What does/should maintenance cover?

[ClaudoftheRings]

Apart from food, utilities etc, what is fair maintenance supposed to pay for?

sanity I have had similar experience, but a wiling to accept theMN POV which seems to be that most NRP are deadbeat.

Which is why I think NRP who contribute to childcare should be given the choice - pay up, or make childcare arrangements themselves. They could ask their parents, siblings, make use of a workplace childcare facility or change their working pattern. Deadbeat dads won't bother; but dads who want to be involved would jump at the chance.

If a RP chooses not to "allow" the NRP to make alternative arrangements, then they should be solely responsible for the cost of childcare while they work, IMO.

But on top of this he is being asked for extra all the time for school uniform, school meals, shoes, trainers, after school clubs
So it sounds like the issue is not so much the maintenance but why he is asked to pay for the above.

Personally, I think he is totally in his right to ask when he is expected to pay even more. That could be because the mother is trying to live a lifestyle she can't afford, ie. expensive rent/mortgage, new car, expensive hols etc..., or she believes that the father has tons of disposable income and therefore it is only right that a lot of it goes on his child.

Either way, when such a large amount of maintenance is given, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to ask how the money is spent if not on the above.

The MN pov is not that most NRP are deadbeat dad's. There is no such thing as 'MN pov', there's no hive mind here.

My ex is not a deadbeat dad. He pays his maintenance weekly and sees the kids every 3 weeks. And it was completely his choice to leave. In fact, my experience is very much the opposite of Sanity, in that I know quite a few single mums where the Dad chose to leave and be the NRP.

I would agree that £955 a month is a lot for one 10 year old boy but would say that if the Dad can afford it and wants to contribute that amount then, providing he doesn't have any other children with the OP that are going without, it's really not the O'S business.

Isn't it sad that whenever maintenance comes up, we scorn the mothers who receive 500+ per month and all say - it does not cost that much to bring up a child. we sya they are greedy and should just be grateful, make do etc

It is about the EX - male or female - paying a percentage of their salary, that is the child was living in a "normal" family they would get access to.

so if your EX earns 250K+ and he pays £12K per annum, then actually, the child ( not the mother is being shortchanged)

Lilac- with all due respect your DP is a deadbeat - he sees his kids every 3 weeks - that is crap.

Er, he sees his kids every three weeks because we live quite a distance away from him, not because he can't be arsed.

He works long hours each week and gets every third weekend off so comes to see the kids.

Bigfeet if the NRP was living in a 'normal' family as you put it, he would only need to pay for 1 residence. As it is the NRP has to pay accommodation for his children when they are with him AND help pay the NRP accommodation for the child aswell. You can't compare what NRP would be paying if they wee together, it's completely different.

Ask her for a breakdown of what the 95o goes on? I think that's a LOT of money ...

Bigfeet, beyond a certain amount, shouldn't it be common sense - ie what the child needs to live on whilst it is with RP rather than 12K++++?

If a child's needs are all covered by maintenance why should an RP need more money?

Plus maintenance is surely for a portion of the child's costs, not all of them, as RP should be paying something too?

I'm not being provocative, just genuinely curious.

It Also depends on school fees. If they remained in the family home and there's still a mortgage to pay.
10 year old still require childcare. Then there's clubs which can be very expensive

We have similar discussions in our household. DH pays over £2000/month maintenance and pays for big school trips. He's a high earner and I think it's right that his children also have a nice house/lifestyle. However, ex is constantly sending the kids with a shopping list of things they need e.g. school shoes/new coat/uniform for activities etc. They'll also ask him direct for money for school dinners/bus fares, he gives it without question.

Ex doesn't work, chooses not to, both are in secondary. She clears in maintenance what I earn working full time. I do think clothing/dinners should come out of maintenance, but it's very hard when the children are prepped to 'ask Daddy' for him to then say no. I don't think they realise that he already gives a lot, as they think Mummy gets them everything else. I keep out of it, it's basically nothing to do with me, but it's annoying when I feel like he's being manipulated.

I think that regular maintenance should be capped at an amount that covers regular costs. And then these regular costs (clothes, food, school meals, activities) should be covered out the maintenance and not asked for separately.

If a high earner then has spare money and wants to spend it on their child in things such as school fees, v expensive school trips, etc they can do that, but that money does not need to be channelled via their RP in the form of a monthly income.

I don't think it is unreasonable for kids at secondary school to know the financial dynamics of their family to a certain extend, and actually think it is good budget management learning to know how much is given in maintenance.

