The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

Advice on child maintenance payment to ex-wife

124678

Comments

  • Chris_P_2
    Chris_P_2 Posts: 194 Forumite
    Thanks guys. Am definitelty not going to give her any m ore
  • Marvel1
    Marvel1 Posts: 7,157
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    You are paying too much, she is living in 4 bedroom house that she does not need!
  • Sambella
    Sambella Posts: 417
    I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    I absolutely agree with Emeraldeye.

    Divirce /maintenance hits low income NRP's especially hard. A high income NRP probably actually ends up paying an amount in child maintenance that actually pays ALL the child's costs and more but as they have a high income they can take the hit and have suffiecient money to comfortably rehouse themselves.

    For the RP, when the kids leave education BAM benefits stop, BAM maintenance stops. Unless they are married again or have increased their earnings they're going over the cliff..... because of course the RP uses some of the CTC,CB and maintenance on her own costs.
  • I would like to suggest you look at this from another perspective....

    While I was married, both of our salaries went into the family pot. We both benefited from the bills being paid and access to whatever was left.

    After my husband left me, he moved out and now pays me £400 per month. So now, ALL of my salary, every penny of it, goes on my rent and supporting our children and only £400 of his (and he earns considerably more than me).

    With regard to the OP's case, I think it looks quite fair that, if they are sharing childcare 50/50, their respective costs and income be balanced so they also have relatively equal amounts of money to provide for their children.

    I don't suggest that she should have enough left to pay for a cleaner, and I would be looking at them benefiting equally from the property they own (I would suggest that the equity be split when the children reach 18 if you think one is going to increase more than the other), but I also don't agree with the calculations that he should pay £66 when she is expected to throw ALL of her income into the pot.

    Discuss !!!!
    Proud to be debt-free 30/6/2020

  • Sambella
    Sambella Posts: 417
    I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    The divorce divides the assets. In a case with children the RP tends to get more than the NRP. This loss to the NRP is not taken into account.

    If he earns more than her AFTER divorce it is not for him to balance your income so that it is similar to his. That's not how it works.

    Iwhen married did you both between you set aside £800 for the children each and every month?( £400 each) Somehow I think not because bills get prioritised before anything. Somebody families are lucky to have £800 left after bills for the entire family..

    So in effect what some NRP's are paying when you look at it that way is a lot.

    I never spent £400 per month on my 2 kids each and every month never mind £800.

    Surely some of your money goes on your house, new curtains, carpets , clothes for yourself, travel costs etc. So to say all of your money goes on rent and the kids is misleading . After divorce it is not for the NRP to contribute to your costs just the children's. (Unless they have spousal maintenance too)

    NRP's have to house themselves too, buy clothes feed and entertain the children when they have them.
  • Redacted
    Redacted Posts: 99 Forumite
    Not directed at the op-
    I've gotta say, I've found some posters to be quite hypocritical on this thread compared to the views posted on this one:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5592473

    There was a general feeling on that thread that if paying maintenance left the payer with less disposable income than the receiver, maintenance should be lowered to even up the disposable incomes. Yet on this thread, the position is that if maintenance isn't enough to even up the receiver's disposable income to that of the payer's, well that's all fine and dandy and fair.

    Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either you maintain the position that maintenance is the amount needed to even the respective household' disposable income, in either direction, or you accept that's not what maintenance is about. Sometimes the payer will have more disposable income and sometimes the receiver will.

    Back to the op - as you're paying more than what you would through CMS, it seems to me it's your choice if you want to accommodate her request. In your shoes, I would be tempted to ask how she arrived at the £50 figure, but then, as evidenced by this post, I'm inclined to poke the Hornet's nest, which is not always the best instinct.
  • I would like to suggest you look at this from another perspective....

    While I was married, both of our salaries went into the family pot. We both benefited from the bills being paid and access to whatever was left.

    After my husband left me, he moved out and now pays me £400 per month. So now, ALL of my salary, every penny of it, goes on my rent and supporting our children and only £400 of his (and he earns considerably more than me).

    With regard to the OP's case, I think it looks quite fair that, if they are sharing childcare 50/50, their respective costs and income be balanced so they also have relatively equal amounts of money to provide for their children.

    I don't suggest that she should have enough left to pay for a cleaner, and I would be looking at them benefiting equally from the property they own (I would suggest that the equity be split when the children reach 18 if you think one is going to increase more than the other), but I also don't agree with the calculations that he should pay £66 when she is expected to throw ALL of her income into the pot.

    Discuss !!!!

    It's not for the nrp to subsidise the rp and give them equal spending power. It's for the rp to stand on their own 2 feet and pay their own way in life from the point of divorce with the help of some child maintenance.

    There's nothing to stop the resident parent from going out and getting a more responsible job with higher earning power. You often hear the excuse that they have stayed at home and their careers have suffered but more often than not they never had much of a career to begin with.

    Women who have worked hard to do well in their careers rarely throw it away the minute they have children or get married. ( not in the last 20/30 years anyway.)
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Either you maintain the position that maintenance is the amount needed to even the respective household' disposable income, in either direction, or you accept that's not what maintenance is about.

    Of course there is going to be a difference depending on the actual amount handed over. It's one thing to expect similar disposal income when that's only a couple of £100s, that will most likely go to pay treats for the kids. It's quite different when you start talking about £500 and more, when it becomes unclear how much of it goes to benefit the children and how much of it goes to benefit the parent.

    OP, I'm really curious? What did you ex say she needed that £50 for? I think she should feel incredibly fortunate with what you give her already. It's amazing how it often is those who get above anyone else who still think they should get more!
  • Sambella
    Sambella Posts: 417
    I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    @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.
  • Redacted
    Redacted Posts: 99 Forumite
    edited 9 February 2017 at 5:45PM
    Sambella wrote: »
    @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.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards