Jump to content

any legal experts who can answer a question about child maintenance please?


Recommended Posts

I have applied for an appointment with a family mediation firm but in the mean time wondered if anyone could tell me the answer to this?


My partner left last year. We weren't married tho we had lived together for years. Our eldest child (aged 4) has just started reception and our youngest child (aged 2) has 2 days a week in a nanny share.

if the child maintenance he is legally required to pay is around ?400 a month, yet he works full time and I work 2 days a week (so nanny share needed 2 days a week for youngest and after school pick ups by a childminder needed twice a week for my eldest) is it the case that he doesn't have to pay for any of the childcare? That it's supposed to be included in the general maintenance equation?

I've been told different things by different people?any light you can shed forum?

Thanks Mick Mac, but why would childcare be considered as my work needs as opposed to his work needs? i.e if I went to work and refused to pay for childcare then he would have to stop working altogether or miss work twice a week to look after our children? We both have parental responsibility so surely our work needs and childcare needs are the same if we both work? If we both want to go to work to earn money then can it really be that only one parent has to pay for childcare to facilitate that, even if that parent earns a fraction of what the other parent earns? I hope not, agh!

If you've gone to the CSA and had the maintenance calculated by them then the amount they set is it, and:

- If he had to pay travel costs (and accommodation) to visit his child, he wouldn't be able to subtract that, or part of it, from the amount due to the CSA.

- If he had to buy clothing for the child because you refused to give an overnight / weekend bag of clothes when staying with him, he could not deduct it from amount due to CSA.

I'm assuming when you say 'legally required' you mean CSA.

Therefore, you'll need to discuss your needs with the ex if you want to increase from the 'legal amount'.

I understand that recently the CSA introduced a 20% 'admin cost' to be added to the monthly amount due from the parent paying maintenance, if this is the case for him perhaps you could agree to not go through the CSA and fix maintenance at ?720 (if that would help you).


Couple of options there but I'm making assumptions and don't have time to caviat everything I've said to handle all possible situations you may actually be in.


ETA: My understanding for the reason the CSA started adding the 20% is to try to get the couples to agree maintenance themselves (and reduce workload on the CSA, which is creaking at the seams and totally overwhelmed). Be interested to know if that 20% IS actually being enforced.

So, one half of a couple leaves the other, leaves the two young children behind, and then never has to worry again about the cost of their childcare? How can anyone even think that is logical or acceptable? Presumably HelloSailor has "work needs" because she needs to provide for the children apart from anything else. The alternative is to give up work and become totally dependent on benefits.

tomskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, one half of a couple leaves the other, leaves

> the two young children behind, and then never has

> to worry again about the cost of their childcare?

> How can anyone even think that is logical or

> acceptable? Presumably HelloSailor has "work

> needs" because she needs to provide for the

> children apart from anything else. The alternative

> is to give up work and become totally dependent on

> benefits.


Yes Tomskip, that looks about the size of it from my research..

If I work I get ?64 a day before tax. I will now need to pay ?85 a day childcare, so if I work and my ex doesn't have to contribute anything to childcare, I will lose 20 quid a day by working, while he pays no childcare costs.

This means me not working at all to look after our children or paying the entire childcare amount even tho it means I'm losing money simply in order to facilitate him earning 60k a year. The alternative to me working for a loss is to have benefits.

*Note to self* - if I get up to the pearly gates and reincarnation exists, come back as a man.

Its a terrible situation to be in, and one shared by so many single parents. As a family unit, your housing costs must now be very much higher (?) but even so a contribution of ?400 for two children seems very low from someone earning a salary like that.

Is the ?400 a definite figure as advised by the CMS?


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325219/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf


Looking at this, if your partner earns ?60k gross per year the weekly earnings figure would be ?1,183 a week and for 2 kids maintenance is 16% of the first ?800 pounds of gross income and 12% of any income after that.


I'm guessing that your partner's gross income must be reduced by his pension payments/expenses or other children he supports and/or by having your kids on a shared custody basis but that's all within the rules of the Child Maintenance Service, as shitty as it is.


I know this might sound stupid but is there any chance of trying to work something out with your ex-partner without the need to external agencies involved?

What a horrible situation. Have you looked at everything that might be available to help you with the childcare costs? If your nanny and child minder are OFSTED registered (very easy to sort out if not) then you should be eligible for tax credit support. Is it worth looking into whether you might be eligible for some free nursery childcare (depends on your income) right now (ie while your youngest is 2) and, if not, looking at nursery places for when they turn 3? Does the school have an after-school club (might be cheaper). Might it be possible to find someone with whom you can buddy up with on the after-school care (ie you do a pick up a couple of days for them etc)


This is quite helpful https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/tax-credits.


Obviously the most equitable thing would be for your ex to contribute fairly, but it might be worth establishing how you can keep working without his paying for childcare costs. I do think its worth keeping your hand in and the childcare crisis years (ie its just impossible) don't last that long, though it can feel like it.


Good luck.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...