Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Lone parents

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

Flip

Original poster

erk. nursery fees. are these supposed to come out of maintenance?

25 replies

LoveAndSqualor · 14/12/2009 19:39

Bit of background ... exP and I split up when DS was sixth months' old; reasonably amicable, but things have become more complex now due to money. We both work; currently we split DS's nursery payments (£1100pm) on a salary-ratio, and exP pays me £120 a month on top of that.

However, I've been living rent-free for a year and am about to move into rented accommodation (which will cost over two-and-a-half times what exP pays for his place). My feeling is that his maintenance payments should reflect that (we both earn decent money, but live in central London). According to the CSA calculator he should pay me around £400 a month, but he thinks this ought to include nursery fees, and I think nursery fees should be worked out separately, and that the £400 is maintenance. Can anyone tell me who's right? £400 wouldn't even cover half of DS's nursery fees, never mind anything else, so I'm pretty much hoping it's me!

OP posts:

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 14/12/2009 20:09

anyone?

OP posts:

Niceguy2 · 14/12/2009 20:09

Sorry he's right. He is legally obliged to pay you the £400 a month the CSA calculator said. What you do with that is up to you. Any shortfall is your problem. That is assuming you are the main carer. Anything else you get from him is a bonus.

Whether you think thats fair or not is irrelevent. Thats the way the UK system works.

Lastly, I don't see why his maintenance payments should reflect what you pay in rent. By the same logic he would be paying a fortune should you decide to move into Windsor Castle.

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 14/12/2009 20:18

Hmmn. That does seem rather unfair. Ah well.

Oh, and obviously I wouldn't be asking him to help me pay rent for a spot in windsor castle. We're talking a two-bed flat with no outdoors and a kitchen-living room here. Simply that having been staying with relatives for a year (in order to save money for a deposit, but now being priced out as house prices have shot back up) the cost of maintaining DS was considerably lower.

OP posts:

queenofdenial2009 · 14/12/2009 20:28

I get £269 a month and have to pay for all my childcare out of that. Yup, the resident parent comes out much worse from a seperation. Are you getting tax credits and nursery vouchers? A childminder would also probably be cheaper.

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 14/12/2009 20:49

Hey queenof, thanks for replying. Bugger. OK. Get nursery vouchers and credits, yes ... and a childminder would be cheaper, but DS is v happy in his nursery and I have to work fulltime (to afford to live anywhere!) so would absolutely hate to move him. In fact, that would be the last, last thing I'd give up. May have to cancel my pension though. Bugger again. THanks loads for clarifying, though!

OP posts:

itsmakingmeblush · 14/12/2009 21:46

I get £280 a month off my ex-hubby for my daughter, which I'm happy with, however I also get child tax credits and working tax credits which are supposed to cover the nursery fees of £293 a month?

So he is right he only has to pay what the CSA website says...... sorry

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 14/12/2009 21:49

aw, thanks, it's makingmeblush! will look further into tax credits. Our nursery fees just SO expensive, on account of living in central London. Ugh. And I can't really live further out, as I wouldn't be able to fit my working day into my childcare day ... it's a problem. Hum ho. Guess we'll soldier on ...

OP posts:

Niceguy2 · 14/12/2009 22:32

As I always say, fair depends on which side of the table you are on. I suspect your ex would think £400 a month is perfectly fair. Hence why i say it doesn't matter what is fair, just what is legal.

ChocHobNob · 14/12/2009 22:34

Look into the childcare element of working tax credits, it might be more worthwhile than the vouchers.

As previous posters have said, his maintenance through the CSA is all he is obliged to pay. If he chooses to pay above, that is up to him.

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 15/12/2009 19:45

Niceguy2, I do see that, of course, but we agreed on splitting that childcare was a cost we both had to shoulder, so we could afford to split, as we both needed to work in order to do that. I can't possibly pay £1100 a month on top of rent, (would come to more than I earn) so for us both to work, we do need to share that burden. I'm shocked, actually, that the law doesn't account for this; it does for private school fees, which are voluntary; why not for childcare which we've no option but to pay if we want to work?

OP posts:

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 15/12/2009 19:46

ChocHobNob, thanks v much for the tip; I'll absolutely do that

OP posts:

lindsaygii · 15/12/2009 21:48

Niceguy2 "As I always say, fair depends on which side of the table you are on."

Bollocks. I'm not on either side of the table, and I can see that it's not fair that the maintenance payments sought by the CSA aren't adequate.

This is why - they are a percentage of the NRP's income, NOT a percentage of the actual cost of keeping the child.

So the PWR pays all the shortfall, regardless of their income.

Since both parents made the child, that clearly isn't fair.

Where people go wrong with this is in imagining that maintenance is 'for the ex-wife'. It's for the child.

I'll say that again.

It's for the child.

tiredoftherain · 15/12/2009 21:57

well said, lindsaygii.

I'm new to this but couldn't work out how the system could be fair either. It seems to penalise the RP for working if the costs of their childcare are completely disproportionate to one income.

