Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Chris P
    • By Chris P 29th Aug 16, 6:33 PM
    • 150Posts
    • 38Thanks
    Chris P
    Advice on child maintenance payment to ex-wife
    • #1
    • 29th Aug 16, 6:33 PM
    Advice on child maintenance payment to ex-wife 29th Aug 16 at 6:33 PM
    Hi all. We're trying to agree on a court order for the finances. I earn twice what she earns. Initially we agreed that I would pay £650pm, but i now think thats far too much.

    Daughter 1 is starting school in a week. Daughter 2 goes to nursery, and after our child care vouchers I pay circa £350pm to Nursery.

    We are going to have the kids 50/50. According to the child support calculators all i would have to pay is £66pw.

    If i did pay her £650pm then I would have (after paying maintenance and nursery) £2,000. She would have £2,300.

    Just looking for peoples thoughts please
    Thanks
Page 3
    • Redacted
    • By Redacted 9th Feb 17, 5:37 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 176 Thanks
    Redacted
    @redacted. Are you sure that thread was about equalising incomes

    Or was it about the large amount of £ that was coming in for the child. An amount that is more than what both parents had left if the earned £18k and the same incomes and bills for one child? In the example I gave on that thread the RP has £809 for the child.

    Why don't you do the sums based on what the NRP would be left with and how much more the RP would get it there were two children not one? As the NRP gets hit harder then.

    If the NRP didn't pay maintenance on the example I gave or paid half (he was paying £157pm) the RP would still have several hundred more than the NRP. That's hardly equalising.

    The NRP has costs too when the child comes to stay and gets no assistance from anyone. The benefits system treats the NRP as a single person without kids. So instead of giving the NRP benefits would it be fairer to reduce maintenance or not pay it unless he earned a certain amount of income.

    Once they earn over x amount they can pay regardless of whether or not the RP gets benefits.

    The amounts for the child can be very large when you add benefits and maintenance together. No way does the child cost that much.

    I know this as I had benefits for a number of years and no maintenance. I managed just fine.
    Originally posted by Sambella
    It's not where the thread started, but it's certainly where it was taken. Your position was that as the receiving parent had so much more disposable income than the paying one? because of the benefits they were entitled to, they shouldn't get to receive any more in maintenance as it would make their disposable incomes even further apart. You wanted to base the payment of maintenance on disposable income inequality.

    And I did read your example. I noticed the net income you quoted for £18k was wrong, the WTC you quoted for the stated scenario was wrong, and the child maintenance you quoted for an £18k income with the stated amount of shared care was wrong.

    I also don't subscribe to the notion that if the receiver is entitled to child related benefits, that means the other parent should not have to pay any support. I believe that it takes two parents to provide for their kids, not one and the state. I think it's a sad state of affairs that maintenance is so unreliable, the government had to change benefit rules to not take account of it as income when working out means tested benefits.

    I'm glad you did just fine without maintenance. Good for you. I did just fine supporting myself as a single person on less than £16k and so do thousands of other people. Yet you your position seems to be because you did fine without maintenance so should anyone else. I suppose my position should be that as I was able to cover my costs on less than £16k, anyone on £18k and paying maintenance should also be fine as the income they are left with after tax, NI and maintenance is about the same.

    And as for how much a child costs, the research on the subject may come as a shock to you. Just a quick google of cost of a child brings up:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html

    Perhaps a fairer system is that they take the average cost of a child, deduct any child related benefit entitlement and split the difference, irrespective of their incomes.

    Edited to add - none of the above is directed at the original op.
    Last edited by Redacted; 09-02-2017 at 5:45 PM.
    • Sambella
    • By Sambella 9th Feb 17, 9:32 PM
    • 252 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    Sambella
    [QUOTE=Redacted;72074996]It's not where the thread started, but it's certainly where it was taken. Your position was that as the receiving parent had so much more disposable income than the paying one? because of the benefits they were entitled to, they shouldn't get to receive any more in maintenance as it would make their disposable incomes even further apart. You wanted to base the payment of maintenance on disposable income inequality.

    And I did read your example. I noticed the net income you quoted for £18k was wrong, the WTC you quoted for the stated scenario was wrong, and the child maintenance you quoted for an £18k income with the stated amount of shared care was wrong.

    I hold my hand up the salary was indeed wrong. take home salaries were £1,283.55 after tax NI and 5.8% pension contributions. I omitted the tax and NI.

