To think this is more than enough maintenance to raise a child? (Friend conflict)

[Bessyioo]

My very close friend was left when her dc was 1. It was brutal, he was having an affair with one of our other friends in our group.

She is now paid 1,050 in child maintenance. However, all I hear is how she is on the ‘back foot’ financially as she is on her own and a lot of our conversation is about how he should be providing more as he is a high earner. She has her own home and I don’t even have a mortgage yet! I may be being sensitive as I feel i struggle financially but surely surely anyone can see that that is a lot of money and pays for everything the child needs?!

👏🏻 👏🏻

Honestly some women hate to see their exes getting on. Probably the same women who won't give shared access because they couldn't bear to be away from the kids but expect the dads to pick up the bill.

Cms is flawed on both sides in my opinion. Resident and non resident parents suffer.

Not a bully "but never mind, maths isn't^^ for everyone."

They are not capped, it is threshold. My ex earns more, we were beyond that threshold so the judge ruled higher amount as it then did not become about 'affordability' ( judge's comment).

@Thingshavebecomeweird It is the cap that CMS will deal with. Not everyone has the funds or will to go through a court process, and then if it’s not followed you have to go back to court, you can’t rely on CMS to enforce it. I don’t think it really makes sense that they do it this way and if they do £156,000 seems like too low a threshold.

156k too low 😂

No I agree there shouldn't be a threshold. You shouldn't need to go to court. All incomes should be considered by the CMS, I don't know what the reasoning is for stopping at 156k?

I think a lot of other things should be taken into consideration too, but alas, they are not.

It sounds like greed to me.

I don't think it's greedy for somebody to contribute to their own child, I think saying a grand is not enough (not know any more detail or what he earns) is a bit unreadonable but I don't think high earners should be excused. Especially high earners really! It's far harsher to expect someone on min wage to pay above and beyond recommended maintenance.. if you're earning 156k you've no excuse really!

@taxpayer1 What sounds like greed? Hypothetically, if DP and I sent DC to a private school and we split, and I had to rely on the CMS payment, I’d be unable to continue sending him to private school. Why should my son suffer having to change schools when DP can afford to continue his contributions but won’t just because we split up? And before this becomes a private v state school argument, regardless of the school I don’t think it’s nice to have to remove a child from a school they’re happy and settled in, private or state.

Because sending children to private schools and some expensive activities is a choice, not a mandate. The circumstances change, and you are allowed to reevaluate. Even married parents sometimes decide to take their children out of private school. When you separate, you have more expenses. A 156,000 salary will imply 1,256 a month or 304,000 pounds in 20 years of child maintenance payments. If 304,000 is not enough to raise a child (without considering the resident parent's contribution), we have bigger problems. If think that saying that you need more than 304,000 + resident parent contributions to raise a child is pure greed.

@taxpayer1 The detrimental affect the split has on the child should be as limited as possible. If the father is on, say, £500,000 a year that’s £22,000 a month, you think it’s fair then that the mother should receive £1,200 and put the child through the upheaval of changing schools? You are perpetuating sexist prejudices.

Of course. It is not money for the mother. It is money for the child's expenses. If the mother wants a 22k-a-month lifestyle, she has to provide it for herself. CMS is not for equalizing the lifestyles, it is meant for the child's expenses.

@taxpayer1 No one said anything about a £22k a month lifestyle, I’m talking about maintaining the child’s reasonable expenses (such as a school they’re happy and settled in, a couple of holidays a year) in the circumstances. This is the worst kind of lazy sexist stereotyping.

It's hard because I don't think it should just be on one parent to provide either way. The mother shouldn't single handedly pay for private school, but then I don't think the father should either. I think unfortunately things do change on divorce. If parents can amicably co fund private school that's amazing but if they can't, they can't unfortunately. Especially if that's because they both need to fund somewhere to live. I agree that it shouldn't be for the other parents lifestyle, but really it's hard to separate it completely isn't it.

Of course parents should pay in accordance with their income. Nothing at all "greedy" about the resident parent expecting this. If a child is settled in a private school and used to doing expensive activities like riding and skiing, there is absolutely no reason for their lifestyle to change post-divorce if there are sufficient funds for it to continue. If the parents can't afford this when two lots of bills and housing costs are taken into account, that's a different matter entirely.

Everyone's situation is different.
When I was a single parent my childcare costs were covered by benefits. It made it easier to work.
Now I'm not single anymore and in the beginning I was struggling with paying for childcare and only worked school hours because it wasn't worth it.