have the money but dont want it to go to kids

JoannaA wrote:

I have been thinking about this thread quite alot to be honest. As I have been thinking about stuff like WFTC.

A married couple with a couple of kids and the wife working part time can benefit so much by being divorced/living apart.

Its weird. I know someone who had never worked. She was married to a barrister. She met someone else and divorced her husband. The house was sold and two houses were purchased - a 5 bedroom one for her and the two children and a 3 bedroom one for him (the children do seem to stay alot with him).

Anyway, the husband pays huge amount of CM, the wife works 3 days now to take advantage of WFTC, there is not mortgage on the house and she is now better off than she was when married to her husband.

The thing is, if the non resident parent earns net say £4000 and there are two children, £800 is paid over in CM. Well is that right? Wouldn't it be better if the money was not given direct to the parent with care, but perhaps alot into a bank account (like another poster said) for the children if they need it in the future, eg for driving lessons?

You see, this lady I am talking about has two children and those children are getting absolutely everything they want nowadays as money is plentiful.

Of course, CM should be paid, but perhaps if given directly to a household it will be just frittered (if it is a huge sum), whereas perhaps it could be put to better use.

Jo x

I don't know if I what I have written makes sense to any peeps, but if it does, would be interested to know what you think.

Jo,

Makes perfect sense to me. WFTC feels a bit wrong to me - though I accept it is needed in a lot of situations. Irrespective of the sirens position it does not seem right that she should get a couple of grand hand out simply for chucking me out. It's not the states money - the state has none - it is money it has collected from every hard pressed taxpayer. In terms of average income levels, have 2 kids chuck the father out and then get (potentially) 10k in
handouts.

What sort of message does that send about family stability.

As for CM the formulaic nature of it does in my view make things difficult. I apy in excess of 600 pm in CM. (I'm not complaining about that). What does concern me is the use it is put to. Given the siren and my income levels are broadly equal she "should" be contributing about the same amount of her income to the children's needs. Do their day to day needs really amount to anything like 1200?

What we do have is immediate days to day needs and longer term needs. Things like the driving lessons, perhaps helping to pay off a student loan or maybe help with a deposit towards that first flat etc. It simply becomes household income rather than in any way targeted. Where it is targeted it can easily become frittered away on too many essentially needless luxuries.

Of course I fully accept that in probably the vast majority of cases the situation is such that the CM will only cover basic day to day needs (if that), but where there is greater overall affluence (like your friend) it does also seem to me that some of the CM could - and should - be put towards a brighter future for the children.

Zaphod.

When CM payments increase a PWC's income it can make combining looking after children and work a financially viable option. Employment reduces the chances of children being brought up in poverty. Of course if CM is off set by a fall in benefit it isn't going to be effective but the other side of the argument is why should the Government, or rather the tax payer, maintain children when parents can afford to do so.

Despite it's failings I think we need to stick with the CSA until it gets it act together, all the old cases are transferred, research is updated and reviewed by policy makers. Alternatively CM may end up being determined by courts again. Countries such as Scandinavia, Germany and Luxembourg seem to have much more efficient child support systems which help to reduce child poverty. The state pays some or all of the child support automatically and recoups (non) payments.

Anyway, I digress from the original post which is not a CSA case. Human nature is so diverse people are always going to have different views about how to spend CM. Not sure there is a better way to provide for the child's needs and give both parents responsibilities.

Zap

Well said. You know what Im talking about, good. And gosh, if you are paying that amount of CM for two children, you must be loaded. Marry me??????????????

Jo x

I enjoyed that post!

Jo x

sadmother wrote:

I'd love to know at what point these spouses (men and women) became so horrible.

I assume at the point of conception of the youngest child all was completely OK.

At what point did that change?

Interesting that none of the men have picked up on my point about inequality of pay!

And I coulld make up a list for men too

1) marry a gorgeous bird and be the envy of your friends

2) conceive a child coz hey it proves you can

3) pop down the pub every night coz hey she's at home asleep in front of the telly

4) conceive another child coz hey it proves that you can even when drunk (well just about)

5) pop down the pub every night and start looking around at gorgeous birds coz hey your wife is always sooo tired and her waist has got a bit thick. oh and whilst drunk enjoy ypourself giving her a good drubbing because it's all her fault.

6) leave manky wife for gorgeous new bird. No need to apologise coz it's all your wife's fault. Forget the kids. They're resilient anyway.

7) Do just as you please with new girl. You don't need to babysit coz who would want to go out at night with your manky wife. The kids won't mind if you break contact whenever you please. The wife and children (we all know CM is for the wife) doesn't deserve any of your money because we know it's all her fault anyway so don't pay what you've been asked to even if you did agree in court

8) back to 1)

Firstly excellent observation I think it is fair to assume some men behave like that - but not all. Some women behave the way the siren does - but of course not all.

However, to your point about inequality of pay. I don't think it is reasonable to place that at the feet of the father. The fact that women are often paid less for the same role than a man is a much bigger problem - but that is a workplace specific problem.

As to inequality of income that is a different matter. Assuming that a woman has the ability to support herself and HALF of the cost of children then she should do this. Of course her earning capacity is, to some extent, governed by the age of the children. Equality of income is, in effect granted by the judge in the settlement (or negotiated between the parties). This can be achieved though spousal maintenance or increasing the womans share of the marital assets (for the sake of convenience I am assuming the woman is the PWC though that is not always the case of course).

Perhaps by example:-

H: 2000 pcm - 400 CM = 1600
W: 1000 pcm - 200 CM = 800 (effectively assume that if 20% of a mans income is dedicated to 2 children then the same should follow for the mother).

At this point there is a disparity of income. This could be addressed by 400 SM (if the overall living expenses allow it since H is probably having to find somewhere new to live). Equally it could potentially be addressed by apportioning a greater capital share of any capital assets. Of course this is far from satisfactory, the woman may well need it NOW, not in a few years.

I see no reason whatsoever why a man (or a woman for that matter) Should be expected to support an ex indefinitely. Certainly they should help for a period, particularly whilst the children are growing up, but everybody in society does have a responsibilty to support themselves to the best of their ability.

Conduct should come into account. If a woman leaves a man/vice versus, why on earth should the left spouse have to help maintain the other?

Jo x

JoannaA wrote:

Conduct should come into account. If a woman leaves a man/vice versus, why on earth should the left spouse have to help maintain the other?

Jo x

Not that simple Jo, some have to leave for safety ...maybe another question for your research;)

E