what exactly is covered by child maintenance?

Short answer is when the CSA was first introduced the income of both parents was taken into account, but the system was so complicated no one understood it. So the child maintenance calculation was changed to a % of the paying parent''s income as a simplification.

Taxable income is now used for the initial calculation. The recipient may then apply for a variation to the calculation on the grounds of additional income such as unearned taxable income from savings & renting property over £2.5k.

Good point, my new partner has this issue with her ex who doesnt contribute and doesnt even return the clothes that we give the kids when they go to visit him. They come back with old dirty clothes that are too small and the new clean ones they take are never seen again.

In an ideal, Utopian, unachievable likely, world...I would think that CSA could be income-based but then if the parent who has paid for all the stuff (as it is in my situation) gets screwed (pardon my French) then they could submit receipts for the expenses that went over the amount that they were given. Wouldn''t this be an honest and fair way of doing it? Is it really that complicated to show the true costs with receipts? Obviously this would not even help me as my ex will be in a different country and it won''t even have teeth there.
I did check in with the CSA about variations. I spent over an hour talking to them about it. When I first called, no one even knew what a variation was.
When I got to speak to a manger, they suggested it was a waste of time to even apply, it is very rare that a variation will be allowed. I''m sorry I sound so cynical, Fiona, you are always very helpful with explaining the laws and I do appreciate it.

HappyOneDay wrote:

Why is it not based on the receipts of the parent who pays for the actual stuff for the kids? Because if both parents are unemployed, then the one who pays for the kids'' actual stuff gets completely screwed.

Trouble is who would decide what was bought and how much was paid?

If the payer of child maintenance lives in another country the CSA/CMS wouldn''t be able to progress the application unless the person worked for the UK government/military or a company based here. When the CSA/CMS can''t handle a case the court has the authority to make an order for child maintenance so you can apply to court.

Even though it may not be difficult to enforce the order abroad an order could be enforced in the UK if/when your ex returns here. Although normally the courts will only enforce arrears of less than a year it is possible to apply for permission to apply for arrears longer than a year. That may not help you now but it could long term if your ex has the resources to pay.

As far as variations are concerned many people have said the CSA/CMS has discouraged them from making any application to vary or appeal. Some of those who have persisted have been successful but it depends on the evidence. The CMS/CSA are limited in the information they can ask for whereas a tribunal hearing an appeal has more powers to request information.

I am putting the assumption in that these are essential things, like school shoes or coats. I wouldn''t think it makes sense to wrangle over 10 or 15 pounds which would perhaps be the difference of buying them in one store or another. The receipts would show the true costs.

Thanks Fiona,
From what I''ve read on this forum it is definitely not worth pursuing the REMO agreement with another country. Years of bureaucracy.
A tribunal or hearing would likely use up all the money that would have gone to child maintenance for both of us. And I''m just talking middle-class small amounts, not enough money that will qualify for any tribunal. The CMS were likely right that I wouldn''t be successful in any variation, because I''m not talking about enough money to justify it. But the (not huge) amount of money that he has in savings/property would make a huge difference to our life.
I know I keep finding something wrong with each solution and I''m sorry about that. It just seems that the system is perfectly set up for my failure.