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.

Elastamum, thanks very much for that post, you've just shown how childish you can be. I wouldnt trust you with a "research project" if indeed that is even half of what you claim to do. Enjoy your trip to the US.

Some people on here are getting drawn into the particulars of my costs. Fair enough you could shave £12 off my TV package, you could even take £10 off my phone package. Remember mind that some mobile phone contracts will probably still be in place following a separation (24 month contracts) thus i feel £20 is more than fair.

Insurances, lets just say that life insurance for myself and my wife comes to £35, Home £19 and car insurance (2 people on one car) £96 (thats with 2years NCB on one part and 4years on another) and additional insurance for seriously injury/sickness/unemployment through our bank of £12.95 so that totals £150+.

So in retrospect my insurance quote probably isnt that far off the mark and i'd say that if you have all your insurances below £150 you are very very lucky.

In any instance i'll keep repeating that the CSA do wreck amicable relationships, its not fair, its not right and Government agency's certainly have no shred of authority on previous agreements that have been validated and honoured since they were taken out, even though the CSA completely disregard this.

If i'm completely honest i would be very grateful if the OP could actually inform us of the details over the next few months as of whats actually been decided and how she feels and how things are going and also how her other half thinks its going. Its usually quite interesting to see how these things turn out. History will repeat itself one way or another.

CSA only compensate for the short term.

Yes it's gone off the OPs post I guess, but seeing as you were so adamant that the CSA calculations were unfair and gave your details as an example it has been picked up on. I am now even more confused about your income and how CSA 15% leaves you in poverty, you take home £1000 per month, but have a wife, not your ex presumably, so does she work? Why so many personal insurances if you rent a house and have the income level you have?

Riakin I had no insurance of any kind (other than compulsory car insurance) for 8 years after my ds was born. I do now have buildings and contents insurance but I still don't have life insurance or serious injury insurance. Those are luxuries I simply can't afford (as was buidling and contents when I was on income support).

Did/do I sleep well at night? No. When my neighbour (terrace) almost set fire to her house with a chip pan fire I was having nightmares for weeks about having no house insurance.

For two terrible years I could barely justify the cost of keeping the car but living in a rural area I had no alternatives. If I had got rid of it I would never have been able to get the job I now have (or any job). So I kept the tax and insurance paid but I barely afford to drive it anywhere.

I've only had a mobile of my own the last 6 months and it is PAYG. I tell people not to leave voice mail for me as I can't afford to listen to them. It is purely for emergencies - calling my ds if I am going to be late picking him up from school or for school to contact me. He also has a PAYG phone but it doesn't get a signal at home so he can only use it at school. Tescos cheapy.

No I don't have sky and I won't be having it any time soon. Sky is a luxury fgs!

My food budget for the 2 of us has increased to a luxurious £40 in the last few months since the tax free threashholds went up and I increased my working hours to full time now my ds is at secondary school. When I was on income support there were many weeks where I had less than £18 to feed the two of us. And that included all shopping - food, toiletries, cleaning products... Clothes? You can't afford new clothes on that income. Charity shops and hand me downs is what you do instead. Make do and mend (literally - I had to put cardboard in my winter boots as they were worn through with holes in the soles).

I was also paying almost £1K in childcare costs when I was bringing home around £10K (and that's including all the benefits I received including the healp towards childcare costs). I don't have any rent to pay but of course I would of been entitled to housing benefit if I had. I'm sure you would be too on the income you state for yourself and your wife...

The reality is you live within your means. And many lone parents live in poverty. I'm sorry you are finding yourself in poverty too. But that is life. You mention you have a wife. Does she have a job and is her income included in your £10K? Are you claiming all the benefits you can between you?

On a low income you have to account for every penny and budget like mad. You can live (just about) but you have to give up anything that is not essential. And it's certainly not much fun that's for sure.

Hi Gillybean,

I don't know if you are aware of this, but if you have a mortgage it is law that you need to have buildings insurance and life insurance. So i have to say that these "luxuries" as you put it, are actually necessities for some NRP's.

The only insurances i will agree with you on is injury and illness. I like many don't have it as technically its not something i would consider that i have to have had in the first instance. Doing contact sports i should probably consider it!