I'm going to have this factored into spousal maintenance so hopefully it can be dealt with in this way. So even my actual "ex wife" maintenance is still largely for the dc's.

newyorkshire · 15/12/2009 22:52

Hi,
really sorry but yep, the csa measley 20% [if you have two children] is all he ''has to pay'' according to the csa. However, it being 'irrelevant' is not really very helpful to anyone. I am in a similar position to you. my ex and myself both work f/t. He owns his own 2 bed home [with no kids there] and I rent mine. I pay £1215 pcm in childcare and my rent is £900 and thre is no way I can afford a 3 bed house which my kids need, one approaching his teens and them being opposite sex. I will be sleeping in the lounge when push comes to shove as London prices are so high.
I asked my ex to contribute to daughters nursery fees-he said no as he pays through the csa. That is for my childs good/benefit [not mine]. He also feels that in order to keep a roof over their heads [half of the two thirds of rent-correct me if I am wrong, and if you saw my delapadated house [windows held in with selotape, no insulation etc, it is far from a castle] is not his reponsibility. So if it is Windsor or not, I know I'd be in a one bed flat if it were not for the children. so yes it is unfair.
It is very relevant considering the number of kids in poverty and the number of 1 parent families. I wrote to my MP, I suggest more of us do. Also Gingerbread do alot of campaigning. Don't just 'put up and shut up' and be grateful. Fight for what is right along the right channels to get fairness and equality. Oh, and dont vote for a certain party who want to give tax breaks to people who are married with two incomes .

newyorkshire · 15/12/2009 23:00

Ps-get in touch with tax credits for help with fees, they should help with a bit and its better than nothing...'ching, ching'. Thank god for tax credits. I'd be on the dole without them and having to claim four times as much in income support. Another reason not to vote for anyone who's thinking of scrapping tax credits

Original poster

LoveAndSqualor · 16/12/2009 07:39

Hey everyone - thanks so much for replying. Was starting to think I was losing the plot a bit - it does seem colossally unfair. Luckily - for me - I think my exP does recognise the unfairness of the situation - but if he does decide to 'give' me more money, it'll always be sort of on the basis of a favour - and it shouldn't be like that.

newyorkshirelass - I certainly will be writing to my MP. As you said - nursery fees aren't for me, they're for my child. It seems mad to penalise RPs for returning to work; how can that be beneficial to society /the child[ren]/the parent?

And I would never vote for the party you mention

OP posts:

incandescent · 16/12/2009 18:58

Love and yorkshire i feel your pain...i'm bringing up dd in central london as well...DD's dad pays £400 but childcare is twice that (i work weekends too, so at least have family care those days). i own a one bed, but can't afford a two, so will have to rent. Will which still be in excess of £1000 before council tax etc. leaving me a piddling amount a week for food/transport/clothes etc.

unless we find a run down shack of a mansion and all live together??

SleighGirl · 16/12/2009 19:01

If your rent and childcare costs are that high you may be eligible for some housing benefit.

lindsaygii · 16/12/2009 19:31

If he has retained the family home and you are living in a shit hole you should talk to a lawyer. A court would never put you and the kids out on the street and leave a single, working man living in luxury. It is really worth a try.

News for mums on benefit - the rules have changed so you can keep all the CSA money instead of losing it pound for pound after the first £20. So even the govt. is starting to concede the rules aren't fair.

elastamum · 16/12/2009 20:01

You can get more than the CSA amount but you have to negotiate a settlement. Not sure of the position if you are not married but I did this as part of my divorce as we have 2 children in private schools. Ex pays 20% income for the kids and half the school fees. I am still worse off financially than him as I also cover extra childcare as I work long hours and the kids are with me 95% of the time but at least I can manage financially and I have my kids with me.{smile] Ask DP if you can agree a fixed amount to be reviewed annually. It is worth a try

ChocHobNob · 16/12/2009 21:20

lindsaygii That's not true, yet. The rules do not change until April 2010. They changed this year so you could keep up to £20 a week but they do not change again until April 2010 when a non resident parent's child support will not affect benefits at all.

If a parent keeps all their maintenance at the moment and doesn't inform the benefits office, they will be committing benefit fraud.

ChocHobNob · 16/12/2009 21:20

sorry should have said ...

but they do not change again until April 2010 when a parent with care's child support will not affect benefits at all.

lindsaygii · 17/12/2009 19:21

Sure, I didn't specify the start date.

groups.onespace.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=542

for the full story and route to an expert

acatcalledfidget · 17/12/2009 20:16

Its quite harsh of people to assume that the person who leaves is the one who is financially better off every time. As a child my mother left my brother and i and had to live in a bedsit, today she would have been legally obliged by the CSA to pay money she didn't have spare to help raise us. My husband left his ex-partner with ALL of the [rather large amount of] profit from the house they shared that he had paid the mortgage on alone for 6yrs, he came away bankrupt. Yet he would still now be obliged by the CSA to pay money to her even though he is just starting to get back on his feet again. Are either of these cases fair? Its too difficult for people to make a judgment on things without the full facts. The CSA should work in the same way. Its tough subject. I hope it works out for you all in the fairest way.

Niceguy2 · 18/12/2009 23:47

Lindsaygii "Bollocks. I'm not on either side of the table, and I can see that it's not fair that the maintenance payments sought by the CSA aren't adequate."

Adequate by who's standards? Yours? OP's? OP's ex?

Despite your choice word, I still maintain that it is irrelevent what you, I or anyone thinks is fair since the law is pretty clear.

I often wonder when people claim "its for the children" if their tune would change if the shoe were on the other foot. I suspect so.

Luckily in this case OP's ex seems willing to pay more. How long that will last for is anyone's guess. The problem is that at some point his situation may change and he won't want to pay anymore. It also gives him a lot of control over OP's life.

Flip