    I wont be looking for a job in a bank anytime soon lol

    NRP therefore has £126 left after bills/food/rent and child maintenance.

    the child maintenance I quoted was correct as it was based on the example in the other thread of having the child 52-104 days a year NOT shared care

    She would have 83,33 left but she also had an extra £200 added to her bills to account for the child.

    so she has 83.33 +404.21 benefits +£156 maintenance which comes to £643. (If no housing costs add another £500)

    benefits, maintenance and the 200 she pays extra in bills for the child = £760 so my figure of £809 was slightly off.



    her WTC was correct as per the government calculator, I have rechecked did you include the pension and that the amounts given on the calculator are 4 weekly? I worked them out based on 12 months for ease of calculating to add to monthly wage

    I also don't subscribe to the notion that if the receiver is entitled to child related benefits, that means the other parent should not have to pay any support. I believe that it takes two parents to provide for their kids, not one and the state. I think it's a sad state of affairs that maintenance is so unreliable, the government had to change benefit rules to not take account of it as income when working out means tested benefits.

    I suggested that the NRP either pays none or half. we all agree he should pay something but sometimes especially if earning less than 18k it may not be affordable for them to do so


    I'm glad you did just fine without maintenance. Good for you. I did just fine supporting myself as a single person on less than £16k and so do thousands of other people. Yet you your position seems to be because you did fine without maintenance so should anyone else. I suppose my position should be that as I was able to cover my costs on less than £16k, anyone on £18k and paying maintenance should also be fine as the income they are left with after tax, NI and maintenance is about the same.

    Lol right back at you just because you can manage on 16k doesn't mean others can. We are all different, some are frugal and some are not. Lets not forget the NRP has to feed the child, treat them , take them out on top of maintenance too.

    And as for how much a child costs, the research on the subject may come as a shock to you. Just a quick google of cost of a child brings up:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html

    I have seen this many times, clearly it doesn't apply to those on low incomes

    ]Perhaps a fairer system is that they take the average cost of a child, deduct any child related benefit entitlement and split the difference, irrespective of their incomes.


    It is for sure a hard one to get right, even NRP's mostly agree that they have to pay something. If she has the child more she gets more, no one disagrees with that but the NRP has to have enough to live on as well, Rent can be higher depending on where they live which can affect things.

    Edited to add - none of the above is directed at the original op.

    Ditto
    • Redacted
    • By Redacted 10th Feb 17, 8:19 AM
    • 77 Posts
    • 176 Thanks
    Redacted
    [QUOTE=Sambella;72076238]
    It's not where the thread started, but it's certainly where it was taken. Your position was that as the receiving parent had so much more disposable income than the paying one? because of the benefits they were entitled to, they shouldn't get to receive any more in maintenance as it would make their disposable incomes even further apart. You wanted to base the payment of maintenance on disposable income inequality.

    And I did read your example. I noticed the net income you quoted for £18k was wrong, the WTC you quoted for the stated scenario was wrong, and the child maintenance you quoted for an £18k income with the stated amount of shared care was wrong.

    I hold my hand up the salary was indeed wrong. take home salaries were £1,283.55 after tax NI and 5.8% pension contributions. I omitted the tax and NI.

    nope, wrong again. Just using the MSE calculator the net without pension contributions is £1284 (round to the nearest pound). However, your example didn't say 5.8% pension contributions. It said they have the same pension contribution, which was left unspecified. You then went on to quote a net income that's higher than that from £18k, so the only conclusion left was that their same pension contribution was no contribution at all, in the absence of any other data.

    I wont be looking for a job in a bank anytime soon lol

    NRP therefore has £126 left after bills/food/rent and child maintenance. still wrong, given your inputs are still wrong. Also, it means your calculation for what the receiving parent was left with was wrong, making the whole example and comparison pretty pointless.

    the child maintenance I quoted was correct as it was based on the example in the other thread of having the child 52-104 days a year NOT shared care nope, you said the teenager stayed 2 nights a week. According to the child maintenance calculator on gov.uk that is shared care for the band of 104-155 nights a year and reduces the calculation by 2/7's.



