My wife and I disagee with the current way that maintinace payment s are calculated and I wish to throw the idea out for debate.

My opinon is that every child should be paid maintinace at a pre-determined dollar value per child depending on their age not on their current lifestyle. Eg" $10 per week per child under school age increasing as they get older. I also believe that these payments should be deducted from your income or benifit payments not volentary as is the case now.

Whereas my wife believes that if a child is from a wealthy family then they should be kept wealthy i'e' more money per week than that of a child from a poorer family. Currently the system takes a percentage of your income for maintinace which increases or decreases depending on your earnings.

Please have your say.

Hi, rehctub, I see that this is your first post on OLO, welcome!
Unfortunately, I won’t be much help to you, I don’t know much about child support arrangements so I hope that the more informed people will see your post.

However, I don’t mind participating in the discussion (if there’s gonna be one) to learn more about the matter.
I’m hoping that one of OLO’s contributors, RObert, will notice this thread because he knows quite a lot about Child support (CS) and I know he has many objections to the system, which sounded reasonable to me.

So how exactly is CS or maintenance calculated at the moment?
If it’s calculated according to both the custodial and the non-custodial partners’ income, as a percentage, then this seems fair to me.

Perhaps there should be a cap on the amount? I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, but if it is capped, it should take into account the child’s previous living conditions and situation, I think.
To set a very low limit, say $10 as you suggest would put too much strain on the custodial parent. If the custodial parent would also pay only $10 towards feeding and clothing the kid, then it’ll have to live under poverty conditions.
One cannot properly feed and clothe a pre-schooler for $20 a week.
I believe that children should suffer as little as possible from a divorce and not to be expected to make too many lifestyle changes if that is not necessary.

How do you define ‘wealthy’? Wealth is relative, perhaps we need to define it, even roughly.

I am in the 'funny' position of being partnered to someone who is in the system where he is being hit up for Child Support. I feel the child living at the other house ought to be living comfortably if the non custodial parent has some income. However, I am seeing my partner doing better with his business SINCE the divorce and is now the other ex is asking for handouts. For me, that seems wrong and perhaps the 'cap' idea isn't a bad one. Instead, one has to have a good accountant that can help one hide taxable income so the nasty 'ex' doesn't get their hands on more and more. Of course, kids shouldn't be doing without at any point and doing without the time of one parent is bad and sad enough. But to have the parents arguing the money side, well you can't tell me that somehow that doesn't 'affect' the kids. They know and they learn. Surely more time should be put into making it a more fair system so the non custodial parent is having to 'hide income', drop income or leave the country in order so the other party isn't gaining from their otherwise success. At least my own income doesn't come into it as the partner; if it were to be I'd be spitting. Being so up close to all this, I can see why many males are wanting the system overhauled. It isn't fair on the dads.

Celivia, your wish is granted.

Firstly before discussing the levels of payment I'll use this post to point out that I think the whole concept is a significant contributer to ongoing conflict between parents and that we would be better off without it. The current system seems to let the schemers get away with paying very little anyway and creates a situation which maintains resentment between parents. Custodial parents (and I'm currently one) think that the other parent is not doing enough to help and non custodial parents feel ripped off.

I'd certainly ditch the whole thing where both parents are willing to have the care of the kids and an imbalance in care is the result of decisions by the parent with the bulk of care.

We should start any reform by looking at options which reduce the financial ties between seperated parents. Maybe put a pool in the middle, parents pay into it and parents are paid out of it but no direct link between payer and payee.

Whilst I see the argument about miminising the impact on kids I suspect that the stress caused by parents having ongoing tension over so called child support far outweighs an material loss.

If we really considered the maintenance of lifestyle as important as some treat it we would not allow parents in intact families to take a sea change, to downshift for the sake of their health or just because they could no longer maintain a particular lifestyle.

We need systems which protect the needs of children but not ones which keep their parents in conflict well past the point where they could otherwise have moved on.

R0bert

RObert,

I couldn't agree with you more about somehow getting the money tie broken. As the partner of one in the couple still 'going on' about child support, well it started in 2001. It is now 2007. The ties with the money make for an eternal tie; I am sick of seeing it 'distracting' from what really is important in the lives of the children. The one on one, the mutual parent love (though living apart), and the unity when it comes to the big decisions on the children's lives, whether it be which highschool and so on. One parent never feels the money is spent the way it ought. Is an excuse to go on 'hating', well it is for some. The money is an excuse to not do the parenting so well. At least that is what I witness.

The no fault divorce rule is a joke. Many men have committed suicide because they have been taken to the cleaners by a manipulative woman supported by the family court system. Often the word 'abuse' is used in order to prevent a father seeing a child. I have no doubt many men are and have been abusive but many also suffer severely and wrongly due to some devious women.