Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Original poster

Maintenance, how much is enough?

356 replies

Longlongsummer · 18/09/2019 13:19

I was wondering about maintenance payments. My ex has paid £180 a month for years. I get that it’s based on income, however he’s self employed so doesn’t declare half of it!

I used to have a good job however I decided to take a part time one to be around more for our son. I’m the main carer. So I don’t earn very much at all.

I think that this is very low. As effectively I am still covering over half of my child’s costs, in mortgage, clothes, food etc. My son in total does not cost only £360 a month I can tell you! I’ve added it up to budget better.

I’m sure that there are parents out there coping with less, less money and less maintenance. Why are we? Why aren’t we shouting that it’s not right?

I also pay for all the extra activities that my son does, music lessons, child care when younger, extra tuition. He has some mild learning difficulties and I’ve paid for extra help. I’ve paid for every single penny of everything without receiving any extra and I’m feeling a little sick of being both the main breadwinner and main carer.

I’ve talked with other lone parents, and this seems to be the norm. Mothers paid an amount based on CSA which is based not on what the child needs, but what the Dad earns and is the absolute minimum. And yet every father seems to take that as being ‘doing their fair share’.

And I’ve never complained to Ex. And yet I think, what are we doing as women, by just letting this happen? Why aren’t men paying half of the costs for their kids? Is this really common?

OP posts:
DrCoconut · 19/09/2019 12:58

Disagree that no one is forced to be RP. My kids would be in care if I wasn't RP. My dad kind of forced my mums hand by going and dying on us too. Some mums (and dads) get all the responsibility and suck it up because that's what you do for your kids.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 12:59

for it to be really fair I think you would have to consider the following;

both parents income
who if anyone is claiming tax credits / child benefit for the child
whether there are any other children involved
housing situation of both parents
how much time spent with each parent
childcare used and whether its been agreed by both parents or they both use their own childcare on their own time

there are probably many many other things!

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:00

dr clearly I wasn't referring to when a parent dies.

Your kids being in care would still be you not being RP, its obviously not a choice you would make, but its a choice you theoretically could make if you absolutely didn't want custody of them.

Walnutwhipster · 19/09/2019 13:08

I think it's difficult when you go down the route of wanting the NRP to specifically contribute to the extra you have to pay for your mortgage. When the child reaches adulthood should you then be forced to sell the home and give them a percentage of the house based on half of what that extra room cost?

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:14

I understand OP. I have more than 2 children and need to run a family sized home. This is a cost I wouldn't have as a single person without children.

Their fathers house is smaller, as he doesn't have them all the time. And no, he wouldn't be RP, he travels internationally with work.

As it happens my ex does pay CMS minimum, which in his case is a substantial amount, because he is a high earner. But I still think a man on more modest salary should pay towards children's housing costs if he is the NRP.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:19

But I still think a man on more modest salary should pay towards children's housing costs if he is the NRP

but what about wallnuts point above?

if that happens, then should the rp have to sell and pay the nrps share back considering its not benefitting the children anymore?

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:20

Actually I would be substantially better off financially if ex had died rather than left us.( tho I'm not saying that's the only thing that matters)

He is well insured through his company scheme to the tune of 4 times his substantial salary, our own insurance would have paid the mortgage off and I would have inherited his half of the house.

In addition I would have been entitled to widowed mother's benefits until my youngest was 18. ( This has now changed for new claimants).

I appreciate this isn't the case for all widows, but divorce can be much more expensive than if a parent dies.

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:22

'if that happens, then should the rp have to sell and pay the nrps share back considering its not benefitting the children anymore'

No. That is the price you pay for housing your children over the years they need it. Look upon it as rent.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:25

I think that's incredibly unfair miss and you cant class it as rent in a month of sundays!

you're essentially giving someone more equity on a property you have no legal interest in, kids or no kids I think that's massively unfair.

I don't think it should be "the price you pay" at all. Seems to be more like the price you pay for daring to get a divorce.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:26

and no its probably not the case for most widows, especially those whos partners or husbands pass after they split and so they'd get nothing, which is more what I meant, tbh.

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:28

It is more like rent, as it ceases when the children are 18, irrespective of what is left on the mortgage. So you are only paying for what you 'use' in a sense.

