Child Maintenance

[12Lemons]

I'll start by saying that of course both parents should be paying for their children, but as I saw another thread about child maintenance and was talking to a friend the other day, I'm curious to know how child maintenance is worked out on the government calculator.

Does the government calculator look at what the likely increase in cost is for water, electric, gas bill etc. plus the food the child will eat? Does it also include the cost of clothes for a child being at one parents house more than the other and the extra washing? And how does it work out if the parent who has the children more often, earns significantly more than the other? Or is this not relevant? I suppose I'm asking what factors are taken in to consideration for the government to come to a particular amount.

When I got chatting to my friend, she said they have her husband's 2 children 3 nights a week, he pays £350 a month to his ex and they also split costs of uniform, trainers, school trips etc. equally. The children's mother apparently earns over double what the dad does. I did ask friend how this is worked out but this was set up a while ago, before she was dating the dad and his salary hasn't changed since then so they haven't needed to change anything.

On the other thread, someone said that the child maintenance doesn't come anywhere near to covering the costs for the difference in days even if it is one day a week, so how should it be worked out?

I'm also a step parent myself, but we have 50/50 custody and everything is split equally so neither parent pays child maintenance.

Your question is weird.

Why? People are not necessarily getting a pay rise just because the cost of living has increased.

The CMS calculator works on a formula related to the paying parents earnings.

So if their earnings go up they pay more CMS up to a threshold.

If the paying parent earns over the threshold then the receiving parent should go to court.

Maybe if you as the government or whoever it was they will give you the formula?

The other parent's income is irrelevant to the calculations.

The government takes a percentage of the non resident parent's wage. If the NRP is a student or a SAHP then they owe zero. If on benefits then it's £7 per week tor all kids.

It doesn't matter what the resident parent or any new partners earn. Outgoings are irrelevant too

It’s different for everyone my ex only had to pay £7 a week for our 4 children 🤷‍♀️

The children's mother apparently earns over double what the dad does.
Comments like this really annoy me. What she earns is irrelevant, it doesn't absolve him of his parental duties and responsibilities to his own children.

Parents have a legal and moral duty to contribute towards their dependant children therefore even if the RP was a millionaire their earnings are irrelevant as to how much an NRP should pay.

CMS is basically a blunt instrument used to calculate a contribution towards the RP's household whilst leaving the NRP enough to live on themselves, which is why it's so shit as it rarely comes out at a realistic figure either way!

Outgoings and RP income are irrelevant.

It's just a % of NRP salary taking into account amount of nights they have the child and how many children.

Also how many children and step kids in NRP home is taken into account

It's also a very easy system to abuse as the NRP. There are many ways to pay a pittance.

OP I agree it should be based upon how much the costs.

I.e. if it’s a single parent with one child they should add on the average for a second bedroom, added water/energy etc. Have a calculation for uniform/food/necessities/extra-curricular/childcare etc.

That calculation is halved for both parents to pay.

If a parent is disabled the government should pay as no child should be living in poverty. Why on earth should a parent just contribute £7 a week?! Imagine if both parents contribute £7 each expecting living costs to be £14 - nope it falls to one parent to pick up the bill.

Some say that not everyone can afford £200 a month to give so get another job? Sell your belongs? Ask family for a loan. Start a just giving page as it shouldn’t be an unexpected bill when a child is a child for 18 years.

I have never understood it.

MY OH gets £7 a week as mother is only earning bare minimum (£70-£100 on the paper work) however she seems to always be at work, can never collect DSD, always has to check her work schedule to make sure it doesn't clash with collecting her/dropping off, can never have her if she's sick off school as she has to be at work.

Not sure how to work that out All I am aware is they work it out on the parents earning and the amount of nights a year the parent has them.

@Purplependant222

OP I agree it should be based upon how much the costs.

I.e. if it’s a single parent with one child they should add on the average for a second bedroom, added water/energy etc. Have a calculation for uniform/food/necessities/extra-curricular/childcare etc.

That calculation is halved for both parents to pay.

If a parent is disabled the government should pay as no child should be living in poverty. Why on earth should a parent just contribute £7 a week?! Imagine if both parents contribute £7 each expecting living costs to be £14 - nope it falls to one parent to pick up the bill.

Some say that not everyone can afford £200 a month to give so get another job? Sell your belongs? Ask family for a loan. Start a just giving page as it shouldn’t be an unexpected bill when a child is a child for 18 years.

You're working on the assumption that the NRP doesn't have to provide a bedroom for their DC as well. And then where do you start with equal costs = equal input from the NRP as to choice of food, activities,what counts as a necessity etc etc. Plus any benefits connected with having DC would need factoring in as well. It's unworkable in practice sadly.

@Purplependant222

OP I agree it should be based upon how much the costs.

I.e. if it’s a single parent with one child they should add on the average for a second bedroom, added water/energy etc. Have a calculation for uniform/food/necessities/extra-curricular/childcare etc.

That calculation is halved for both parents to pay.

If a parent is disabled the government should pay as no child should be living in poverty. Why on earth should a parent just contribute £7 a week?! Imagine if both parents contribute £7 each expecting living costs to be £14 - nope it falls to one parent to pick up the bill.

Some say that not everyone can afford £200 a month to give so get another job? Sell your belongs? Ask family for a loan. Start a just giving page as it shouldn’t be an unexpected bill when a child is a child for 18 years.

