Relying on child support

FBaby

Seeing it as completely extra, almost 'surprise' money, or putting it all in long-term savings for the children, is optimum in terms of 'insuring' yourself, but I wonder how many people are really able to do that.

It's a catch 22 as I think many nrp would have an issue with this as ultimately, it would be acknowledging that the money is not required and therefore they could argue that THEY should have the right to put it in long term savings, or pay less and provide more for the kids when they are with them.

I think the reality is that it's a bit of everything. It should be used towards essentials, but there should be some flexibility in the family budget so that losing it shouldn't result in a loss of those essentials. It is no different to what every family should do in an event of losing income, via reduction of hours, pregnancy, sickness etc...

Rosemary7391

copperclock wrote: »

I think that this happens a fair amount. The paying parent - justified or not - feels that they can't stomach giving money to the receiving parent, and the 'it's for the children' connection is severed somewhere along the line.

Yes. In the interests of completeness, I suppose it would also be possible for the parent with care of the kids to just drop them on the other parents doorstep and go - but it seems as that's a very clear abdication of responsibility for the children, it doesn't happen often.

copperclock

FBaby wrote: »

It's a catch 22 as I think many nrp would have an issue with this as ultimately, it would be acknowledging that the money is not required and therefore they could argue that THEY should have the right to put it in long term savings, or pay less and provide more for the kids when they are with them.

That's a good point. I hadn't really thought of that.

FBaby wrote: »

I think the reality is that it's a bit of everything. It should be used towards essentials, but there should be some flexibility in the family budget so that losing it shouldn't result in a loss of those essentials. It is no different to what every family should do in an event of losing income, via reduction of hours, pregnancy, sickness etc...

I suppose then it really comes down to what percentage of the household income the child support represents.

Guest101

copperclock wrote: »

If I got ill I doubt the children would go to the other parent. - Well where do you think theyd go? If they did, though, then my living costs would reduce. - you might think so, but the reality is your housing costs, energy costs etc would largely stay the same, comparative you your loss of income, or they would be higher. I'd no longer need a big mortgage on a family home. My fuel bills and grocery bills would reduce. I wouldn't be paying for their phones or their pocket money. If I were that ill that my children got taken away - you don't need to be 'that ill' to be incapable of looking after children. depending on age something simple like a broken bone could mean that even temporarily they would need to be rehomed. I'd probably also not be driving so would reduce to one car - one car?. These reductions would offset the loss of child support many times over. - And child related benefits?

You're right, though. It is relying on a third party. Ideally it wouldn't be counted in at all, but I just wondered if anyone really was in the position that it was superflous. After all, the courts/CSA 'award' the money because it's required for looking after the children, not for disregarding.

Interestingly, our mortgage provider counted child support as income.

My point was simply you cant count on having influence over another person, which I think you agree with

jamiehelsinki

I don't understand why the parent with responsibility for the child doesn't have their income and circumstances taken into account as well.

Why is there no cap on child maintenance ?

I paid child support to my ex when we first split, no csa involved and she constantly asked for money for extras for our daughter, despite having more spare money than myself.

My daughter is now living with me and the last I heard my ex isn't working, so no money due.

I would have a minimum and maximum child support level set personally to stop people playing the system at both ends.

copperclock

Guest101 wrote: »

- Well where do you think theyd go?

They would probably stay with me and their step father

Guest101 wrote: »

- you might think so, but the reality is your housing costs, energy costs etc would largely stay the same, comparative you your loss of income, or they would be higher.

I thought we were talking about loss of child support if the children weren't living with me anymore? The child support I receive does not cover the child-related costs that we pay out. So, if I didn't have the children and I didn't have child support I'd not be worse off.

Guest101 wrote: »

- you don't need to be 'that ill' to be incapable of looking after children. depending on age something simple like a broken bone could mean that even temporarily they would need to be rehomed.

They're teenagers. I can't see a scenario where I was so ill that they would need to live with their father rather than stay with me and their step-father. If it did happen, as I say, I wouldn't be financially worse off

Guest101 wrote: »

- one car?.

