Advanced search

Child maintainence: can now be taken from joint accounts

(18 Posts)
FadedRed Sun 29-Oct-17 09:07:19

A change in the law means that CM can be taken from joint bank accounts, not just from a single named bank account.
Sounds like a good idea.

FadedRed Sun 29-Oct-17 14:43:13

I thought this might raise a few comments? It's not a situation I know much about personally, thank goodness.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 Sun 29-Oct-17 16:30:57

Sounds like a good idea to me as well fade

Like you i dont have much experience of the situation but i do see that the system isnt working at the moment

JamesBlonde1 Sun 29-Oct-17 16:42:21

Easily solved for those avoiding it though. Put everything in the name of the new partner - provided he trusts them of course.

MrsHathaway Sun 29-Oct-17 16:44:31

I thought CMS was taken from source like NI and student loan repayments. Or is that only where there has been trouble?

I'm horrified by any story where a NRP is deliberately taking steps to avoid supporting his/her child financially. Closing this loophole will reduce the ways they can do that.

Presumably someone working very hard to hide money will just shove all his money into his current partner's account.

AnneLovesGilbert Sun 29-Oct-17 16:50:22

The BBC said there's currently £3.8billion in child maintenance not being paid. I doubt this change is going to make much of a dent in it. I hope the government doesn't consider this job done. But it may help some people. Though as pp said, shit parents will just find other ways to get out of paying.

travailtotravel Sun 29-Oct-17 16:50:31

I have no experience but wonder what happens with partner. Is a new parter effectively expected to pay for his/ her partners kids? What if that has an impact on household income for any of his/her own children? It needs to be clear the avoiding partner is paying into that account before the money is taken. I really don't understand why it's not taken from source ie tax or NI contribution. Even self employed pay both of these.

gamerwidow Sun 29-Oct-17 17:10:00

If you have a relationship with someone who has children with a previous partner and you have shared finances then CMS does become a shared outgoing like anything else.
I’m generally in favour of anything that gets non resident parents to actually pay for their kids.

kittensinmydinner1 Sun 29-Oct-17 21:18:12

I really don’t understand this at all. If a NRP is working then why don’t they get a deduction on earnings ?

The sort of arse who avoids CM by having a joint account only - is the sort of arse who will be more devious than to put his money in a joint account.
More than likely he has persuaded his partner to put his name on her account so he has access to her wages as well. So CM will end up being paid by the new partner who has her own kids to support. Her arsehole ex is more than likely avoiding CM too. So she loses her wages to her step kids. Her kids lose out.
Her partner probably gets paid in cash and spends it all on himself.
New partner AND kids end up being the ones being shafted.
Rule number 1. Do NOT have a joint account with an arsehole. !

prh47bridge Sun 29-Oct-17 22:01:21

I really don’t understand this at all. If a NRP is working then why don’t they get a deduction on earnings

This can happen if they are employed but the CSA/CMS has to go to court before they can do this and it doesn't work at all if they are self-employed.

Is a new partner effectively expected to pay for his/ her partners kids

No. The amount of maintenance is based entirely on the parent's earnings. Their new partner's earnings don't come into it.

I really don't understand why it's not taken from source ie tax or NI contribution. Even self employed pay both of these

They do but, unlike employed people, they only pay twice a year on 31st January and 31st July. It would also involve a huge overhaul of the tax system if it is to be used to collect child maintenance. It simply isn't set up to handle this kind of thing.

kittensinmydinner1 Mon 30-Oct-17 11:23:34

Is a new partner effectively expected to pay for his/ her partners kids

No. The amount of maintenance is based entirely on the parent's earnings. Their new partner's earnings don't come into it.

So a new partner has her wages paid into her account. He is paid cash in hand and squirrels it away or more likely blows is on alcohol and consumables. He is assessed as owing £50 a week. CMS can now dip into the ‘joint account’ and take £50 of her wages. Even though he hasn’t actually paid a penny into the account.

