is child maint actually fair on the paying parent?

My ex has only every paid me the odd chq over 3 yrs since split. We have 2 children 8 & 10. Everytime I ask for help, he states the argument that he has them only 1 less night a wk (we do a 3/4 nite split), so why should he have to pay?? I'd consider myself v.reasonable as have always found it difficult to have to ask/take money of him anyway. I "get by" on my p/t salary and tax credit and he probably doesn't earn a great deal more, he's s/e so not sure what he earns but when we both guessed £400 p.w the CSA calculator said something like £45ish a wk. But, i still do see his point in why the one parent has to pay the other - am I being particlarly thick here as all everyone seems to be doing here is fighting for as much as they can get, which okay may be the right thing, I really don't know, do you consider this a fair law??
thanks, all/any advise/points of view appreciated adn welcome x

I think that's fair and more should be like you. My ex argues that I don't pay enough but I tell her that because when we did the Clean Break I got dumped with the house and 90K of the debt we had together that we should arrange a payment between us as the CSA take the variations in to account and I don't.

She was still adiment I was trying to screw her over so she got he CSA involved. After my sol had finished informing them of what I pay she now gets 100 quid a month and whilst I was not able to pay her the full 240 at the moment she agreed to that when i was offering her 180.

The reason? She does not trust me and thinks I will do her over. shes done er self over me thinks I do contribute where i can to the kids as well but no its not fair on the paying parent. My hope is that soon I will be able to have the kids ever weekend which will be 96 days a year and pay little to no payments as the NRP pays for the maintenance and also or costs to look after them anyway. I know the main parent does too but still the enjoy the kids on a daily basis

homegal - an interesting post, it does you credit to be able to consider your ex's point of view.

I suppose you could take the logic one step further, what would happen if you earnt more than the ex? Would it ever be 'fair' for you to pay your ex child maintenace?

Why not say to the ex, 'look pay no maintenance but would you mind covering the clothing and school bits'. I reckon if he was actually buying the stuff himself and seeing with his own eyes the delight in childrens faces he'd probably stump up a lot more than any csa assessment would ever come up with.

zonked wrote:

homegal - an interesting post, it does you credit to be able to consider your ex's point of view.

I suppose you could take the logic one step further, what would happen if you earnt more than the ex? Would it ever be 'fair' for you to pay your ex child maintenace?

Why not say to the ex, 'look pay no maintenance but would you mind covering the clothing and school bits'. I reckon if he was actually buying the stuff himself and seeing with his own eyes the delight in childrens faces he'd probably stump up a lot more than any csa assessment would ever come up with.

Exactly what I offered my ex and it seems to work well.

I was wondering this myself only yesterday, I am sure there must be situations where the PWC earns more than the NRP and the NRP has the child/ren for several nights a week. IF they have shared residence why should the NRP pay anything?

thanks guys .... I agree with you divorcegirl my only sensible reasoning is that I do cover much more of the scl hols/sickness and can therefore only work p/t to allow this flexibility, therefore my earnings capability are simply not as high as ex's who can work f/t. So it would see that it is perhaps more of a payment to support me as a mother working p/t to level the difference in our earning/working capacity.

Share residence is one thing, but doesn't always mean 50:50. In situations where care is split down the middle it doesn't seem particularly fair on the NRP that they have to pay (albeit reduced) CM, partucularly as the RP has bagged the CA and tax credits.
It also depends on what the split of things like buying clothes/school trips etc is, if that falls on the RP then maybe a contribution should be made......
Its an imperfect system for an imperfect world, is it fair? probably not its far too prescriptive and does not take into account that as children grow up they cost more to run.

LB