Tips, please, on coming to our own maintenance agreement

[GetMeWithMyPowerTools]

XP and I want to work out our own maintenance agreement. What are the things we need to factor into working out an agreed amount?

(DS's residency split, because I guess it's relevant, is 10 days/nights with me per fortnight, and four days with his dad.)

We agree on the obvious things - such as tallying up direct expenditure on DS (school dinners, trips, clothes, swimming lessons, etc) across several months, and splitting this figure between us. But there are some grey areas we don't agree on/don't understand.

I work the equivalent of three days per week across four days (a bit more in term-time to accrue time off in lieu in the holidays/when DS is sick), so most days, can take DS to school/pick him up. I also tend to have DS more in the holidays than his dad does; although his dad could have him more, DS is happier sticking to our usual routine, which includes one weekday per week with his dad.

Because of my work, combined with a bit of help from nearby grandparents, I/we have no childcare costs. I have suggested to XP that my not working full-time and being around for DS before/after school and during holidays incurs a DS-related cost to me (of lost income). XP isn't having this, because he says it's also my choice and that I could work more hours ... well, I could, but then we'd incur childcare costs! My understanding was that we had both agreed it was best for DS if I could be around before/after school/in the school holidays as much as possible while DS is pretty young.

Another grey area is that I once posted on here (under a different name) about maintenance, and someone suggested that because I have DS most of the time and therefore pay for most stuff for him, XP should pay for more than half the costs of raising DS. I don't understand this. How would that be fair to XP? Shouldn't we both simply pay half the costs of raising DS? I don't know ...

Someone also suggested XP should pay towards DS's share of household bills (electricity, gas, water - even mortgage) - this hadn't occurred to me, and XP's view is that he pays for these things for DS when he's with him, so they're not so relevant.

So has anyone else come up with their own ways of calculating maintenance, and how have you addressed these more abstract costs of raising a child (reduced income to cover childcare, household bills, etc)?

Thanks.

Bear if your DD was with you say 2 days a week, I think you'd still want her own room for her, hence the £400 would still apply. It's a bit simplistic to assume that if one isn't a PWC then one could live in a bedsit/shared accomodation

We came to our own financial agreement.

The equity in the house was split 50-50.
The costs for the children are split 50-50.
The child benefit is split 50-50.

And we have shared-care.

Didn't go to court, no maintenance and no CSA.

That's great wellnerfermind. I wish I could say the same .

It's not about hypothetical situations though, I'm coming from the point of view of what is needed for dd right here, right now. The reality for me is that I need somewhere with a second bedroom for dd, near to her school and her Dad, and that costs. And at the moment I am paying for all of it.

Riakin The original CSA system took into account people's income/outgoings. That produced more cases of severe financial hardship and it took even longer to calculate, let alone enforce.

The new formula uses a straight percentage. Much simpler. Of course there will always be those who will claim they cannot afford it. What they really mean is: "I cannot afford it with my CURRENT outgoings". Tough. Move to a smaller house, get rid of luxuries. Whatever.

There'll also be those who claim it's not enough! Tough. move to a smaller house, get rid of luxuries. Whatever. It swing's both ways.

The CSA formula is percentage based so arguing it's unfair is like arguing income tax is unfair as it also can put people in hardship. Let's see how far you get with that train of argument.

I'm not sure I've got across everything I wanted to say. What I mean is that it's all very well Riakin saying that £300 is plenty. For me in my current situation it isn't, but that's not to say that it's the same for everyone. There's another thread going on right now where someone clearly agrees and is wondering why people have maintenance that is a lot more than what she gets, she doesn't think her 3 year old costs very much.

Everyone's situation is different, and you can't just grab a random figure out of the air and say "that should be plenty for everyone".

"The new formula uses a straight percentage. Much simpler. Of course there will always be those who will claim they cannot afford it. What they really mean is: "I cannot afford it with my CURRENT outgoings". Tough. Move to a smaller house, get rid of luxuries. Whatever"

But the smaller house, getting rid of luxuries by the NRP still affects the child, as the child will (usually) be spending a portion of their life with the NRP. Tough - yes, also on the child. Not many people think of that though

Nicedad did say the same about the other party though, and he's right. It's a question of balance and both parties realising that things won't be exactly the same as when they were together, or that one shouldn't "suffer" at the expense of the other. But in the throes of separation and divorce when all sorts of emotions are flying about it's a difficult one to negotiate.

