My ex-h has split up with mother of his second child and says my child support must go down?

[oiseau]

Just a quick question really as to whether this is right - he currently pays 15% of his net income child support to me. Now he is splitting with his current partner with whom he also has a child he says he only has to pay me 10% and her 10% - is this right??? I find this slightly grating - it isn't a disaster for us financially but just questioning whether he is legally correct? Could he carry on fathering children and moving on when he gets bored and our child support decrease accordingly??

Maybe a system whereby you had 50/50 care and maintenance for the first year after a separation to give the parent who earned less a chance to get back on their feet.
If one person (usually the mum) hasn't worked during the marriage, it would be ubnfair to immediately share the care and give her no money - who would pick up the bill? The state.

It's not naive.

Have a child with someone who is, a similar age, similar background and earns the roughly the same money.

Then neither of you has to sacrifice your working potential.

Young women now outearn men so if neither gives io their career no one is going to be reliant on the other.

"Women end up in part-time, low-paying jobs because of childcare"

Whilst I don't disagree per se, my personal experience is that in many cases, well-earning women chose to give up their jobs/reduce their hours, rather than their partner doing so. Even in cases where the woman earns more, I know of no couples where the woman has wanted her partner to give up his job or reduce his hours rather than her doing so.

So to say it's all down to earning power is incorrect and only part (albeit frequently a significant part) of the equation

I know it's not a popular opinion but I think alot of the blame lies with the numbe rof women who give up work while their partner goes on building their career. Everyone seems to think it's for the good of the child for the mum to stay at home and look father the child but how can it be when so many women are left with no career and holding the baby?

Take my dp's ex. Theyw ere married for 15 years. She stayed at home and looked after their DD.

He wanted someone who was more ambitios and hated having his partner at home all day. So now he has left her and she has nothing to fall back on. She got a good deal out of the divorce in terms of child maintencae but as we all know this is void after a year and CSA kicks in (although he still pays the original amount) She still doesnt work and expects to be kept by him as she was in the marriage.

How have her choices benefitted the child??? DSD is always worried about how her mum isnt well off. She worries about what will happen when she leaves college and her mum will get no benefits or CM any more.. She has even commented to me that she won't be able to go to university because she'll have to get ajob asap to support her mum.

I thinkthe naswer is not to sacrifice your financial independance and leave yours and your children's survival entirley at the mercy of a man's whim. Impliment 50/50 care from the outset. Even when you are together. Work, get your DP to pay half of the childcare form his wage.

Don't end up in your 40s arguing over a measley 5% of a man's income.

50% sharede care well ne that only works if yo live near enough to mange it practical .Oh and if the Nrp even wants that much mine wants zilch with the dc especially ds3 (ds3 is disabled and he refered to him as the fking RD and that it must be in my family

There will always be cases where it doesnt work.

Op, yes, this is true. I used to get quite a good amount from my ex for his ds. Now he has split with his gf who he has a child with, and he has cut all of it. The fact that he is only pay me £15 less than he should (according to csa calculator), and that i am not entitled to legal aid means i cannot be bothered to take him to court/go through the csa.

We've had this debate on another thread but 15% of net income is for most people not an unreasonable amount to support a child. Most couples who were married have to split the assets which include family home, mostly women get the larger proportion of equity to set-up home again. The NRP (often men) are required to contribute up to 25% for 3 children. That money is for the specific care of the child and child related expenses. 15% on an average salary covers the costs for a child. I think childcare should be split by both parents if the 15% isn't sufficient.

In the UK most NRPs pay CM.Most women achieve well in education and female graduates do very well when entering the job market so I'm not sure there is discrimation at this level. Both parents are responsible for supportng children and it shouldn't be left to the NRP. I would hope that in a few years 50:50 care is the standard so that men and women each have the opportunity to raise kids and earn a living.

SGM- you are comparing women as a group to men as a group.

People can have children with partners from their own social group.
And in my experience that mean there are very differences in wages and opportunities with education.

The difference is one person decides to give up work or go part-time and then capitalism steps in, believe me if men take up paternity care, long career breaks and part-time work they'll soon be earning a lot less than their colleagues.

SGM - where does that statistic come from, if you don't mind me asking? I had always thought that most people have informal arrangements (ie non-CSA) so I don't see how you could monitor that?

Statistics from Sep show that 75% of cases who have a maintenance liability were paying.

Sorry, Dec 2010, not Sep.

Obviously, for the CSA alone.

Make childcare 50-50 after separation then there's no need for for CSA.

Well great if all parents had the best interests of their child at heart, what about those of us who actively have to stop co-parenting due to MH/drug problems/dead-beat dads?

Well, I don't know how to check the figures for court-ordered maintenance or self employed, but am sort of assuming that those on benefits would be included in the CSA figures (not sure I'm right, but was told that those on benefits had to go through CSA?). So that's 1.3 million people use the CSA, but 8 million lone parents? And most people use the CSA for a reason, eg that getting their ex to pay up is difficult? So can we conclude that the CSA figures may not be representative of the other 6 million people who don't go through the CSA?

And what are the compliance figures for female NRP's, just out of interest?

So is there anything to suggest that should the proportion of female NRP's rise, the situation would be different?

And are the figures you use representative of the 8 million lone parents, or of a particular group with a greater likelihood of non-payment?

I think there is a stigma towards women to do 50-50 or have the father be main carer. And the biggest critics of women who do this is other women.

I also think women are encouraged to find a partner who earns more money than them and likewise for a man to be with a partner who earns less.

And it probably is a Patriarchal society behind it all.

I think men should pay for their children, but I think, where practical, they should be able to do 50-50 shared care.

Otherwise how do things change?