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!

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

The current system can’t be policed or managed and is completely unfair!

Why should children that don’t belong to the NRP (thus presumably having a RP and a NRP to pay for them) mean that their own children have less?

That is not right at all, and it’s used far too often as a means to dodge paying.

Nobody’s saying you can’t have a blended family, I have 2 DSDs and DS1 is DPs DSS. DD and DS2 belong to me and DP.

Not once did it occur to us to stop giving his girls what they need because we have a bigger family, in fact, if having our two youngest meant that DSDs would have gone without, we wouldn’t have had them.

You can’t just fuck off your responsibilities because you’ve got a new family.

There aren’t words for how cunty that is.

This is why no matter what system is in place it will always be seen as unfair to many. It's an impossible scenario. My partner has an older daughter. We pay support. We have children together. We reduced our payments to her mother.

As far as I am concerned it is fair she gets less. If she lived here full time or if her parents had stayed together and had more children then the money available to that one child would have reduced in the same way.

What I feel is unfair is that it is done BEFORE tax. That figure does not represent a true income. Also housing needs should be considered. How can a non resident parent be expected to have their child for weekends or 50/50 if they can't afford a large enough home??? Yet is something I hear resident parents complain about.
So as I said a fair system that everyone agrees upon will never exist.

As far as I am concerned it is fair she gets less

Have you asked her? Because I suspect the answer will be different.

You can’t complain that the NRP should be able to afford housing and whatnot and reduce payments because of a choice they made to put someone else’s kids first.

Or rather you can, but it doesn’t make it right.

Do you consult your children on that kind decision? Cause we don't. They do not have the understanding to make that decision?

Please note. I have been the resident parent. I did not take more than I had to. Why? Because I knew he had to live and eat and put a roof over his head in order to be a father.
And yes he only had every other weekend and often didn't even turn up for that but I never took that money.

Both parents deserve a life after separating. In many cases that involves more children etc.

And how exactly is it fair to take the tax credits for my children into account when calculating child support? When often the resident parent gets tax credit also??

So as I said. It's an impossible equation and will never please everyone.

Trailmum. What you suggest re 50-50 then NRP paying compensation for not having the children is what the current percentage is based on.
The one change I would make is to get a reduction of cm it should be reduced for a 24hr period not "overnight" as that causes major issues.

And how exactly is it fair to take the tax credits for my children into account when calculating child support? When often the resident parent gets tax credit also??

This has never affected my children but I feel so angry for the ones that it does affect. To be honest I thought they scrapped that rule a couple of years ago?

No I'm pretty sure it still stand. That rule is to be honest the only one that angers me.

Ugh I hope not. I could have sworn I read something a couple of years ago that it was being scrapped because of universal credit coming in to play.

Do you consult your children on that kind decision? Cause we don't. They do not have the understanding to make that decision?

I wouldn’t make the decision to drop responsibilities towards my DSDs.

Both parents deserve a life after separating. In many cases that involves more children etc

Nobody said they didn’t. What I said was that it shouldn’t mean their existing children get less. Because they shouldn’t.

And how exactly is it fair to take the tax credits for my children into account when calculating child support?

It’s not.

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

Well yeah, childcare, is also contributing though. How did a judge order her to get a job? Surely that’s between her and the job centre?

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.

So a school trip that falls on dad’s week is dad’s cost to pay? What about uniforms? What if the only way to facilitate 50/50 care is for one parent to have every weekend and holidays so other parent is covering all school costs and childcare costs?

I think that only applies if you are in receipt of universal credit but I'm not sure.

Even in a non step family the existing children miss out regardless of how well you plan. So I can't see your point.

Even in a non step family the existing children miss out regardless of how well you plan. So I can't see your point

No they don’t miss out, and I’m not surprised you can’t see my point. You think it’s acceptable to drop responsibilities for an existing child for a stepchild. We don’t have the same values at all.

All three children in my case have the same father. Growing up I got less when my brother was born and it happens in all families I know as the resources have to be split between more people.

I’m never going to change your mind. You’re never going to change mine.

Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that eh?

That's fine. As I said. It's a no win situation

And it’s the children who suffer. That’s my issue.

I think everyone suffers and it sucks.

I do hate nrp who do t pay or see their kids though. I may come across nasty but I have helped pay when things were rough.

We have a private agreement. Doesn't come without its issues but means we can compromise.

All three children in my case have the same father. Growing up I got less when my brother was born and it happens in all families I know as the resources have to be split between more people.

This is exactly what happens. My eldest gets less than he would have done if I hadn’t have gone on to have more children. They all get less because of each other. Whether that’s less one on one attention, less opportunities for activities, less space to call their own, less treats, less nice food. The list goes on.

I’m also aware that not all or even the majority (I hope) of NRPs are a shit as my XH. He thinks parenting is rocking up once a fortnight with a happy meal!

And how exactly is it fair to take the tax credits for my children into account when calculating child support? When often the resident parent gets tax credit also??

They don't. This is exactly how my ex gets out of paying. Carers allowance for his DSD is in his name. All other benefits for his DSC and DC are in his wife's name. None of this is income the CMS can touch (rightly so) so I get sweet FA.

Both parents deserve a life after separating. In many cases that involves more children etc

Of course they deserve a life after moving on. In my case ex has moved on and had 2, soon to be 3, more DC and given no fucks about how our 2 DC get fed/clothed etc. He's gloated every time he got to reduce, and eventually stop, maintenance.
I have also moved on. However DP and I have worked out we cannot afford more children as much as we want them because the existing ones still need feeding/clothing etc. I guess we could have more DC and forget about the 2 I have like their father did...

@YeTalkShiteHen & @SisternitCifTerf - in my OH’s case he pays £9,300 per year maintenance for 2 kids.

Mum refused to get a job (kids by this point were 8 & 11). Said all mums who work are bad mothers and was demanding £9k a y at spousal maintenance for herself (in addition to the £9,300 child maintenance). Their finances went to court and the judge dismissed the spousal maintenance claim - mothers are now expected to work and fund themselves.

The mum now works just 16 hours a week. Takes home £10k. My OH’s £9,300 is apparently a ‘pathetic contribution’ that’s his contribution to bringing up the kids when in her care (he pays for them on his time). Yet mum only earns £10k to support the 3 of them. So my point in both parents should be contributing, not just the NRP. It isn’t upto the NRP to be supporting women they are now divorced from.

It isn’t upto the NRP to be supporting women they are now divorced from

Literally nobody said it was. As per on threads like these you’re projecting.

Just like in a nuclear family disposable income goes down when more children are born so that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

And that's a decision made between the two parents in a nuclear family. It's not one made elsewhere, but left for the one parent to suck up the decrease in available money.

And that's a decision made between the two parents in a nuclear family. It's not one made elsewhere, but left for the one parent to suck up the decrease in available money

I think you’ve just nailed it for me. The whole attitude of society in general towards RPs is “suck it up” and to NRPs is “there are no consequences for you if you completely absolve yourself of all responsibility but you can keep your rights”