Elastamum where is this lots of evidence? Remember that a nrp has rent and child support plus bills. A pwc has the same minus child support.

Let me put it into perspective because you just seem to be missing the point. An nrp earns a flat 1000 a month he (in most instances) has 500 rent 150 worth of car and home insurances an average 120 a month on utilities, 50 (if lucky) running a car then 100 on food plus 35 at a minimum for tv pwackage, 20 a month phone contract. You will note this comes to 950 or there abouts. Now you do me a favour and take off 15%. Low and behold we have poverty.

So what you are suggesting is that in order to make ends meet he doesnt support HIS kids and leaves it all to the PWC - unfortunately there are a lot of (mostly) men out there who also think this. Divorce is economically tough on everyone, but it shouldnt mean one side dumping their responsibilities on the other one.

The example is purely theoretical so not sure what you are trying to prove. I could just as well say "A NRP earning £3,000 per month....."

For someone to spend 50% of his net income on accomodation is a recipe for disaster anyway.

Let me put it another way. How do you think the taxman would respond if you turned round and said "Sorry mate, I've £500 rent, £150 car etc. etc. I simply can't afford to pay you this month"

But the smaller house, getting rid of luxuries by the NRP still affects the child, as the child will (usually) be spending a portion of their life with the NRP. Tough - yes, also on the child. Not many people think of that though

Erm....the child is already affected. His parents have split up. He/she will now have to shuffle between two homes. The only question is frequency. Unless you are completely loaded, the chances are a child will suffer a drop in living standards regardless of how things are split.

What I see time & time again is the RP desperately trying to stay in the family home to keep things as "normal" as possible for the kids. Whilst I understand the sentiment, most of the time it's totally unrealistic.

Thankyou for the reply elastamum you've said exactly what I'm getting at... Why should all the financial responsibilities be on one parent. That's my point.

Niceguy I was sort of hoping you would (or elastamum) say something exactly like that. You have just proved my point completely.

A nrp earning 3k would pay another parent 450 a month (meaning that child would cost a 2 aren't family nearly 1000 a month. If you are lucky enough to be in the 9% who earn top end tax bracket you will be better off. If oh are like my example you've be knakered.

The point is this the CSA does not produce a fair cohesive nor unique requirement linked on money to every child ergo a child either costs by your standards 900 a month or more realistically my 200-300. So which is it?

Thankyou for the reply elastamum you've said exactly what I'm getting at... Why should all the financial responsibilities be on one parent. That's my point.

Niceguy I was sort of hoping you would (or elastamum) say something exactly like that. You have just proved my point completely.

A nrp earning 3k would pay another parent 450 a month (meaning that child would cost a 2 aren't family nearly 1000 a month. If you are lucky enough to be in the 9% who earn top end tax bracket you will be better off. If oh are like my example you've be knakered.

The point is this the CSA does not produce a fair cohesive nor unique requirement linked on money to every child ergo a child either costs by your standards 900 a month or more realistically my 200-300. So which is it?

Where has anyone said that it should all fall to one parent? I thought we were all in ageement that it's down to both parents, just that how much of the NRPs income should go towards the child was in debate.

"Erm....the child is already affected. His parents have split up. He/she will now have to shuffle between two homes. The only question is frequency. Unless you are completely loaded, the chances are a child will suffer a drop in living standards regardless of how things are split."

Yes, you've proved my point exactly niceguy. Thank-you. The fact is that because the same pot of income is now split, but there are 2 sets of living costs, then both households should see a drop. But what I see on here time after time is the PWC expecting the NRP to pay for things to be remaining exactly the same financially in the PWC household, whilst ignoring that if that happens, then the child's lifestyle while with the NRP will be doubly affected

I'm not sure anyone is saying that either. Maybe I'm reading a different thread .