Likewise, feel free to cut the PAYG/ Contract phone, what i am saying is that even with this being gone it still does not equate to a person who has just above minimum wage in mind. To elaborate further on the £1,000 a month scenario (which has conveniently been a case in another thread) if a person has the £150 CSA maintenance order put on them and they happen to live in a high cost area for rent (my £500 figure is in some many cases too low anyway). You very quickly have a situation with necessary insurances, living costs etc that are going to push the NRP.

You could even cut the food bill down to £18 a week, that still translates to £90 a month.

I'm not being overly challenging here, but if you had £1,000 in childcare costs, 80% of that could/should have been covered by the Tax Credits (as per their site) however in many instances WTC/CTC plenty covers part time childcare costs. Therefore your childcare costs were/have been reduced by up to 80%. Or is there some reason as to why you did not qualify for this?

I will keep arguing that if parents are speaking (even if they are disagreeing initially) it is still better to come to your own arrangement before just going to the CSA.

I have heard cases previously where "NRP's" have given child support (paid monthly voluntarily and a couple of hundred pounds i might add) to then be told more is needed to buy whole new wardrobes (which have been refused) and in step the CSA who create an assessment running alongside the existing agreement. This has resulted in the unnamed individual ending up paying more than £800 over 2months until he noticed his bank balance taking a massive hit following DoE's being put onto income while out of the country (following his refusal to cough up an extra £250 to buy a whole new wardrobe for his children).

In retrospect i will be highly interested in seeing how the minor discussion is going to go this Friday with regards to the Shared Parenting Bill.

It is agreeing what many in the same circumstance feel that the Childrens Act 89 it can be assumed see's one parent as the care giver and the other as the financial provider. This will hopefully progress to give more access for children to their right to see the other parent who is not resident.

I'm confused now. Riakin, are you a NRP? You said on p1 that you are not a lone parent. I thought your example was hypothetical?

Actually thinking about it, if you are a NRP, it would explain why you think that maintenance should factor in your current outgoings and why you think a flat percentage is wrong.

Hi niceguy2,

My situation isn't important and technically i'm neither.

All i am saying is (without getting bogged down in particulars again) that the CSA forces the percentage to be factored in as part of outgoings. When a couple were living together they didn't direct debit 15% of their wage.

It presents other problems as many parents who are going through the maintenance option (CSA) will then see that as being the reason to turn and say "forget that school trip you should have budgeted maintenance" or (a very common one i come across) PWC: We're off on holiday so if you get some holiday outfits... and the "NRP" will most of the time point blank refuse.

If things can be discussed and sorted (yes there will be disagreements) but other factors can be supported more mutually. Its imperative that parents be able to talk about their child. If this fails to happen over a period of time and mediation or family sitting down... sure go to the CSA. But otherwise the CSA can, does and will make parents relationship deteriorate.

If parents could discuss and be mutually suportive they wouldn't go to the CSA in the first place. Very often they can not agree on contact let alone finances. They would also probably be less likely to be getting divorced/separated in the first place if they could actually talk to each other sensibly and come to an agreement amicably...

Riakon you keep talking about ideals without considering the reality of most separations which generally involve deep emotional upset and at least one party feeling agrieved (usually the one who was left or was cheated on or who doesn't want the separation).

You also say your "situation isn't important and technically i'm neither". Actually it is, because if you are neither then you won't have experienced the reality of the situation. Like many things in life, while you can observe and speculate as to how you would act, what is best /right etc, the reality when you are in that situation isn't always as you would like or hope. Especially when you are relying on two parties who are not working together in any other part of their life to come together and be sensible and reasonable when emotions are running so high.

I'm a shared parent. A Daddy and a protector.

With regards to your comment about actually knowing what its like. You honestly couldn't be further from the truth.

The only time at which the CSA should be used is as a last resort. Even MP's have recently said that the CSA is often used as a whipping stick.

In an ideal world the system would be one which supports shared parenting. In reality there is little support for this from a society/cultural point of view and the system expects one parent to be the emotional and social provider, while the other parent (the "NRP") to be the sole financial provider.

The system is broken and the family courts and CSA do very very little to accommodate it.

