Case Study 2
THE
SITUATION:
A marriage is on the rocks. For the sake of
argument, the couple's names are Tony and Cherie. They have three
children and, after separation, agree to share care of their offspring
equally.
Tony earns £100,000 a year, his wife earns
almost double that. She retains the large marital home and Tony
lives in a central London flat, where for alternate weeks he looks
after the children. Tony believes he cares equally for his children,
both financially and emotionally, but the state regards him as
a non-resident parent.They spend a total of £520 per week
on their 3 children, as shown below.
THE
RESULT:
Tony is required to pay Cherie £129 per
week. If he never saw the children he would pay £258. But
he cares for the children 50 per cent of the time, she earns twice
his income and receives all the child benefit. She doesn't have
to pay him 12.5 per cent of her income when he cares for the children,
so why does he pay her 12.5 per cent of his?
Tony spends an average of £389 out of his
earned income per week, comprising this Child Support of £258
one week then the direct spend on their children of £520
the next week on top of this.
Cherie also directly spends £520 each alternate
week. However, this is offset by the £258 from Tony for that
week, and the £33.60 of Child Benefit every week (whoever
is caring for the children that week). So she spends an average
of less than £98 per week out of her own earnings.
The reasons are:
— Because Cherie receives the Child
Benefit, she is able to claim Child Support from Tony. Because
they care for the children exactly the same amount of time each,
this amounts half of the amount he would pay if he never saw the
children (25 per cent)
— Because Cherie receives all the Child
Benefit and Tony receives none of it, even though they care for
the children equally and Cherie earns more than Tony.
— Because Cherie's income is ignored
totally for assessing child support.
This case study is based on: New system simpler
but "more unfair to fathers" by Philip Johnston, The
Daily Telegraph, 2/7/99.
|