I have already said that when families separate then things have to change for everyone involved. But surely it's down to both parents to minimise that for the children? So if an NRP has a higher income, then the money available to that child should be higher. It can't be right for a PWC to be struggling or just getting by while an NRP is living in luxury, having holidays, cars, etc - and you see a lot of that on here too.

The thing is people react and behave in different ways - and there are NRPs who hide income, take the piss or don't pay anything, just as there are PWCs with a huge sense of entitlement and just see the ex as a big wallet.

I hell of a lot of threads I read on MN on this subject, from PWCs predominantly, suggest that the purpose of child maintenance is to ensure that the child is brought up financially as if the parents are still together. Simple mathematics dictates that this is impossible (unless the household of the NRP suffers to a disproportionate extent, which still, by definition means that the child suffers financially while the child is with the NRP)

I haven't seen them, but maybe your radar is out for those types of comments and mine is out for those where the NRP is payng a pittance or nothing. I don't think anyone on this particular thread is saying that though, and I'm certainly not one of them. All I'd like is not to be providing for my dd on my own and have what is a fair amount of maintenance so that dd gets the best opportunities that I can give her within our budget. And that has always been the case, even before we separated.

well I just did an extremely quick scan of this thread and found this post:

"but the CSA calculation is designed to keep the child in the lifestyle they could have expected had the parents stayed together."

and another v quick scan of another current thread:

"it took two adults to have the children and so two adults should have to maintain. as i understand it the percenatge amounts of the nrp's income is 'meant' to mean the children can still afford what they would have had if the NRP was still with the RP."

Honestly, it's said on just about every thread I ever see on MN about child maintenance

Well the way I read that was as an explanation of how the CSA came up with the 15%, and it was more in the context of Riakin's argument about the cost of raising a child not needing to be more than £300 per month regardless of the NRPs income. And from what I know of her from here, Gillybean is a big advocate of things being fair and equal as much as possible, she can no doubt answer for herself but I doubt whether she really meant that everything has to continue exactly as before, regardless of whether it leaves the NRP in difficulties.

Oh I didn't doubt that they are there, it's like I said they probably register with you where they haven't with me, or maybe you read more threads than I do.

And I do agree with you that it would be ridiculous for the PWC to be nicely off and able to afford all sorts while the NRP is struggling. And vice versa.

Riakin. OK, so from what I am reading your point is that why should the NRP pay the RP a percentage if that percentage exceeds 50% of what the child in reality costs to raise. And that by applying a percentage that this is unfair as it is as much the mums right to pay as much as it is dad's....correct? And that by paying > 50% of real costs that this is unfair on the NRP. Correct?

Firstly we are constrained by one important principle. Reality. The reality is that there is NO fair method since "fair" is subjective. We see it everyday on this forum. Posters claiming court orders are not fair. I bet if you asked the other side, they'd probably also feel it's not fair. Ask the judge? Bet he thinks it's fair.

You can only do so much. Which is why I think the principle that parents should agree amongst themselves first is correct. If me & my ex agree then it's nobody else's business.

If we don't then we go to CSA/CMEC and they decide. And they have rules which have been decided by the powers that be. Just in the same way that if I do not agree contact with my ex, she can take me to court and the matter is settled by a judge.

The point is, whether I think it's right or wrong is absolutely irrelevent. If we cannot agree, someone else will decide for us.

You can argue all you like about how you personally think maintenance should be calculated. Heck, I can even see the logic even if I personally disagree. But it matters not a jot what you or I think.

So with all that in mind that is why I advise people start with the CSA formula to work out a (cough) "fair" figure since that's ultimately who you must go to if you cannot agree.

Let's see if I can come up with an example? Say you have to agree a payrise with your boss. You want 10%, he wants 1%. You suspect you won't agree but you know the arbitrator in HR has a formula he/she uses. So isn't the logical thing to start off by saying "Well actually I'd get x% if HR got involved, so let's talk with that in mind....."

But what I see on here time after time is the PWC expecting the NRP to pay for things.....

Yes but you must bear in mind that most of the posters here will be by nature of the site, mums who are PWC's.

I bet if you find a dad's site, the impression you'd get is NRP's desperately trying to minimise their liabilities (or if you want to twist things, weasel out of as much as they can). It all depends on which side of the fence you sit.