Why should the NRP pay for half a bedroom at the RP's when they are presumably paying for a whole bedroom at their own house?

uniform/food/necessities/extra-curricular/childcare etc. this won't work due to Inflation etc they'd have to keep changing it and everytime they change it it will cause a slower process with CMS. The more variables the more complex it will get.

Also extra curricular is things parents choose for the children to do not a necessity and it will just lead to arguments if the cost has to be split. Why should RP get to choose what instrument or sport the child plays when NRP pays half.

Childcare, again whilst the childcare is allowing NRP to pay they won't have a choice in how many days etc if they just have to hand over the cash to RP.

It is a crude way of being fair. So a % of the nrp wages. Dependable on number of nights at nrp

I think of the Cms could find away to get the non paying parents to cough up and those who are self employed etc. That would be a good start to making any changes.

Well that took one page for the embittered SMs to appear!

Seriously ladies - Men and women are responsible for paying for their children. That is an individual responsibility. WE all get their are grabby DMs and delinquent DFs and vice versa.

However, how anyone thinks what some of the amounts people receive are acceptable when the usually DF runs their company and fiddles the books - it is immoral

@Finallylostit

Well that took one page for the embittered SMs to appear!

Seriously ladies - Men and women are responsible for paying for their children. That is an individual responsibility. WE all get their are grabby DMs and delinquent DFs and vice versa.

However, how anyone thinks what some of the amounts people receive are acceptable when the usually DF runs their company and fiddles the books - it is immoral

Where on this thread are embittered stepmums saying low amounts are acceptable?

I don’t think it’s about fairness at all. It’s a crude way of trying to be pragmatic.

It’s got nothing to do with costs or means or whether each parent is actually trying to contribute. That’s all too complex.

So it’s a percentage of income calculation tiered according to number of nights contact person year.

People imagine it’s supposed to pay for something or do anything other than ensure that NRPs contribute something towards the additional costs the RP ends up with. It may be tokenistic. Or it might cover that difference many times over.

It’s just the simplest solution that’s easiest to administer.

The whole “ it should be calculated what a child costs and halved” theory is ridiculous. Children don’t cost a standard amount to raise and it’s not something u can foresee and say my newborn will cost £xxx till their 18!
The reason it’s done on percentage of wage is so the child/children in question have the same upbringing financially as if they had 2 parents in same household. It’s done that way as children are supposed to stay out of poverty and benefit from their parents income.

Personally I Don’t see another way it could be calculated fairly but that’s IMO

But the percentage system does nothing to ensure parity of living standards for so many reasons.

It’s the cheapest and easiest system to administer. Nothing more.

@Lalala1

The whole “ it should be calculated what a child costs and halved” theory is ridiculous. Children don’t cost a standard amount to raise and it’s not something u can foresee and say my newborn will cost £xxx till their 18! The reason it’s done on percentage of wage is so the child/children in question have the same upbringing financially as if they had 2 parents in same household. It’s done that way as children are supposed to stay out of poverty and benefit from their parents income.

Personally I Don’t see another way it could be calculated fairly but that’s IMO

Yes, it's not about the bare minimum day to day costs of raising a child (varies so much). By basing it on income, the amount is (in theory), what the NRP might be spending if they had the child for those nights themselves. So as near as possible to maintaining the lifestyle the child could have expected had parents been together.

So as near as possible to maintaining the lifestyle the child could have expected had parents been together

Unless both parents are reasonable well off that’s never going to happen though. Two parents running one household, sharing bills, food, costs, is going to enable a much higher standard of living than two parents maintaining 2 households, two mortgages, two sets of fuel, council tax, running two cars etc.

In practice maintaining the standard of living in both households isn’t workable either.

So as near as possible to maintaining the lifestyle the child could have expected had parents been together.

That’s an unrealistic aim. Totally unrealistic.

And unfair, if one parent is electing not to maximise their earning potential.

The system won't be fair for everyone. There are useless NRP who fiddle the books and pay nothing, there are also equally useless RP who treat child maintenance as the permission not to work. My DH's ex doesn't work (almost adult kids) howvwer somehow manages to go on 2 foreign holidays/year living the kids behind. IT is also clear in the system that it is non of NRP's business how child maintenance spent.

The system is not meant to be fair, it's meant to ensure that in cases where parents cannot reach a private agreement between themselves that a minimum contribution is made by the NRP. If parents want a fair outcome for their children then both parents need to work towards an agreement,. CMS exists because most don't and it now seems to be perceived as a fair and reasonable representation of an NRPs financial responsibility towards their child in all circumstances...

In general either one or both parents have to reduce their quality of living when they divorce.

The children's mother apparently earns over double what the dad does

Urgh. Hate this. As others have said, a PWC who earns well shouldn't somehow have to pay for everything just because she earns well. I have had this for years - although I earn less than a third of what my ex earns, I have coped very well with bringing up our children on my wage only. Is he therefore justified in not supporting his children financially?

the other issues is 'she got the house/savings and all the benefits' so why should he have to pay anything. That's my ex's point of view, I think. Except our marriage left us both mortgage free and me with a huge debt that had been taken out in my name to support our so-called family business. Took me 12 years to pay that off! Sure, the children live with me and I am eligible to receive 'all the benefits' but that comes with taking responsibility in paying for everything, including childcare which means we are both able to work full time.

Both parents should be making a contribution, proportional to their earnings. 50/50 care means that frequently this is not the case and I have always paid way more than 20/25% of my take home.