Its the Shared Parenting Bill date today through the Commons and the second hearing. If it passes it will be a major step in giving (in the majority of cases) the Father a chance to have in law an expectation for there to be joint custody, 50/50.

FWIW, my DP and his exW split all child related direct costs that can be clearly identified and allocated (school fees, canteen, clothes, bus pass, books, shoes, extra tuition, medical bills...) 50:50.

Each parent meets directly the costs of accommodation, food, utilities and holidays that the DSSs take with that parent.

The DSSs spend half their time with each parent.

I think where there is a childcare issue, you need to evaluate the loss of earnings incurred and the costs of childcare saved and negotiate some form of compensation.

3/5 of parents who don't use the CSA do not have a maintenance agreement is the statistic.

The figure for CSA payment is in the 70-75% area.

I don't have a maintenance agreement as neither of us pay anything to each other, so I'm one of the 3/5 who doesn't have an agreement.

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

Bear - my ex recently had a child. I suggested he drop his maintanence from £300 to £200. I still have childcare costs, although they are now reduced by half of what they were. They were as high as 620 pcm at one point.

I did this because I wanted to show that I was being fair. He didn't see it that way though - simply reminded me that I wasn't 'doing him a favour' - but accepted the reduction nonetheless.

As far as I can see the real injustice in this system is not the 15 % that the CSA requires, but the fact that elastamum, and others of her ilk, feel a sense of entitlement to a live-in nanny, two cars, private schools and the means to support a child to national level in a competitive sport. People like this should be paying more tax. Simple as that - that could then help for proper after-school provision for lower wage earners who are struggling to meet their commitments. As for sneering that she thought "the coment (sic) re sky was priceless", how unnecessary is that? And while I may not agree with everything Riakin says, he has a point when he says she has yet to furnish details of the better standards of living enjoyed by NRPs.

Reference please.

Reference please.

I called Child Maintenance Options and they told me what he should pay based on his salary and he agreed to pay that.

Thanks Topaz,

I'm not saying everyone should agree with me, if people agree with some of my points so be it.

To Stewies Mom, I am a man yes. However please don't tarnish me (being male) as someone who always thinks with his penis and doesn't care about his child... just because i would summise that you have had a partner leave you, doesn't mean that all men are like that.

Stop stereotyping, you never know... you might just be able to let go...

In reference to posts on here about the CSA etc i am waiting on some information returning. I think i will use it as my first actual thread. It will all be factual information. And i believe, will further back up any claims i may make in the future on other such specifics.

"As far as I can see the real injustice in this system is not the 15 % that the CSA requires, but the fact that elastamum, and others of her ilk, feel a sense of entitlement to a live-in nanny, two cars, private schools and the means to support a child to national level in a competitive sport. People like this should be paying more tax."

What an extraordinary assertion, topazmcgonagall. What entitlement does the tax man have to the things that elastamum and her exH work to afford for their children?

Why is it extraordinary?

A hospital cannot function without consultants. Nor can it function without porters.

Elastamum and her exH work to afford things for their children.

So do low earners.

The difference is that for a low earner on say £15,000 p.a, 15% of their wage is roughly £40 a week. This makes a large dent in their income since they are already living on a restricted budget, without much disposable income.

15% of a salary of someone on £40,000 is roughly £120. However they have a more realistic amount left to live on. And for people who are earning six figures the amount paid out in maintenance is altogether less troublesome. This is not to say they won't notice it, but what they are left with will allow them to pay their bills, entertain, go on holiday and so on.

The problem for people like this is that because £40 is a relatively small sum to them, they cannot conceive of how much it is missed by the low earner. Thus people like elastamum arrive at a position where they neither listen to, nor understand, the protests, and are rude and dismissive.

This benefits no-one.

My guess is that Sky will be the main source of entertainment and relaxation - nothing else is affordable. It is graceless in the extreme to mock this. Elastamum and her kind are lucky. That's all, lucky. They are living in a time when their particular skills are highly valued.

I think that the scale needs to be re-thought so that there is some kind of safety net to ensure that people on low incomes are not living so close to the bone. And that money which would make their lives, and the lives of their children easier, would have to come from somewhere. I think it should come from a higher contribution from high earners.

