Revised maintenance regime

I found news on family lore that proposals for a revised child support scheme have been published. I haven't read them yet myself, but the following quote from John Bolch on his reading of the proposals caught my eye -

"Parents who share the care of their children exactly equally will no longer be required to pay maintenance through the statutory scheme".

I can see a high risk of conflict in shared residence applications where one parent sees the other as making the application for financial reasons, or equally as resisting it for financial gain. Very worrying.

I did read the proposals and spotted that. Like you I was rather concerned, but then I thought at least it will lead to some debate and perhaps research into the effects.

Personally in view of current academic research and the Family Justice Review I think the days of shared residence orders as we know them in private cases at least are numbered anyway.

Mumtoboys outlined the problem with the proposal in this post;

.... If you take our situation, living in the South East and the maximum full time wage I could expect to earn in the sector I was working in, even with a substantial settlement, I could not have hoped to purchase a property big enough to house the children and I. Even if I had been able to purchase a house, I'd have struggled to run it with reduced access to tax credits etc. as half would have gone to the ex if we'd shared residence 50/50 (which is what he wanted). None of that is my fault - it's simply about my career choices and the high cost of living in the South East. As part of a couple, my lower earning capacity wasn't a problem but as a lone parent, it is. My ex was OK(ish) - he'd moved on, he earned more than me and he was living with another person so his living costs were reduced. A judge, then, would be awarding me full care of the children on a purely financial basis because it would be the only way I could survive. Or, the same judge could make a decision that the children would be better off with my ex and his new partner because they could 'afford' them and I would have lost care of very young children (including a baby at that point) and knowing my ex, would have struggled to see them in the way that many NRPs struggle to see their children now.

I struggle to see any other outcome other than you give us both full access to benefits/tax credits and we could then have financially managed a 50/50 split of care. This would, I agree, probably have been in the children's best interests. But we were, I think, fairly average in terms of salaries earned, housing and life expectation so if you had to pay out extra for us to live separately, you are also going to have to do it for hundreds of other couples.

And of course, all of this assumes that I could have found a job immediately upon separation that paid out at the top of what I think I am capable of earning. We're in the middle of a recession - how likely is that?! If you recognise that I only worked part-time at the point we were dealing with the financial side of things, then a judge would have had no choice but to award me full care of the children to keep my head above water or again, make a decision that the children would be best off with dad purely on financial grounds.

Whether we like it or not, lone parents are largely dependent on tax credits, other benefits and maintenance payments to survive. If you split this between the 'average joe' couple earning average wages with average housing and life expectation, I struggle to see how a welfare state can support a 50/50 living arrangement because for the average couple, it would have to pay out twice. The system as it stands supports the children, and it supports them only once......

www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Advice...l-Report/Page-6.html

It is but to some extent it happens now anyway, there is a bloke on this site who has 50-50 shared residence but still pays CM to his ex and she still claims family allowance in full and child tax credits, he was advised by a solicitor and the CSA to stop paying CM at full rates and dob his ex in.

He wont do anything because he knows his wife for certain make contact impossible, which is probably true based on the trouble he has had so far.

In effect he pays 25% of his net income to for the want of a better word rent his kids.

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

On the other hand, my brother, whose children live alternate weeks with each parent, lets his ex have all the allowances, plus pays CM at the CSA rate. This is because she finds it hard to work because of long-term depression, and it means that the children's standard of living is more equal between the two households. Neither of them has much, but there is at least no sense that one of them is the 'rich' and one the 'poor' parent.

Of course, you have to be on good terms for this to work.

I personally would have found any presumption of 50:50 shared residence a real problem. I might quite possibly have stayed with my violent ex as his violence was mainly directed at the children and it would have been easier to protect them if I were around than if they were on their own with him half of the time. They certainly felt this and one of my children begged me not to divorce if it would mean him having to stay alone at his father's. By the time he left we were all scared of him and as it is there have been long-term effects on the children's mental health.

Best wishes,
Sadie

From personal experience I dont think 50/50 shared care works in most cases.

The children end up with two houses not necessary two homes. Having two of everything isnt cost effective and trying to share leads to the right things being in the wrong place most of the time.

A system which takes into consideration both incomes seems fairer, but the logistics of that is a nightmare.

What most parent seem to forget is that they can decide what is a fair child maintenance payment and dont have to rely on the CSA formula.

Two many PCW discribe the CSA rate as a minimum amount sorry its a formula you can pay more or less. Although very rarely do you hear a PWC say I dont mind the NRP paying less because....

On the other hand PWCs who accept less than CSA rates maybe just don't frequent divorce forums often or feel the need to wear it on their sleeve.

Yes, I am one of those PWC who gets nothing from the NRP. NRP has 2 evenings during week and half of weekend. I could go to CSA - but the hassle from NRP would outweigh the benefit. So NRP pays nil.