Yes. I have one. My husband has one. If I were that ill that my teenage sons had to move out then I guess we'd only be needing one car.

Guest101 wrote: »

- And child related benefits?

I don't receive any child-related benefits

Guest101 wrote: »

My point was simply you cant count on having influence over another person, which I think you agree with

Yes, I do agree with that. :beer:

copperclock

jamiehelsinki wrote: »

I don't understand why the parent with responsibility for the child doesn't have their income and circumstances taken into account as well.

Why is there no cap on child maintenance ?

I paid child support to my ex when we first split, no csa involved and she constantly asked for money for extras for our daughter, despite having more spare money than myself.

My daughter is now living with me and the last I heard my ex isn't working, so no money due.

I would have a minimum and maximum child support level set personally to stop people playing the system at both ends.

Which income would you have taken into account? Personal wages? Household income with a new partner?

Do you think your ex was contributing less money to your child than you were?

Spendless

It should be doable as there will be people out there with the same amount of same aged children whose income (from salary and any related benefits) is the same as yours who don't receive child maintenance.

Whether it is in your case really depends on many factors, including the amount you pay for mortgage/rent and what you spend the money on.

There was a point in my life where my single parent friend had the identical income to my household. She worked part-time and had income top ups plus maintenance. She qualified for 25% council tax reduction and there were 3 people in her household to feed and clothe. Her income from all sources equated to the same as mine and husband's wages did. I worked part-time, my husband full-time. We didn't qualify for council tax reduction and there were 4 people to clothe/feed.

As the years passed, things changed. DH took promotions, I gained work that was more hours and wages. My friend's ex paid less maintenance following a dispute and later not at all. The kids grew up.

I would make steps to gradually not rely on it and steps to increase your own household income.

jamiehelsinki

copperclock wrote: »

Yes, I suppose there are degrees to which people rely on things. At one end of the scale, losing child support could mean cutting back on days out/holidays with the children, at the other end it could mean having to move to a smaller, cheaper home. Both families could describe themselves as 'relying'.

Seeing it as completely extra, almost 'surprise' money, or putting it all in long-term savings for the children, is optimum in terms of 'insuring' yourself, but I wonder how many people are really able to do that.

copperclock wrote: »

Which income would you have taken into account? Personal wages? Household income with a new partner?

Do you think your ex was contributing less money to your child than you were?

My ex was living in the ex marital home originally mine which had a peppercorn mortgage I was paying, on top of this I was paying I think about 650 rent at the time we had a car each but a loan taken out to pay her balloon payment was in my name costing me about 180 per month.

She upped her hours after we split so was earning as much as me roughly. She also got child benefit.

Yes I think she was contributing a lot less than me when you consider she got to live in our house rent free while I had to pay rent on top of child support to her.

I think circumstances of the marital home etc should be taken into account when working out child maintenance. I could argue her having no rent or mortgage to pay due to her living in the family home was enough child maintenance in itself.

I think both parties housing costs etc should be taken into account.

copperclock

Spendless wrote: »

It should be doable as there will be people out there with the same amount of same aged children whose income (from salary and any related benefits) is the same as yours who don't receive child maintenance.

Whether it is in your case really depends on many factors, including the amount you pay for mortgage/rent and what you spend the money on.

There was a point in my life where my single parent friend had the identical income to my household. She worked part-time and had income top ups plus maintenance. She qualified for 25% council tax reduction and there were 3 people in her household to feed and clothe. Her income from all sources equated to the same as mine and husband's wages did. I worked part-time, my husband full-time. We didn't qualify for council tax reduction and there were 4 people to clothe/feed.

As the years passed, things changed. DH took promotions, I gained work that was more hours and wages. My friend's ex paid less maintenance following a dispute and later not at all. The kids grew up.

I would make steps to gradually not rely on it and steps to increase your own household income.

Thanks. Yes we will be able to cover everything without it, it's just that I had been counting it in.

I think that non-resident parents should contribute, though.