    She would have 83,33 left but she also had an extra £200 added to her bills to account for the child.

    so she has 83.33 +404.21 benefits +£156 maintenance which comes to £643. (If no housing costs add another £500)

    benefits, maintenance and the 200 she pays extra in bills for the child = £760 so my figure of £809 was slightly off. And is still wrong as your inputs are wrong.



    her WTC was correct as per the government calculator, I have rechecked did you include the pension and that the amounts given on the calculator are 4 weekly? I worked them out based on 12 months for ease of calculating to add to monthly wage see above - given you didn't specify anything, I made the above assumption

    I also don't subscribe to the notion that if the receiver is entitled to child related benefits, that means the other parent should not have to pay any support. I believe that it takes two parents to provide for their kids, not one and the state. I think it's a sad state of affairs that maintenance is so unreliable, the government had to change benefit rules to not take account of it as income when working out means tested benefits.

    I suggested that the NRP either pays none or half. we all agree he should pay something but sometimes especially if earning less than 18k it may not be affordable for them to do so then again, it may be. How do you know?


    I'm glad you did just fine without maintenance. Good for you. I did just fine supporting myself as a single person on less than £16k and so do thousands of other people. Yet you your position seems to be because you did fine without maintenance so should anyone else. I suppose my position should be that as I was able to cover my costs on less than £16k, anyone on £18k and paying maintenance should also be fine as the income they are left with after tax, NI and maintenance is about the same.

    Lol right back at you just because you can manage on 16k doesn't mean others can. We are all different, some are frugal and some are not. Lets not forget the NRP has to feed the child, treat them , take them out on top of maintenance too. you appear to have missed the fact that was my point to you, and my reason for flipping it around. Just because you were ok without maintenance doesn't mean others are.

    And as for how much a child costs, the research on the subject may come as a shock to you. Just a quick google of cost of a child brings up:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html

    I have seen this many times, clearly it doesn't apply to those on low incomes how have you arrived at that conclusion? Does it say no one with a low income was surveyed? It's an average cost. Emphasis on average. If you don't like that research, how about this one from the Child Action Poverty Group? It even factors in the costs after consideration of eligibility for benefits. http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CostofaChild2016_web.pdf

    ]Perhaps a fairer system is that they take the average cost of a child, deduct any child related benefit entitlement and split the difference, irrespective of their incomes.


    It is for sure a hard one to get right, even NRP's mostly agree that they have to pay something. If she has the child more she gets more, no one disagrees with that but the NRP has to have enough to live on as well, Rent can be higher depending on where they live which can affect things.

    Edited to add - none of the above is directed at the original op.

    Ditto
    Originally posted by Redacted
    So, let's relook at your example.
    Both earn £18k with a now specified 5.8% pension contribution. I've assumed occupational. According to the MSE net pay calculator that gives them both net pay of £1214 a month.

    Now you've said they both have £500 rent a month, leaving them each with £714 a month, only for the receiver that's got to support 2 people not one.

    Now the rest of your bills calculation is pretty woolly. You seem to have picked some figures out the air, and luckily bills like food, toiletries etc are the type of thing you can cut to your cloth, and most people can shop around for utilities and contracts etc. So, I'm going to do the example the other way around.

    So, for your NRP. Given income for maintenance is after pension is deducted, the income is £18k less £1044 pension so £16,956. According to the CMS calculator, with 2 nights shared care (that's the 104 to 155 band - 2 x 52 = 104) they pay £28 a week maintenance. £4 a day. £1460 a year. £121.67 a month.

    So, £714 less £121.67 gives £592.33 a month to cover council tax, plus utilities, food, toiletries etc. for one person.

    In the other household, they've got £714 plus £121.67, so £835.67. Now that you've specified the pension contribution, I can get the same output for the WTC of £461.74 for the year, so £38.48 a month, CTC of £3,328.80 for the year, so £277.40 a month, child benefit of £1076.40 for the year, £89.70 a month.

    Now, I've had to use my postcode for the housing benefit calculation, and it says no entitlement to LHA or council tax support.

    So, the receiver's household has £835.67 + £38.48 + £277.40 + £89.70 = £1,241.25 a month to cover council tax, plus utilities, food, toiletries etc. for two people. Or, £620.625 per person vs £592.33 per person in the payer's household.
    • Sambella
    • By Sambella 10th Feb 17, 10:20 AM
    • 252 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    Sambella
    Things are changing and not for the best.

