How do you think CMS should be calculated?

[cantstandmenow]

Just that.

I receive CMS through personal arrangement, and while I'm not over the moon with it and not sure I'd receive more or less through the CMS service, I can see the system is pretty awful for others.

Just wondering how others think the system should work? Should NRP's pay a higher percentage of earnings? Should their lifestyle be taken into account? What should be put in place for those who aren't earning at all? (I think they should be made to do voluntary work and in return the RP receives additional payment, albeit with health taken into consideration).

I also don't agree with NRP's being able to reduce their payment if they move in with someone who already has children.

Just a general debate really!

The issue isn't the percentage. If NRP has children for a third of the time (alternate weekend etc) then 20% equate to 50% of income for the additional third that the RP has the children. The assumption is that RP pays for a third. NRP pays a third and the other third is shared 50/50. What's unfair about that?
The issue is the ability to avoid paying by swapping jobs, not working or using tax laws to pay very low amounts when self employed.

If the income of NRP partner should be included then so should the income of RP partner.
(My DP ex had an affair left for rich OM so has a far greater income than us) Why should my income be included but not RP income?

@Everytimeref the income of the RP partner is taken into account though. It affects whether the RP is entitled to tax credits, housing benefit. etc

And while I'm not saying the NRP partners income should be included as such, surely when an NRP moves in with someone else, 9 times out of 10, his basic accommodation costs lessen (rent/mortgage), therefore increasing disposable income.

In the situation you state the income on both the RP and NRP side is impacted by having a partner.

If entitled the RP gets these type of benefits for 100% of the time it doesn't get discounted as the NRP can't claim these types benefits for the third of the time they have the children.

Having to pay for a property that has extra room for children are only there a third of the time costs. Running costs remain the same. NRP don't necessarily have extra disposal income because they have a partner.
Claiming a discount for step children is unfair especially if the partner gets maintenance.

Many poster say " work out how much a child costs and half it" based on the income of both parties. That was the old system before CSA and it was a worse nightmare and even more unfair than the current system.

It shouldn't be linked to the earnings of the NRP at all unless they are really high earners.

It should be paid like a pension, a set amount per child, paid weekly or monthly by the state regardless of the absent parent's circumstances. An additional payment would be made for an absent parent earning over X amount

The absent parent would have a tax code that paid a percentage towards the debt, a bit like a student loan.

The absent parent earning over X amount (to be fixed annually) would have to pay an additional amount collected via the tax system.

Unlike a student loan the debt would not die with the absent parent or after 30 years.

The absent parent could 'buy' additional years as you can with a pension so a high earner would save money by paying 18 years at once.

If a child is continuing in FT education after 18 the payment would start to go to them and would be payable for 5 years or the end of FT education which ever came first.

I think there should be stronger powers enforced to collect money owed.

My ex hasn't paid for 7 years and owes over £18000....he's had liability orders, bayliff etc and nothing stops him.

Why can the government ensure car tax is paid and collected on time but not CM. It makes me SO cross.

Also for what it's worth - my ex put his name down on his new girlfriends Child Benefit...well I'm sorry but how can you let someone pay less CM because they are supporting a child that isn't even theirs biologically.

That is one big kick in the teeth!!

I don't agree it should be a higher percentage. Its the loop holes that need to be closed.
Dh has paid nearly £700 a month for one child and I'm sorry but a large proportion of.that has been subsidising his ex. There is no way it cost £700 a month to feed a child and buy school.uniform. a.child that we had every other weekend and half the holidays (would happily have had more but ex refused). We also paid for all sporting activities as she refused and it seems.we paid for all his hair cuts too.

Also I agree that it shouldn't reduce for step children living with the nrp.

I don't see an issue with a reduction for biological half sibling as in a non split family the £ per person would reduce.

I don't see that nrp partners earnings are of any relevance to paying for a child.

Unfortunately some nrp's are workshy arseholes but they would have been regardless of maintenance payments.

Dh has paid nearly £700 a month for one child and I'm sorry but a large proportion of.that has been subsidising his ex. There is no way it cost £700 a month to feed a child and buy school.uniform.

But it’s not just for food and uniform. It’s to try and bring the child’s standard of living in line with that of their NRP. and yes I realise the child stays with you too so is getting that standard of living when with you but many children don’t see the NRP and even if they are, isnt it fair that they also get some of it at their resident home? Your husband clearly earns well to pay £700 for one child, would he really want to pay just for her food and uniform at mums and have her existing on very little and then get spoiled at dad’s? Wouldn’t he want her to be able to have treats at both homes?