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:30

Well no, if your ex dies after a split you are not a widow, although it might still be possible to insure your maintenance payments against him dying.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:31

don't be pendantic miss you knew what my point was Hmm

its not like rent, when you pay rent you get something in return.

The NRP isn't "using" anything. They would be paying towards the equity of the house, which will grow and benefit nobody else but the RP.

Missillusioned · 19/09/2019 13:36

I'm not being pedantic. It's entirely possible the home in question could be rented. So noone gets any equity. But the extra housing cost is still there. Should the NRP pay less if the house is owned than if it's rented? That's a nonsense.

And housing can go down in value, as well as up.

caringcarer · 19/09/2019 13:38

I think it depends on how what your relationship is now like with ex. Could you ring and say he has been paying £180 a month for a number of years but prices are going up all of the time and tell him you would appreciate it if he would pay £200 per month. State as child gets older he eats more and his clothing costs more and you don't want child to go without. You are not asking for a lot more so hopefully he will just pay up. If he refuses I would contact CSA and ask for them to reassess his earnings.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:38

no, the NRP shouldn't be paying towards rent or mortgage IMO!

They have their own rent / mortgage to pay, for potentially the same sized house (if they have the kids overnight they will need the same amount of bedrooms)

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 13:41

I dont expect dp to pay towards his exs house (though saying that he bought the thing single handed and came out with an 8th of the equity so he has already paid towards most of it anyway!) and I wouldn't expect his ex to pay towards our house.

blackcat86 · 19/09/2019 13:46

The reality is that we get to choose our own lifestyle but we can't expect others to pay for it. DSSs mum didnt work until he went to junior school now does a few hours a week whilst he's a teenager. Has this affected her standard of living, housing etc? Yes of course.

I have a 1yr old and work PT having gone back when she was 10 months. I'm actually after a FT promotion so I'll have more income but will incur related costs and will miss time with my child. This is also a choice.

Dads also have choices and DH may take a step back from work to to PT if I get a FT job. Equally he offered childcare to his ex and she refused. These are all choices. Now ex may be miffed that I earn more and have a good job but we've each chosen our own path. You've chosen to go PT and care for your son which is fantastic but you can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

ThighThighOfthigh · 19/09/2019 19:38

Ah - miss makes a good point! Think of rented property not owned.

So NRP rents a 2 bed property for herself and one child rather than the 1 bed she would have rented. Therefore she pays £400 pcm rather than £200 pcm rent. So she is paying £200 extra to house the child - the £200 needs to be split 50/50. RP should be contributing £100 pcm as his 50/50 share of the child's room.

Ravingstarfish · 19/09/2019 19:46

RP should be contributing £100 pcm as his 50/50 share of the child's room.

But most non resident parents have a room for the child as well

Notopel · 19/09/2019 19:56

I really hoping all the people listing how much children cost aren’t working in any finance capacity as you’ve all completely ignored the intangible costs which is mainly the impact on earning potential. There’s often limited opportunity to commute because of caring responsibilities and the RP will take lower paid local work which fits around the school day.

I’ve previously worked in a role where non standard hours are the norm and flexibility is expected. I now have to discount any role which includes travel even if it’s only a handful of times a month. My ex husband will often tell me he needs to change contact arrangements because he can’t leave work. Lovely for him to have that option. In the past I’ve had to walk out of meetings with senior directors with the excuse that if I didn’t get to the nursery, my son would be spending the evening with social services.

The ‘cost’ is far more than x amount for food each week etc.

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 19:59

There’s often limited opportunity to commute because of caring responsibilities and the RP will take lower paid local work which fits around the school day

It doesnt have to be that way. There are such things as childminders at nurseries.

Why are we still being lead to believe you cant have a career if you have resident children Hmm

hsegfiugseskufh · 19/09/2019 20:00

Some rps will also have family support so its not always that the poor women have to work for min wage 9.30 till 2.30

Ravingstarfish · 19/09/2019 20:02

So true holidayhelpppp, I wonder how many mothers would give custody to the fathers if they have it so great, I’m guessing none.

lovemenorca · 19/09/2019 20:07

I receive £2350 for two children a month
A lot
But
I am the RP. Father has them for 3 nights a month
And his take home is £7.5k for one single male.

It’s all about context

Swipe left for the next trending thread