Out of curiosity what is the going rate for child maintenance?

[bumpsoon]

Have a friend who is going through a pretty rough divorce ,who has a husband on a good wage and apparently she is (or should i say her children ) entitled to only 20% of his net wage ,which equates to about £400 a month. I was really shocked by this ,am i just really naive?

20% for 2 DCs sounds normal.

I was lucky, if you could call it that, when exp left. We worked out how much it would cost for me to continue living as we had been (I was working part-time then). He agreed to pay the difference between that figure and what I could claim in HB/Tax credits.

£400 per month sounds more than reasonable to me but it's all relative to their existing lifestyle I guess.

I think that 20% is rubbish. I spend 40% of my net income on ds (childcare, activities, food, clothing, occasional holiday but not counting housing or heating or transport costs) so why shouldn't his father contribute the same proportion?

£400 a month may well be a reasonable amount of money, and I'm sure it's A LOT more than many people get, but the point is that the OP's friends' DH has 4 times that to spend on himself each money - so of a wage that was previously supporting a family of 4, 1 member now has £1600 a month after tax, and the other 3 have £400 a month after tax.

I can't see any universe in which that's fair.

Truckulent - you ask what would be a fair percentage, and I guess I'd say that it would be fair if each parent got 50% of the combined salary pot.

My exH pays nothing. Plus, he left me horrendously overdrawn and jobless. Ds was 6 months old.

Nowt the CSA can do as he is untraceable.

Thank bloody god for working and child tax credits. I earn on average 160 quid a week working p/t. If I didn't get credits I would be sunk. As it is I am always bloody overdrawn. Ds doesn't go without but I most certainly do.

Glad the shitbag has gone though as I can put christmas decorations wherever the heck I want. Like on the dogs.

Yes its 20% for 2 kids and 15% for one, like the others said.
I am dead lucky (in some ways!)to get £540 a month, and i really couldnt afford to pay my mortgage or car without this.

I do work full time though which helps even more!!

plus we receive 70% (used to be 80%) towards all my childcare, which is great.

Bramshott that would only be fair if both parents were paying half of all the children's needs, including childcare, housing, bills, transport - which the NRP won't be.
I would have thought one parent and two children would require more than 50% of the joint household income than one parent, to be fair - maybe about 75%. Obviously the proportion of NRP income required to make up this proportion depends on the relative income of the RP and NRP.

Surely both parents have joint financial responsibility for their children, not just the NRP. Children need to have homes with both parents and all that goes with it.

yes pinkbraces but most people's pay does not stretch to supporting two homes (even on two incomes).
That's why the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

We split all the children's costs and child benefit 50/50. This stops any animosity, and I wouldn't want to be reliant on anyone giving me money there's too much scope for control.

Difficult if you've given up your career though.

I think I have been extremely lucky with the CSA. The case handler I dealt with found my ex's behaviour to be so appalling that he personally took my case on and managed to get ex to pay arrears and got a proper reassessment of his income. Still less than he should be paying but is now more than 6x what he had been paying (before he stopped altogether). The case handler calls me regularly to let me know when payments will be made and is always really helpful.

Not e-bloody-nough.

I was going to put 75% nearly, but then I wavered because housing is such a huge part of anyone's costs, and both parents would need to have space for the children really.

It's very difficult. But clearly 20% is incredibly unfair and leaves women and children in a vulnerable position.

Also he wants from her half of her inheritence ,he left her 5 weeks after her father died .She paid the deposit on their house and most of the mortgage until about three years ago ,but he still turned down a lump sum of £70,ooo from her ,this would of meant her remortgaging ,getting help from her mother to do this .

But Bramshott that is the mad mad thing - how can it possibly be sustainable to pay for two houses for one family out of the same income that previously sustained them in one house? And why should said family be entitled to have two such houses, and be supported by the taxpayer to that end (as in - father leaves, mother doesn't have enough money to live on, requires tax credits and/or housing benefit to make good what the father was and should be paying...)
I know that there are often good reasons for marriages to break up, but really, serial family creation and break up is not sustainable or desirable.
Rant over