Maintenance payments on 50/50 split?

FBaby

My position would be that if she goes to the csa and he has to pay, then she should be liable to pay for ALL costs associated with the kids. If she agrees to no maintenance, then costs for the children should be shared in consideration of the difference in salaries (if significant).

Mojisola

MishterTea wrote: »

He's now decided to have the children on a 50/50 split (having them 1 extra day/night per week) and stop giving her any money.

This doesn't sound like a joint decision and the extra time he's decided that he wants sounds as if it's connected with the money.

shell_542

But the parents are as bad as each other then because in that case it would appear he may be connecting more contact with paying less and she, more contact with receiving less. Where's the kids interests being considered?

It's a shame that it's centered around money and not "the children are happy".

Personally I don't see how telling her to refuse the extra night is in the children's interest. If it's only about the money and "not being told what to do" then she can still apply to the CSA and he may still have to pay maintenance anyway.

missbunbury

shell_542 wrote: »

Basically with the CSA, they disregard 1/7th of the child support payable for every day a week the child stays with the NRP. If the parents have 50/50 care, this only equated to 3.5/7th of a reduction. (Daft IMO)

They actually reduce by 3/7ths then apply an abatement - currently £7 a week. So if he would normally pay £70pw, this will be reduced to £40 minus a further £7 leaves maintenance payable of £33pw. I agree it's daft but them's the rules in law!

I think morally speaking, where there's no CSA involvement, it depends on both parents' financial situations. If for example, the PWC earns good money as well as getting tax credits for the kids, while the NRP struggles on minimum wage and still has the kids half the time, I would consider it a bit rude for the PWC to expect money as well. It goes the other way too, though. As far as I can see, if both parents genuinely have the best interests of the kids at heart and are willing to be open and honest about their finances, they should be able to agree on something that's fair. It wouldn't seem right for the kids to spend half their time living with a rich parent in luxury and the other half in poverty, it makes sense for the parents to shift money about to ensure the best standard of living possible for their kids at all times.