The point is though he clearly wasnt getting treats at his mum's house. She wouldn't even pay for him to join the football club so we did. She wouldn't pay for him to get his hair cut.

Also that much money going out the house meant that we actually had little left to treat all 3 children.
We've got a bigmortgage because DSS has his own bedroom so we need a fairly big house. (I realise people will say it's not essential but we want them all to have their own bedroom).

Also DSS mother works full time in a professional job.

we actually had little left to treat all 3 children.
We've got a bigmortgage because DSS has his own bedroom so we need a fairly big house.

Surely you have a big mortgage because you have 3 children. Not because DSS has his own room. His own room is just one room. That doesn’t necessitate a large mortgage.

If she works full time in a professional job and can’t afford haircuts then I suspect the £700 is very much needed. How much is her childcare bill?

Might get flamed for this....

I believe both parents should contribute.

I my case my OH has 2 kids. He has never missed a payment and pays 15% more than the CMS minimum (£9,500 a year for 2 children). On top he contributes to the children’s activities, buys then clothes etc.

His EW says it’s a ‘pathetic’ contribution.

She refused to work until 2 years ago (kids are now 10 & 13). She was ordered to get a job by a judge. She now works 16 hours and earns £10k.

Both parents should contribute to the upkeep of the kids. Not just the NRP.

It's the insecurity which worries me. My granddaughter's father could decide to do a masters full time or take a gap year or two or just disappear (irresponsible posh boy with very rich parents) with no consequences. My daughter can never rely on maintenance from him despite cms involvement. I would like to see passports and driving licenses withdrawn for non payment.

the income of the RP partner is taken into account though. It affects whether the RP is entitled to tax credits, housing benefit. etc

Same with the nrp’s partner affecting whether the nrp can get housing benefit/working tax credits.

Those are a separate issue to maintenance anyway. Neither partner’s income has any influence on what the maintenance figure is, and that’s the way it should be.

He's 14 there is no childcare bill.

Dh used to pay 1/2 towards that plus maintenance.

As on many other threads the resident mother is never in the wrong.

They need to close the loopholes, and come down hard on non payers.

Real consequences need to be put in place for NRPs dodging their responsibilities.

That said, if XH now after nearly 11 years offered I’d tell him to shove it up his arse. DS1 hasn’t had anything from him all his life, why start now?

Both parents should contribute to the upkeep of the kids. Not just the NRP.

Do you honestly believe that maintenance pays for food, clothes, activities, school trips, gas, electric, toiletries and every other expense a child incurs?

Because that statement is ridiculous. What RPs are not contributing? I literally don’t know of a single RP who pays nothing towards their child.

I know several NRPs who do, and several who don’t.

As the RP you don’t have the option of telling your kid to wait until payday for dinner/new shoes/school meals.

It should be after tax. It should take into account that the nrp still has to live. It should reduce further if a child that lives with the nrp is disabled.
Yes I am a stepmother. No I do not resent paying support. However I do question why it is done before tax and NI is taken away and why they don’t allow for a nrp to live and pay rent etc. Just like in a nuclear family disposable income goes down when more children are born so that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

If a child who lives with the NRP isn’t theirs I don’t see why they should be considered. It’s not up to the NRP to support a child that isn’t their at the expense of a child/children who are.

And I say that as a stepmum of 2.

I think the standard should be 50:50 care with no maintenance payable. The onus should be on each parent to pay their own share when the children are with them.

The government should work out the average cost of raising a child and then if one parent chooses to forfeit ‘their’ time, they should have to pay 100% of that cost for the days they don’t have their child that they ‘should’. So if the NRP has their child for 2 days a week, they would pay the RP for the 1.5 days that they should have their child but don’t.

When splits happen it’s usually not amicable and there is often resentment on botg sides, so this is the simplest way of making sure the children are looked after.

If the NRP is a high earner then additional costs need to be discussed between parents or they need to go to court.

If the NRP is on benefits, then tough, they still need to pay up.

What if the resident parent moves in with someone who has kids? The disposable income in that house would change also so it’s no different.

What if the resident parent moves in with someone who has kids?

Presumably their parents would be responsible for their financial needs?

Why should someone else’s kids affect their kids? That’s just a big loophole in the system.

That can't be policed or managed and would end up being completely unfair.

We either have blended families or we don't.