What does Child Support cover?

snoopjiggyjigg

My partner gets £200 per month in child maintenance for her 2 daughters.

What "officially" does this cover, i.e. heating, accomodation etc.....


The reason being that the kids father is bringing the kids into things, and even with things as little as £2.50 for guides saying we should pay (even though we do anyway) as he pays his £25 per week per child.

Bear in mind we also pay for other stuff at school and elsewhere, such as trips, guitar lessons, swimming lessons etc etc

pandas66

It is meant to cover day to day but usually that ends up meaning everything!

A lot of parents spilt the cost of the large spend on new school uniform or the absent parent makes a contribution towards it.

Hopefully the absent parent reguarly seeing the children and treats them accordingly, as in a day out, a meal out and sweets.

But if he point blankly refuses to pay for any other outings, I'm afraid what she recieves from the CSA/absent parent and her contribution is what she has to budget/work with.

kelloggs36

It is supposed to cover everything really, so whatever the contribution will go towards the costs of whatever the child needs or has because the parents choose, such as guides and other clubs etc. It gets difficult if one parent disagrees that the children should have things which the other parent wants for them and then expects them to pay for. To be honest for such a little amount I would let it go!

Strapped

In reality, it covers whatever the parent with care wants to spend it on.

macaroni

My ex pays £30/week for our 2 children.

I used to ask him to pay half towards 'extras' but it was so much hassle to get the money even if he agreed I dont bother now, apart from school trips and uniforms, and then I dont expect anything.

My DD asked him for some spending money towards her residential trip next week (which he paid half towards) he did agree, but she doesnt have the money in her account as yet so we will see.

He did bring up 'Well I pay £30 a week for you and your brother..!!!!" I think he thinks his £30 is a never ending pot that pays for everything they need.. !!

I dont let it wind me up these days.

Becles

My ex pays the 20% recommended by the CSA, but on a voluntary basis. He doesn't pay for anything else. He thinks that is enough to cover all the costs associated with the children, so he refuses to help out further.

Luckily I've since remarried and new hubby helps towards the financial costs of bringing them up.

skanger

Don't assume what you pay is designed to cover all of the costs, it isn't. What most people seem to forget is that their are two parents involved.

It is not just the absent parents responsbility, having children is something you do together, raising children is also something you do together, and the cost of doing that should be shared.

Ok - there is the augument about 'fair share' given the differences in income, but it doesn't change the fact that the financial responsibility is shared, just the share given to each party.

So as for the £200 a month - that's the absent parents contribution, not the cost of paying for all of the childs needs in any given month.

Skanger

kelloggs36

Exactly - if a parent is paying 20% of their net income whether it be via CSA or not, then they are paying what the law says they should be compared to their earnings and should not in my view have to pay any more.

CHR15

I agree. I pay £450 per month for two.

I also pay for uniforms, coats, shoes etc due to the constant bleating from my ex.

I dont feel I should have to and I consider it my own generosity and love for my girls that i do.

The 20% should be all that is required, not a starting point and I should not be made to feel obligated to pour more money into my ex's pocket.

PasturesNew

My friend left her husband, taking her 2 kids ... and went to live with a millionaire.

As a couple, they then decided to educate the two girls privately.

And SHE was miffed that when she contacted her ex to pay half towards the fees that he told her to sod off!!

Not surprised. She was the one living with a millionaire and the kids were fine at the local village school without the private education.

It seems to me that the person with the children is making the buying decisions, then asking the partner to chip in randomly. So the absent parent is being hit with odd and random requests for money at the drop of a hat.

It might be a good idea to properly diarise all the spending done for the children and to then present the costs list to the absent parent to invite them to chip in for things which will be coming up. So they can see/understand how much the kids are costing.

But that doesn't mean they can afford it either. It might be that the parent with the kids has a LOT more money than the absent parent due to benefits top ups etc.

So an overall financial view should be taken.

And, perhaps, your list of spends says "new coat £100" when "good second hand coat £20" might have seemed 'reasonable' and the extra £80 spent being 'choice'. The absent parent has no sight of spending and no control over what is being bought and at how much.

For the record: I have no children and have no direct or indirect experience of breakups/finances/csa.

I am just stating how I'd approach it if it were me.

kelloggs36

I look at it from a point of view of what would happen if the children were still living with both parents. If that were the case then the spending would be based on what could be afforded by the parents, not what is desired in an over materialistic world. So, if one parent is now living elsewhere, they can still only afford a certain amount and this should be taken into consideration and they should NOT be made to feel guilty if they are already making a contribution (except of course if they are paying perhaps a fiver and earned £50k for example!!!) Both parents should discuss and agree what is reasonable - perhaps a nominal contribution towards food etc and then agreement to what the children should have in respect of clubs, games, gifts etc. They should also discuss what clothing is reasonable - as the previous poster said, it may be desireable by a parent that their child can have £100 coat, but realistically this needs to be negotiated. If they were together would they spend that or would they not be able to afford it? If the latter, then compromise needs to be made. It cannot be fair that a parent who after the split now has access to huge funds from a new partner, expects the old parent to keep up. If they want to spend £100 on a coat and the other parent can only afford £20, then it would be down to the parent to negotiate with their new partner if they want to make up the shortfall - not start accusing the other parent of being tight fisted! Whilst the new partner has no liability, if they make a decision to contribute then that is great for the child, but should have no effect on the payments from the other parent.

Sadly this is why the whole situation falls down as many parents just cannot even speak civilly to each other, let alone discuss such things in a reasonable way. Hence the need for such crude formula as set by CSA legislation.