The issue with this idea is that it will affect (mostly) women who are probably trying to support there own children. The sort of men who evade CM are rarely reasonable, reasoned individuals. They are almost always controlling manipulators. Most women who are happy to have a relationship with someone who is willing to avoid there responsibilities, have fairly low self esteem and are ideal candidates to be manipulated.
I see a very real situation developing where new partner does a part time job around her kids. Earns 4-500 a month and gets paid into her account. New partner is feckless with money, doesn’t pay CM as it’s ‘his money’ doesn’t give her much because ‘they aren’t his kids’ . Probably pays the rent but that’s about it. She buys the food and muddles through with the bills. He often runs out of money and persuaded her to make him a joint account holder.
Now the CMS is going to be able to remove £200 a month for his kids.
Don’t see this as being a long term solution. One month in, he will remove his name from the account and it will all go back to as it was before.

The only sure fire way to do this is to set a basic NRP rate. For everyone physically and mentally capable of working. (Wether they do or not. ) Say £150 a month per child. That should be a minimum. So it’s known. It becomes a ‘thing’ that all people know. ‘If I have a child it’s going to cost me a MINIMUM of £150 per month for 18 yrs. REGARDLESS of wether I live with them.’ This May help encourage men to use a condom if they don’t want children. If knowing the consequences WILL cost, it might focus the mind more.
If you are a parent then that’s what you owe. If you don’t The clock doesn’t stop if you lose your job, (so no point in avoiding work) , kids don’t stop ‘costing’ when unemployment hits. You have to earn that. Got three kids ? Better get a shift in the local supermarket if your monthly wage isn’t sufficient for your life style. No excuses except illness. If you don’t pay and deduction on earnings don’t work, then you lose your driving licence/ get your car impounded and sold to pay arrears/, have your passport suspended so you can’t go on holiday until it’s paid. Use your car for your self employed work ? Should have paid for your children then. You’ll have to get another job.
The cost never stops mounting. Just like real life, children’s costs never get suspended. All in all it’s your responsibility (NRP) to make sure you’ve paid it. Giving endless ‘chances’ is where the whole thing falls apart.
Until the state/govt start getting serious about this issue, it will never get better.
Oh - and first children come first. I’m a step parent but I didn’t have children with my second husband because we couldn’t afford to pay for his, mine and more. Don’t whine that ‘it’s not fair’ ‘ I don’t have any kids - I’m entitled ‘ yes you are, but not with a man who hasn’t paid for the first ones. Find a more reliable responsible father for your children or accept his children’s costs are a priority debt BEFORE you consider having more and accept your family income starts at an amount where CM is paid. No discount for children in the household.

Emilybrontescorsett Sun 05-Nov-17 11:46:06

I have a question.
My ex pays zero towards our children. He left his job to look after the ow's kids whilst she took on a full time professional role, thus avoiding having to pay any cm. before this he had a full time job and we went through the csa as he wanted this.
Will this affect me? I've also heard he is working again but I'm not sure how to approach things . The dc do not have contact, his choice.

MrsHathaway Sun 05-Nov-17 11:48:04

I don't think it affects liability, only collection.

Starlight2345 Sun 05-Nov-17 11:53:32

Emily . I would try and find out more info then go to cams although he may well quit this job too

Emilybrontescorsett Sun 05-Nov-17 12:34:42

Thank you.

NukaColaGirl Sun 05-Nov-17 12:38:43

CMS are beyond useless. My ex job hops every 8-12 weeks so no deduction from earnings can be set up; he lives on his sister sofa so the bailiffs haven’t been able to take anything even though plenty of things there are his. 21 months and not a single fucking penny. They tried his bank account - there was nothing in it, then it comes to that they only check the account he told them about, they aren’t allowed to approach other banks to see if he has money there and they can’t compel him to tell them.

He now has 2 weeks left to cough up to the bailiffs or were back in court for an arrest warrant but I can’t see anything materialising from that either, can’t see the local police force making finding a child support dodging man a priority.

Piratesandpants Sun 05-Nov-17 12:42:53

Good. That’s all.

ColourfulOrangex Sun 05-Nov-17 12:49:13

My ex hasn’t paid for 4 years even though they have tried a deduction from earnings (he leaves the job) and tried to take from his bank account, hopefully this new way will make people pay

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: