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.

I think what we also have here is a basic philosophical difference on how divorcing parents should interact with each other. Whilst I want my ex to have a relationship with the children, and provide something towards their care, I really dont want to engage in endless discussions regarding money.

I cant think of anything worse than an ongoing negotiation with my ex on the monthly costs of bringing up our children. It has been bad enough doing it once, without continuing the conversation for the next 10 years.

We have a reasonably good relationship, we can quite happily share lunch or a drink when with our kids, but I'm quite sure if we did pore over finances on a regular basis we would rapidly fall out

The CSA formula has lots of faults, but if nothing else at least it does lay down an externally referenced formula for both parties to abide by.

I've been a step parent and a lone parent. Due to the CSA calculator I am much etter off as a lone parent. When I was with my ex-H, I found it very frustrating that the CSA formula left my children (living with both parents full time) worse off than their half siblings (for whom we paid twice, the 3 days they were with us and the 4 nights they were with their mum). Tax credits topped up our income for the CSA to take back what Tax Credits paid. I argued that my DC were tipped into poverty by the fact that their dad had other children, the CSA didnt care.

Ex-H is on the dole now, and I think is likely to remain on it, as when he's working he pays out more than a quarter of his earnings in Child Support. No one benefits from this system, as he rarely has the money to see his D.

Niceguy,

This is my point, reality (in real life), we are actually arguing for the same thing but using different contexts. Real life dictates that people do have housing and living costs. I'm arguing that the CSA operates as a Tax/Levy against an NRP, it is afterall a percentage regardless. Yes you are correct with your analogy it is the Mums right as well as the Dad to pay that 15%... but you are missing the context of this. If a Dad earns your £3,000 a month statement, are you telling me a PWC would have do put up £450.00 or even WOULD put up £450 as well toward their child? No of course not! Thats absurd!

As i've said before. If the PWC wants money to support their lifestyle. They would get a Spousal Maintenance Order.

I belive my argument stands £200-£300 is a realistic amount of what it will cost to raise a child (Equalled by the PWC). The PWC(mother) will automatically make some of this money up with rent/mortgage, utilities, food etc, but they surely won't wrangle up £450 (plus £450) of expenses for the child. Thats just my opinion.

Court is an instance aside (just like the CSA) they are just there to say this is how it is forget all your other issues. Therein lies the issue. You have said somewhere on these boards yourself, the CSA hasnt chased your ex and as a single parent THEIR flexibility has failed because of fundamental flaws (all be it in a different area) but these reflect the quango as a whole.

The OP and her ex are still open to agree. Your damn right if they agree its no-one elses business. I know a mother of two, her (ex) husband earns a fantastic salary and for two children pays £200 a month. This figure going through the CSA would more than double. The fact is they despite differences came to an agreement that £200.00 would be sufficient. he also gives money for trips and buys clothing. The CSA may encourage "thats what you get maintenance for so thats yer lot" type mentality.

Your scenario is perfect, just perfect... you have underlined my point. Something like that would be solely motivated for making you better off.. not the child... you! If you ask for a pay rise its to make you more financially (in)dependent... am i correct? I can't think of one person who would go and say "Hey boss, need a 10% pay rise for my child"...

And that surely must be put it into my perspective of: Ask only for what you need for your children and not yourself...

Argue for this, you will agree in the majority with my views. If you dispute this then you accept that greed is the issue, afterall you're asking for more than is needed...

So which is it? (Neither is not an answer, agree or disagree).

You are making assumptions based on your own personal perceptions. And therein lies the problem.

I bet if you told Heather Mills that Paul Mc should pay only £200-£300 per month maintenance, she'd laugh at you. From HER point of view, she isn't being unreasonable asking for more.

And I read the other day, Suri Cruise has a £90k shoe collection at 3 years old. Try telling her mum (i forget her name) if she ever got rid of his shortiness that £200-£300 is enough!

OK those examples are on the extreme side but my point consistently comes back to this. You can pick holes in any method of calculation. But the line must be drawn somewhere.

The law of the land is 15% for 1 child, 20% for 2 & 25% for 3+. What you or I think is fair is irrelevant.

Now you can find situations where this benefits the RP. You will find situations like I just read on this board where it doesn't.

There is no such thing as fair when it comes to family matters.

This intrigued me so I sat and worked it out.

By the time I add up the childcare costs for me working full time (we both do) and other costs for my kids, one of whom trains and competes at national level in his sport (OK, this is unusual). I got way over your £450x2 figure per child.

