wife could have a similar lifestyle if she chose to work as much as me and she chooses not to. So she doesn't and no amount of emotional blackmail is going to make me hand over more than the legal minimum to her so that she can laze around in front of the TV whilst I'm at work.

The flaw, IMO it it shouldn’t have an option for 50% care at all

the calculator overestimated your intelligence and ability to read the very explicit note that doesn’t apply to 50/50

Child maintenance. It's about making sure the children benefit from a proportion of their other parent's income at their RP's House. If ex decided to not work and just chill it doesn't mean the other parent has any responsibility to maintain their children's lifestyle. They just have to accept their lifestyle will change. If they can't do that then don't get divorced.

@BetterFuture1985

you have posted 738 times on divorce and CMS this year.

You need to move on. All that free time you now have seems to be venting your anger on mumsnet

I don't really think partners - proper ones - need secrets. Although I had great fun planning the divorce and timing it absolutely right (waiting for my SAHM ex to finish getting qualified and finally getting a job when youngest turned 6) to minimise the "needs" she had from the assets. Solicitor said if I'd done it immediately she would have gotten 80% of the assets and spousal maintenance for a couple of years but by waiting 2 years she only got 60% and was laughed out of court when she asked for spousal maintenance

You sound vile @BetterFuture1985

And you lie. One minute it’s 50/50 and then 65/35, one minute she doesn’t work and the next she does

you poor ex

@BetterFuture1985

Wow, your poor ex.

Also you talk as if you are the only one that has walked this path.
Many of us have and many of us make it work whilst always, always keeping the children’s well-being front and centre.

My ex is a pain in many ways but in taking responsibility for his kids financially he does not waiver.
Incidentally, neither do I.

Anyway, the days of arguing with bitter men are over for me.
Wishing many happy and peaceful days lounging for your ex 😉

Well it’s just plain crazy it’s like having a price list for a daily activity and stating £50 a day, not on Tuesday and then listing Tuesday at £50. (Bad analogy, but you get the point).

Not only does it let you select 50/50 it even gives you a figure rather than just resulting in a £0 figure.

bonkers

You are literally the first person on mumsnet or in RL that has struggled with this ie they read the very brief and explicitly instruction that does not apply to 50/50

It doesn’t get much clearer than that

😂 clearly the point is lost on a lot of folks here.

it’s not that it says “don’t use for 50/50”, it’s the fact it provides an option, not only that it provides an answer!

like having door with a sign “don’t use” why have a door at all?

Again
You are the only poster or In RL that has struggled with this and / or taken umbrage with it

While we're at it, 50:50 residency rarely benefits the children of separated parents, especially when young, because the children don't know whether they're coming or going and the previously less involved parent underestimates the time involvement and planning associated with childcare. The primary carer has usually got the job/career that works around parenting, and the associated reduced income/poorer career opportunities.