Anna Rowe

Gotta love ex husbands & naïve ex wives: ExH: “Yes, I got a bonus & redundancy payment but they are NOT income; they are just like winning the lottery so I don’t have to give you any for child maintenance” ExW: “Oh, okay” Needless to say I shall now be assisting this lady

The problem with the maintenance system is that the calculation regs are outdated and unfair. Created for a time when less women worked, but stayed at home. Needs new legislation to reflect modern families.

Interested in why women working more affects a calculation for maintenance to either partner when they have the children at home to look after?

Because it doesn't take the mother's income into account. Maintenance should seek to put both parents in a viable position to co-parent, not just take a chunk of the dads income regardless of circunstances.

1/ You don’t understand the system then. It works either way not just for the father. If the mother ‘doesn’t have the children’ then she still has to pay regardless of income. It’s set on parameters of time the children are looked after by a certain parent not who earns more.

2/ both parents have equal responsibility regardless of income. To say otherwise is ludicrous. Also, Maintenance Paid covers a fraction of actual cost, it’s bare basics. What would the non contact parent pay for that child were they still in the home as part of the family?

With repsect i do understand the system and have read the legislation. Justify this. Parents earn the same income, £x. They decide to split but will share the children 60/40. Both parents need at least a two bed home, food, clothes and money for the children. With maintenance and

benefits the RP/mother gets 152% of £x, the NRP/father gets 74% of £x. Both have to provide a home, etc for the children but the NRP is at a significant financial disadvantage. It'a wrong. Or if RP earns £100k per annum and NRP £10k why should NRP give RP 20% of his income?