    The RP under Universal Credit is going to lose amounts probably MORE than what the NRP is paying. Again they will be back to having issues if the NRP doesn't pay regularly. like when CM was taken off benefits though the losses may be greater this time if RP loses an amount greater than CM.

    The cuts that come with UC are severe but for those migrating over there will be transitional protection which will end at some point.
    • Redacted
    • By Redacted 10th Feb 17, 12:19 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 176 Thanks
    Redacted
    That's seems like a reason not to reduce a paying parent's maintenance obligation to less than it currently stands. If state support becomes less generous for children, more of their needs will have to be met by their parents' income.

    There are cuts going on everywhere, and the issue of someone on £18k not being able to afford their bills and £4 a day maintenance is not one of the maintenance being too high. If you're going to campaign for the Government to make changes, how about looking at more affordable housing, energy, travel? Why not tackle the issue of wages and zero hour contracts? Or to look again at the taxation system? Why is the answer to cut child support?
    • fforsythuk
    • By fforsythuk 15th Feb 17, 10:58 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    fforsythuk
    It really does annoy me that people seem to think that they should only pay what the CSA tells them they should pay according to the 'calculator'.

    These are your children at the end of the day. Provide them with what they need and what they deserve to have as they were treated pre a divorce or breakup.

    If this means handing over more (or less) money then so be it. If your ex partner is struggling to pay the mortgage then help out. Remember this home belongs to your child too and they should always be protected.
    • Jamiehelsinki
    • By Jamiehelsinki 16th Feb 17, 5:43 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    Jamiehelsinki
    It really does annoy me that people seem to think that they should only pay what the CSA tells them they should pay according to the 'calculator'.

    These are your children at the end of the day. Provide them with what they need and what they deserve to have as they were treated pre a divorce or breakup.

    If this means handing over more (or less) money then so be it. If your ex partner is struggling to pay the mortgage then help out. Remember this home belongs to your child too and they should always be protected.
    Originally posted by fforsythuk
    Generally unless your a big earner it's a struggle to pay what the csa calculator says to pay.

    It's usually not possible for the children to have the same as they had before the split, it's the same income but paying for 2 homes instead of one so less spare money for extras.

    The rp needs to take more responsibility for their own housing costs while the nrp does the same their end while paying maintendance to the rp as well.

    Speaking from a personal point of view of paying maintenance and looking at friends in the same boat the rp was always in a better position financially than the nrp. Always average earners though it might be different if the nrp was a high earner with more disposable income.
    • caprikid1
    • By caprikid1 17th Feb 17, 10:10 AM
    • 383 Posts
    • 398 Thanks
    caprikid1
    Ultimately it's down to what you can agree or the figure the courts / benefits system. Sounds like the 4/5 bedroom house has to go as its not long terms sustainable.


    I am in a similar situation to you, I earn a bit more than my ex but have a mortgage. We split the kids 50/50 and split costs but nothing more.
    • davidwood123
    • By davidwood123 17th Feb 17, 2:05 PM
    • 122 Posts
    • 231 Thanks
    davidwood123
    You've acted like a doormat OP.

    Time for a change
    • springdreams
    • By springdreams 17th Feb 17, 8:39 PM
    • 3,524 Posts
    • 31,200 Thanks
    springdreams
    I agree that the RP should be downsizing. She doesn't need a 4/5 bed house for herself and 2 children.
    Smiles are as perfect a gift as hugs...
    ..one size fits all... and nobody minds if you give it back.
    Originally posted by squeaky
    ☆.。.:*・° Housework is so much easier without the clutter ☆.。.:*・°
    SPC No. 518
    • Chris P
    • By Chris P 18th Mar 17, 2:08 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Chris P
    Well she now has the big house as the remortage has gone through.

    I wanted the agreed £350pm mainteance not to increase (Ive agreed to pay school fees which go up each year), but it turns out this cant be put in the order unless she agrees (which she wont).

    I therefore want to stipulate that my education contribution can be reviewed down (or at least not to rise). I dont want to have all my payments increase.Needless to say she is fuming about my proposal.

    Other than adding to the court order something like "my contribution to school fees can be reduced my any increase in maintenance via a subsequent CMS challenge" Im not sure what or how else to do it.

    She thinks its all about the kids and me taking this stance will somehow affect her. She points out that she can go to the CMS every year for a re-assesment (in case i get pay rises etc) - I then point out that according to the CMS I am already paying more than legally I have to just in mainteance,and that my education payments are over and above that which i have to pay.

    i welcome any thoughts.

