Relying on child support

copperclock

jamiehelsinki wrote: »

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.

I know quite a few couples-with-children who have divorced. Most of them have ended up in the situation where the Parent with Care lived in the marital home, while the Non-Resident Parent moved out. Then the PWC was entitled to stay there until the youngest child was 18 (or they remarried or started co-habiting) but they also had to pay the mortgage while they lived there. The NRP had to pay child support. When the home was sold the NRP would be entitled to a share of the equity.

This meant that the NRP had the disadvantage of not staying in the home, but the advantage of having a chunk of money back from it eventually.

Your paying child support and paying accommodation costs for both of you doesn't really seem fair.

Spendless

copperclock wrote: »

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.

Certainly they should. I'm not in those circs, but I've seen my friends whose exes don't contribute. Meanwhile child still needs feeding, clothing, somewhere to live etc. The resident parent doesn't get to opt out of finding money to provide food for child.

jamiehelsinki

copperclock wrote: »

I know quite a few couples-with-children who have divorced. Most of them have ended up in the situation where the Parent with Care lived in the marital home, while the Non-Resident Parent moved out. Then the PWC was entitled to stay there until the youngest child was 18 (or they remarried or started co-habiting) but they also had to pay the mortgage while they lived there. The NRP had to pay child support. When the home was sold the NRP would be entitled to a share of the equity.

This meant that the NRP had the disadvantage of not staying in the home, but the advantage of having a chunk of money back from it eventually.

Your paying child support and paying accommodation costs for both of you doesn't really seem fair.

Things have moved on now, the house has been sold,I was just giving a perspective from someone who was paying it but skint while my ex had plenty left over to enjoy herself.

Sambella

When you're used to a certain amount of money coming in it is always hard to loose some of it.

Think how it imust be for those losing their benefits from all government cuts!

Child maintenance is a mess. Only those on good wages can afford to pay and and rebuild their lives. Life is tough for those on low incomes paying maintenance. The threshold at which maintenance stats to be calculated is JSA. Which is £73.10! It's £7 for the first £100, 17% for the next £100 and 12% thereafter. These thresholds have not changed for 18 years. :eek:

A paying parent should have the right to be able to afford rent/mortgage/bills and have some left over and allowances made for any debt they have. Paying parents often lose their house, part of their pension and very often much reduced contact with their children. On top of all this I think they view it as punishment. Contrary to popular belief all paying parents are not bad. Some of ruin are given hell by the parent with care continuously. Continuous demands for money, threats etc.

It is always worth looking at both sides of the story.

I think the whole divorce/maintenance issue needs a good overhaul. Take child maintainace, some parents with care get nothing, some get a little and some get a lot. Maybe it should be standardised somehow with reductions for various things like debt, cost of living, not letting the paying parent go below the level of income at which benefits would cease this I think is £13,400 currently.

copperclock

Sambella wrote: »

When you're used to a certain amount of money coming in it is always hard to loose some of it.

Think how it imust be for those losing their benefits from all government cuts!

Yes, I worry about these people a lot.

Sambella wrote: »

Child maintenance is a mess. Only those on good wages can afford to pay and and rebuild their lives. Life is tough for those on low incomes paying maintenance. The threshold at which maintenance stats to be calculated is JSA. Which is £73.10! It's £7 for the first £100, 17% for the next £100 and 12% thereafter. These thresholds have not changed for 18 years. :eek:

I do have sympathy because all of a sudden the two halves of a couple have to find the money for two homes instead of one (unless they were never together in the first place).

I thought that the way things were calculated has changed a couple of times in the last 18 years???

Sambella wrote: »

A paying parent should have the right to be able to afford rent/mortgage/bills and have some left over and allowances made for any debt they have. Paying parents often lose their house, part of their pension and very often much reduced contact with their children. On top of all this I think they view it as punishment. Contrary to popular belief all paying parents are not bad. Some of ruin are given hell by the parent with care continuously. Continuous demands for money, threats etc.

One issue that I can see with allowing the paying parent to fist discount their rent/mortgage/bills/debt before the maintenance calculation, is that some would use that to take the mick. They'd choose, for example, to live in high value properties or remortgage and then take out big loans for cars and holidays and expect it to all be discounted.

The way it's done at the moment means that money for the child(ren) is a priority and then they have to make a life with what's left, which is how it would be if they lived with the children.

Contact with children is, quite rightly, separate from child support. Parents with care shouldn't withhold contact in lieu of money, and non-resident parents should not withhold money in lieu of contact.

Sambella wrote: »

It is always worth looking at both sides of the story.

I think the whole divorce/maintenance issue needs a good overhaul. Take child maintainace, some parents with care get nothing, some get a little and some get a lot. Maybe it should be standardised somehow with reductions for various things like debt, cost of living, not letting the paying parent go below the level of income at which benefits would cease this I think is £13,400 currently.

Surely the variations in payments are (predominantly) due to variations in wages, the same as families who still live together.

Guest101

copperclock wrote: »

They would probably stay with me and their step father - not if you're unable to care for them (which is what I said) unless your husband now has PR, they could not legally remain with him.

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. - Well perhaps, perhaps not. The loss of child benefit, child maintenance and your income would obviously be a factor - speaking generally, not specifically to you


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 - Great, obviously age plays a huge part in these things.


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. - you didn't mention, or I missed it, a husband, which obviously is an additional factor



I don't receive any child-related benefits - fair enough. generally speaking it's a common thing



Yes, I do agree with that. :beer:

Glad we agree

copperclock

Guest101 wrote: »

not if you're unable to care for them (which is what I said) unless your husband now has PR, they could not legally remain with him.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think that's how it works. I don't think it's a case of if I were to get ill they would automatically go to their father. I think it would require 1) their father to want them to live with him and then 2) a court to agree with him, taking into account the wishes of the children (because they are teenagers).

And since there would be an adult (their step-father) who would be willing to continue to help me look after them, and that we have all lived together now for nearly a decade, I am not sure that a judge would simply shift them out, especially as that would involve moving schools/towns too.

I don't know, though.

jamiehelsinki

My view is that when one of the parents remains in the family home for less than the market rent and the other parent has to rent or pay a mortgage else where then the costs and net gains/losses of this should be taken into account when arriving at the maintenance figure payable.

My house would have rented out for 1000 per month yet my ex got to live there for free while I paid rent else where and still handed over child support to her.

iammumtoone

Good question.

Its true they could stop at anytime but so could any other of my income.

We live off my wages. top up benefits and child maintenance.

Could I afford to lose my wages - definitely not.
Could I afford to lose child maintenance - probably as long as made cuts.
Could I afford to lose benefits - going to have to which makes the above more vital.

Could we live off just my wages - No.
Could we live with reduced benefits/and or reduced child maintenance - Yes.

copperclock

jamiehelsinki wrote: »

My view is that when one of the parents remains in the family home for less than the market rent and the other parent has to rent or pay a mortgage else where then the costs and net gains/losses of this should be taken into account when arriving at the maintenance figure payable.

My house would have rented out for 1000 per month yet my ex got to live there for free while I paid rent else where and still handed over child support to her.

Why did she get to live there for free? Was the mortgage paid off?