I am not some kind of apologist for people who shirk their financial obligations to their children. Believe me when I say that I am well aware that there are some men who value money over providing for their children.

But you cannot judge all men like that.
It is necessary to engage with the argument. Informed and reasoned debate needs to be exactly that - informed and reasoned. It is pointless to withhold information - we might all learn from informed debate.

(You must excuse me now, I have to go out, but I will check in later.)

OK, say my household gross income is EUR 500,000. How much of that should go on taxes, according to you?

Stressedatbest it was allnewtaketwo who made that statement ... or are you posting to back me up, in which case thanks, and good for you!

Topaz? How on earth can you claim to know that I have 'a massive sense of entitlement'. I dont believe I am 'entitled' to anything, which is why I have always worked.

Am I lucky? To a degree yes, in that the field I have worked in for 25 years is quite specialised and highly paid and I have manged to work my way up through it. But I also work very hard - I spent yesterday running a meeting in the US, last night on a plane and today in my office, before I went off to pick up my kids. I'm not complaining, as I'm lucky to have choices, but its not quite the picture you paint.

Because I disagree with Riakin's approach to child support, I have been called a greedy moneygrabber who goes clothes shopping on her exes money and incompetent at my job?? Now I confess I do wear a suit for work, but I'm typing this wearing a 10 year old sweatshirt and a pair of DS1's old trainers. Hardly designer clobber.

And as for my comment regarding sky - I'm sorry you found this offensive. But when my ex left us I was unemployed as we had just moved for his job. I had no income. So I went through our outgoings and cancelled everything we could do without - sky was one of the things I decided had to go as it wasnt essential and I simply couldnt afford it. Then I went out and spent months knocking on doors to get myself re employed.

Anyway, in a effort to move things on, here are some references on the effect of divorce on finances. Some of it is a bit old, but if you care to wade through, it is pretty depressing all round. Enjoy.

Financial living standards after divorce : A recent snapshot
Bruce Smyth and Ruth Weston

www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP23.html

EFFECTS OF CHANGING MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE INCIDENCE
OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN
By Fiona McAllister
Family Policy Studies Centre

When Couples Part: Understanding the Consequences for Adults and Children: Executive Summary (Lester Coleman and Fiona Glenn, 2009)

www.oneplusone.org.uk

Topaz, the actual amount of 15% of a notional £40k salary is more like £370 per month.

But that of course assumes there's no reduction based on the number of nights the child spends with the NRP.

Riakin. You are being idealistic and applying idealistic scenarios to an imperfect world then claiming "It's not fair!!!". If it were an ideal world, we'd not need a CSA as either parents would never split in the first place or if they did, they'd agree an amount between them.

As I've said before, there is no formula which is fair to every single case. It's impossible. The line has to be drawn and the best we can ever hope to achieve is that it's fair to most people.

And without being rude, if you've never been a LP, you've no concept of what it's like. Trust me. I used to be the stereotypical Daily Mail reader who thought single mum's should put more effort into staying with their OH's etc. Until one day I became a single dad.

Nothing drives us more insane than a married mum saying something like "Oh he's been working all hours this week....i'm practically a single parent!" Everytime i hear that, I have to force myself to not scream at said person!

We live in a world where fair is often a luxury we cannot afford.

Thanks for the figures, niceguy2. Even more reason to put money into the central pot, and allocate it to proper afterschool provision. However I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say "We live in a world where fair is often a luxury we cannot afford." Eh? What is this argument about then? Surely we all want to live in a fairer world? Isn't that what benefits our children?

Elastamum, thank you for the references, and the apology. I'm new to mumsnet and find the gloves-off approach unhelpful. I will seek out the book. It is not my field, but I have ploughed through the Australian article, and note that it is over ten years old, and that the authors themselves say that in certain sub-divisions results must be treated with caution as the numbers involved are so small. I will re-read it and see if it it possible to extrapolate any meaningful figures.

The point I am trying to raise here is not whether women are poorer overall - we all know they are -, but the punitive effect of a percentage based method of assessment for the low earner (man or woman).

Some people will try to avoid paying maintenance. Of course they should contribute fairly to their children's upbringing. But there are people who really struggle to make the assessed contributions. This harbours resentment and leads to a general perception of child support payments overall as being unfair.