    Thank you
    • mgdavid
    • By mgdavid 19th Mar 17, 12:25 AM
    • 5,102 Posts
    • 4,261 Thanks
    mgdavid
    You're still being a doormat.
    A salary slave no more.....
    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 19th Mar 17, 9:38 AM
    • 34,948 Posts
    • 147,412 Thanks
    silvercar
    For the sake of your children, please consider whether paying these school fees is viable. No child wants to hear that Mum or Dad can't afford X because they have school fees to pay, or worse that if one parent isn't paying their share of the school fees they will have to move schools. If you can't afford to commit between you that the school fees won't be used as a weapon/ bargaining tool, then move the child to a state school now.
    • pinkshoes
    • By pinkshoes 19th Mar 17, 10:42 AM
    • 14,852 Posts
    • 20,047 Thanks
    pinkshoes
    For the sake of your children, please consider whether paying these school fees is viable. No child wants to hear that Mum or Dad can't afford X because they have school fees to pay, or worse that if one parent isn't paying their share of the school fees they will have to move schools. If you can't afford to commit between you that the school fees won't be used as a weapon/ bargaining tool, then move the child to a state school now.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    Agree with this ^^^!

    Private school fees are a HUGE commitment, and having to remove a child from private into state school can be awful for the child.

    Personally I would use a state school for primary education, then private school when they start Y7, as at primary school years, it is more what the parents do that contributes to a child's learning that what they do at school. Regular reading, encouraging writing, getting them asking questions etc...

    This way you could perhaps put aside the fees you are saving which would then pay the private school further down the line?
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
    • Chris P
    • By Chris P 19th Mar 17, 3:23 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Chris P
    its not private school, just breakfast and after school club at her local. And i could afford it but dont she why i should, especially if she wants to use the "legally I can claim more maintenace each year" argument
    • tensandunits
    • By tensandunits 19th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    • 620 Posts
    • 901 Thanks
    tensandunits
    It's a very young age for a child to be put in a breakfast club as well as a late afternoon club. I would think she'll be exhausted.
    • Chris P
    • By Chris P 19th Mar 17, 4:13 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Chris P
    It's a very young age for a child to be put in a breakfast club as well as a late afternoon club. I would think she'll be exhausted.
    Originally posted by tensandunits
    Well she's done it for a year. And considering we have no family within 100 miles we have no choice.
    • tensandunits
    • By tensandunits 19th Mar 17, 4:27 PM
    • 620 Posts
    • 901 Thanks
    tensandunits
    Well she's done it for a year. And considering we have no family within 100 miles we have no choice.
    Originally posted by Chris P
    With two very young children having to split their time between two feuding parents there's more at stake here than the money. Their welfare must come first.
    • Chris P
    • By Chris P 19th Mar 17, 5:25 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Chris P
    With two very young children having to split their time between two feuding parents there's more at stake here than the money. Their welfare must come first.
    Originally posted by tensandunits
    which it does. I fail to see what your point is
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 20th Mar 17, 8:24 AM
    • 15,201 Posts
    • 38,191 Thanks
    FBaby
    It's a very young age for a child to be put in a breakfast club as well as a late afternoon club. I would think she'll be exhausted.
    Originally posted by tensandunits

    Many people have a misconception of what before and after school clubs are about. The one my kids went to offered an environment supposed to replicate as much as possible that of children at home/with parents. It offered both quiet and full-on activities to suit all the kids. They had a TV room, they had a room where they could lay down and rest, they did craft activities as much as sporting activities, they also helped with homework in addition to them sitting to have a healthy breakfast.

    My kids had no problems attending breakfast/after school clubs. Besides brushing their teeth and getting dressed, they did everything they would have done at home there, and by the time I picked them up after school, they would have played, did their homework, watched a bit of TV as they would have done at home.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,159Posts Today

6,351Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Just seen @IvoGraham doing stand up in a comedy club. Superb, witty, self depricating, clever stuff. Go see him if you get the chance

  • RT @ChrissyNunn: New one from @Tesco today.. "The sale of Goods Act is just legislation, it's like a guideline, it's not law" @MartinSLewis?

  • Off to Torremolinos? I'm filming my roadshow there next Fri 28th during the day then in Branigans at 5pm. Want to come? Let @itvmlshow know

  • Follow Martin