There seem to be an attitude that children should be protected from any conversation about money. Why? There is no taboo in explaining that both parents should contribute towards bringing up kids and that is why the nrp pays the rp every month. At 12+, a child is old enough to take on the concept of what it means to have their nrp paying £2000 a month towards them and that is the reason why they can't always say yes to paying anything extra.

He a already pays and contributes I would refuse any further demands or they will never stop

Maintenance should surely be a portion of the child's costs, not all of them, as RP should be paying something too?

I totally agree with this, but some people conveniently forget the RP has a financial responsibility too.

And why should my ex pay half my housing costs? I chose this house, I chose the mortgage, how much I pay what I spend exdh maintenance payments go towards the cost of bringing up OUR children they don't pay for half my house, it's my house now my dc have left home it's still my house not a house he's paid half of.

that money does not need to be channelled via their RP in the form of a monthly income

This is a key point, I think. While the law places the Resident parent in a position where they are responsible for meeting the essential financial needs of the DCs, and places a legal obligation on the NRP to transfer money to the RP in order for the RP to meet that responsibility - any other financial outlay for the DC can be met by either parent.

I do think that the current social expectation seems to absolve NRP of taking direct responsibility for their DCs needs, and actually discourages it - as long as they bung their DCs mum a significant proportion of their salary every month, everyone is happy.

Whereas, if the money transferred to the RP by the NRP is at the rate set in law, but the NRP provides other aspects of the DCs financial support directly, they are condemned as not caring enough.

*Maintenance should surely be a portion of the child's costs, not all of them, as RP should be paying something too?

I totally agree with this, but some people conveniently forget the RP has a financial responsibility too.*

I agree with this, but there has to be some recognition of the non financial costs - the childcare, ferrying around, unpaid time off work for attending school/hospital/orthodontic appointments. It's not an exact science. Both parents have a responsibility. How they work it out should be based around the best interests of the child.

It does strike me how often it is the NRP's new partner who complains about maintenance. We rarely see complaints from the NRP....

but there has to be some recognition of the non financial costs - the childcare, ferrying around, unpaid time off work for attending school/hospital/orthodontic appointments.

From what I've read on MN, there does often seem to be the assumption by the RP that they have to take responsibility for these things, often assuming that their DCs dad can't get time off work, or wouldn't be able to deal with the situation "as well as" the RP.

I've also read posts from RP (including one by myself, years ago) outraged that the NRP has taken the DC for a haircut, because they wanted to do that themselves.

yet, at the same time, you say that maintenance should take into account the time it takes the RP to do those things?

If there is an expectation of financial recompense, then the NRP should surely be given the choice whether to "pay" or to meet those needs in a different way?

It does strike me how often it is the NRP's new partner who complains about maintenance. We rarely see complaints from the NRP

I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, the NRP is usually the father (ie a man), and posters here are generally female. Men don't seem to post in the same way that women do. So we tend not to hear from many non-resident fathers on this site.

And secondly, some men just pay whatever it takes to keep their ex quiet, thus ensuring contact continues.

I agree, Olly. DP covers half of all holidays, if not more and also does about half of all appointments.

The issue of the constant demands for more cash is only partly about the money itself (we don't have huge disposable income and so it does make a difference to us both) but is more about the principle when maintenance is already fair.

The demands come with an emotional element (the implicit message that she cannot afford X or Y and so DSS will be missing out unless DP pays more) which is hard on DP, who is and has always been a consistently great Dad (financially and in every other way).

It is a real shame that some RPs and NRPs use money as a way of control and punishment.

I think it partly depends what the set up was before you split up. Some couples set things up to use childcare and both maintain full time careers, so they should both contribute towards costs and care. Others agree that one parent will prioritise their career - possibly involving travel or long hours, whilst the other does all the day to day care. In that setup it might be reasonable to expect the NRP to contribute all the child's financial costs, if it's affordable. But only the day to day spending needs to be channelled via a monthly sum to the RP. The whole point of doing that is so you don't have constant friction about who pays 50% of what on a weekly basis

It does strike me how often it is the NRP's new partner who complains about maintenance. We rarely see complaints from the NRP....

That's becasue the NRP is typically the man, and this site isn't frequented (openly) by too many chaps.

My friend is going through something similar. He's paying his STBXW even though he has their child 50:50 (slightly more in fact) and she's asked for even more money. I suspect she's done so as she knows he's a comparative high earner and wants to continue to benefit from that fact.