CS Overhaul - No CM calculation proposals ???

even if both parents share care at 182 night each one parent will be classed as being NRP an so would pay the PWC CM.

This is the case with me my ex had affair moved her bloke in the same week I was force out. I pay 800 per month in rent I earn 26k have 2 jobs (46 hrs per week) do not have a partner, ex pays 500 mortgage and between her and partner brings in 70k between them and they have spent 2.5k recently for a 7 day holiday and I pay CM just cos she gets child benefit. And the sad thing is cos he has 2 kids he can get a reduction in what he pays to his kids in CM. So he has an affair walks out on his family shacks up with his mistress and her kids the state gives him a discount on his CM - sweet eh!

Yes the system is crazy many parents cream it in and others live in poverty as many have mentioned. So there are NRP paying CM to PWC's even though kids spend exactly the same time with each parent and there are NRP's who pay little or nothing to PWC.

I think there should be no such thing as NRP and PWC it should be based on the amount of days/night each parent has care this should have a starting point of 50:50 in a calendar year It should be each parent should have kids 182 nights and the Statement of arrangements for Children should say why a parent cannot have kids for this total, if one parent cannot have the kids for 50% of the year then then they pay the other parent for the days they cannot have kids, CB and TC should be spilt pro rota and based on these nights and a parents income the benefit system should support both parents in 50:50 care arrangement.

In some cases where one parent has to move it's not always viable for contact to be 50/50 .

Yes kids love spending time with both their parents but how much travelling should a child have to do just to get to school in the mornings when one parents live say 15 miles away !!

I guess all this is peoples circumstances. I work 35 miles from were I live. After we spilt it would of be easier (rent cheaper and I would have a social life!) for me to move to where I work but this would be less time with kids so I rent 1 miles from FMH and schools. I travel a lot and it costs! but it good to have contact with my kids.

Again as you circumstances cost of rent V more contact , some cases it's catch 22 .

startagain wrote:

I think there should be no such thing as NRP and PWC it should be based on the amount of days/night each parent has care this should have a starting point of 50:50 in a calendar year It should be each parent should have kids 182 nights and the Statement of arrangements for Children should say why a parent cannot have kids for this total, if one parent cannot have the kids for 50% of the year then then they pay the other parent for the days they cannot have kids, CB and TC should be spilt pro rota and based on these nights and a parents income the benefit system should support both parents in 50:50 care arrangement.

Totally agree with this. This should be the basic starting point. Also agree with Sherbert that this is not always possible, but if possible this is the basic default position that should be aimed for.

It's hard to work out how much a child costs and where you are simply supporting the lifestyle of the other parent.

CSA also works on nights so you could be looking after your child all day at whatever cost then when they are tucked up in bed at PWC house, costing nothing, you have to pay for their upkeep!