Ex pays a fairly hefty sum in child support as he is a high earner (we both are). I pay for EVERYTHING else. All school trips and all clothes, sporting equipment, competition fees, all pocket money, phones, etc, etc. It makes life simple as the kids know that they get everything bought by me and they or I dont have to ask their dad for stuff.

The biggest item by far is childcare, if you work long hours as I do and have to travel, this is what really costs. I have live in help and run two cars so I can do my job and the kids can get to school. But as we both work full time and the kids are with me 13/14 nights I think this is a cost that should be included.

Now ex has remarried he feels hard done by, although he did reduce his child support payments by a fair chunk because of his new wife's kids.

I cant see any way I am personally benefitting from his money (and I work all hours to keep it all going).

So I disagree

I think I'm with niceguy on this one. You cant judge anyone else's situation by your own

I notice that you don't provide an answer.

Thanks for that.

The NRP can reduce the CSA's 15% maintenance calculation to as little as 6 or 7% if they step up and have their dc overnight 3 times a week.
Of course they'd then have to pick their dc up from school at 3pm, and drop them off at 8.30am. They'd have to negotiate their working hours to arrange that or use childcare to cover it which I think we all know can be expensive.

Most PWC have to do this as a matter of course. As well as pick up the slack when the NRP lets the dc down or cancels or just fails to show.

In an ideal world yes child care and parenting time would be shared, as would the cost of raising the dc. In reality a lot of PWC are left holding the baby and picking up the childcare costs which impacts on their working hours, career choices and promotion levels or means they end up shelling out a fortune for childcare.

Most NRP have their contact arrangements on the weekend and in holidays (every other weekend and half the holidays anyone?) This arrangement minimises the impact on their working hours and leaves the PWC with the vast majority of the childcare responsibilities.

So if you're going to argue about the fairness of the maintenance calculation you also need to look at the fairness of the childcare and who ends up with the responsibility for it.

Rankin. As I had already said, I disagree with your approach and with your assumptions, If you read my post I thought I had made that pretty obvious.

If my personal experience falls outside your parameters, so will many others. It doesnt necessarily mean we are all in it for personal gain. I have a job just as demanding as my ex, but with all our combined childcare responsibilities piled on top.

I think that the sheer existance of the CSA formula, despite its many faults, provides a lifeline for many divorcing parties. you dont have to use the CSA - we dont - but it does provide a framework for negotiation.

gillybean...I think that is a crucial point for RP of young children in particular, their working hours are limited, and so to say that they should be paying 1/2 of the actual costs for the children (therefore why should the NRP pay any more than £200 or whatever) when they may only be able to work half the hours of NRP, how is that fair?

and on that basis would such a parent then be happy to accept reduced payments as the need for childcare diminishes? I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? We're not all vicous exes out to get whatever we can out of the NRP. Some of us just want what's fair for our children.

I'm not calling anyone vicious. But I've yet to see or hear any stories relating to a PWC suggesting a reduction in maintenance payments from the NRP

Well children do cost a lot of money, the CSA calculator is not generous, so if a NRP follows that why on earth would a RP suggest a reduction? The money is needed to look after the children. When childcare costs for pre-school children end, they are just replaced with other costs as children grow up, chidlren certainly don't get cheaper as time goes on.

The example Riakin gave earlier about a NRP with £1000 take home, why did they need sky or whatever it was at £35 per month? (I just have freeview), £150 on car & home insurance per month? (I pay aorund £45), make those changes and that's nearly the 15% CSA calculation. Perhaps NRPs should make changes financially if they cannot afford to support their children.

evolucy - you have addressed my post without reference to its context.

And it is my belief that your assertion "the CSA calculator is not generous" is flawed. This completely depends upon income levels. There is a level at which the % calculation provides an amount well in excess of reasonable need.

I also note in riakin's example that her estimated food cost was £100pm .

Well here's a story for you - if I were to accept any less, I'd be giving him money. And if the CSA ever get their act together and get money out of him, and he were to start having dd more and the cost to him went up, then of course I'd expect the payments to go down. Just because you don't know of any stories of people like me, doesn't mean that there aren't lots of PWCs who sort out the finances amicably and want to be fair. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Judging by his posts Riakin is a man with an axe to grind, and certainly not a LP. Best taken with a huge pinch of salt. I thought the coment re sky was priceless - this is obviously more important than supporting YOUR children

For the vast majority the CSA calculation is probably not based on very high income levels where the % is far more than a child reasonably costs. Yes for some this may be true, but actually those NRP with the higher incomes would probably directly or indirectly have spent the money on the children anyway had the parents remained together, so why now should they not provide the same amount for the benefit of the children. And another point taking 15% of £1000 take home, or 15% of £5000 or £10000 etc take home the latter leaves the NRP with a hell of a lot more to live on then the former, the latter could hardly argue that they couldn't afford it.

"Yes for some this may be true, but actually those NRP with the higher incomes would probably directly or indirectly have spent the money on the children anyway had the parents remained together, so why now should they not provide the same amount for the benefit of the children"

The important words in your statement are "for the benefit of the children". At particularly high levels of maintenance, I'd suggest the link between payment and benefit to the child becomes tenuous. There's are current threads for example where maintenance for one child is £800pm - the PWC is effectively refusing to use any of that money to help out an elder child at university.

I don't think that's necessarily the case that the link to the benefit to the child becomes tenuous with a higher income. I think it all boils down to the adults involved and how they choose to use their money, be it the money given to them or the money they give. It's when parents become selfish with that money by spending it on themselves while their children go without, or miss out on opportunities, that there is a problem.

Elastamum and others. £35.00 is for a package TV, Phone and Internet. As someone said i've seriously cut down food to £100 a month. To put that into perspective thats £25 a week.

Elastamum i would also say that you are probably a mum who expects your ex to foot the bill of your clothes could i not?

One thing i notice on hear is that particularly from elastamum there has been a serious lack of alternatives. All it boils down to is CSA this and CSA that.

The facts come under my circumstances to do with the serious issues the CSA has. Once again you are not taking into account that again those with low incomes will be hardest hit. Something that i actually do and likewise my options are supported moreso by therapists and all the other groups i have mentioned, because it involves Mum and Dad coming together to agree on their child. Not for the state to use heavy underhand tactics of force. This should only be used as a last resort.

At least i offer an alternative to the CSA.

I would also say not to obviously call me "Rankin" it only serves to bring you out into a childish light, afterall you can't win a sensible (alternate option) argument so you'll resort to name calling instead.

"£35.00 is for a package TV, Phone and Internet." - and I'd suggest that anyone with a child needs to have internet access. I doubt anyone could save much of this for a package tbh.

You can say what you like Riakin, but as I've aready said I work full time and keep myself. Must leave this thread as I'm off to spend my exes money (actually I'm off to the US for a couple of days to run a research project, but expect you might be still here when I get back....)

Well Phone and Internet can be £23 with BT, why the need for extra TV? You have a mobile too at £20, this could be lower there are good SIM only deals for £10/£15, so that's saved £20 per month. Car and home insurance £150 per month that seems a lot to me, in rented so just contents insurance.

I have to say Riakin I am completely confused by the statement

'At least i offer an alternative to the CSA.'

Very well done for offering the option of paying less, how generous of you!

I think you'll find that most people who resort to using the CSA do so as they would get very little if anything if they didn't.

In my situation the maintenance my ex pays for ds would be reduced by just under £5 for each overnight he had him.

I would happily reduce the maintenance I receive for every overnight by £5 IF my ex was willing to have my ds. In fact I'd happily reduce it by £15 a week if he'd have him three overnights...
As it is he has refused any and all contact with ds since before he was born. He wouldn't even agree to send a xmas and birthday card each year which was all I asked of him.

Frankly I couldn't get a babysitter for an hour for that amount.
Given the level of minimum wage, my ex could earn far more than the £5 he would save by not leaving work at 3pm to collect ds from school, taking him home (travel costs), feeding him etc during that time.
I too could do some much needed extra hours at work and get some extra money for it too. Not to mention a break from the reletnessness of being a lone parent. 12 years with almost no breaks and little support is very hard going.

Given how hard my ds finds it not having a dad I think that £5 a day is a small price to pay for him to be involved in his life. Unfortunately my ex doesn't think so...

I know another lone parent who accepted no maintenance from her ex in return for the 1 or 2 overnights a week her ex had their ds. She said she'd rather have the break and for her ds to know his dad than take the money. Her ex threatened to cut all contact should she go to the CSA
He had previous form for this as he'd done that with his older 2dd.
However when he got hismelf a new partner he stopped seeing his ds anyhow, despite the NP having dc, one of who he used to walk to and from teh same school his ds went too (he had never taken his own ds to and from school). That was when she decided to ask for money. And then it was only half of the bus fare she would have to pay when he started secondary school being £5 a week. Well he didn't agree to that either and then managed to wangle out of the CSA because he was self employed and could hide his income.