Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. Free legal advice is available from a Citizen's Advice Bureau, and the Law Society can supply a list of local solicitors.
Help, I have one child living with me, the other with dad. Dad is trying to claim maintenance from me.(55 Posts)
Dad has never paid even when children lived with me. Eldest child went to live with him a year ago. Now he wants maintenance from me. Can this happen???
Goingup I agree with you in theory. But ive never seen that view expressed on mn when it's a mother claiming from a father in the same situation. The conversation in those cases centres around the man needing to pay more cos of x, y and z
Actually its not tax avoidence! Beacause you are selfemployed writing a book and you CAN put through your expenses.
Whilst it may not be effical ( different story) it is not tax avoidence.
OP you can also claim your traveling costs to see your child that does not live with you, via csa.
OP just out of interst here how old are your children sepically the one thats gone to live with your partner?
Kitty. You can't make up a self employed business and put through receipts
Even if you are truly self emPloyed you can only claim costs directly related to your trade which HMRC may ask you to prove. HMRC may also require proof that you spend more than ten hours a week on the endeavour and that it is your intention to derive a profit at some point
It isn't tax avoidance, it is tax evasion
I worked in tax for 14 years and I can tell you that what is being advocated here is tax evasion which is illegal.
With regard to the original question whether or not it is fair is not the point. DSS lives with us and DSD with their mother. We pay maintenance of over £200 per month for DSD and don't get a penny in return for DSS because his mother is on benefits ( and an undeclared pension as per my earlier post). My DH accepts that he has two children and he is financially responsible equally for both. The fact that his ex does not choose to contribute to the financial welfare of her son is a matter for her and her conscience.
And you can't claim travel costs via CSA. When both DSCs lived with their mother we paid out maintenance of £350 in addition to travel of £180 per month. CSA may reduce maintenance payments if travel is over £15 per week but how does that benefit child?
Csa travell expenses are paid at NRP allowances of the first £15 per week for income over £200 per week and £10 at income under £200 per week, after that you can claim so it depends on what it costs for travelling there and back. It is in place to ensure NRP can see child with cost not being an issue.
Whilst many would say it doesnt benefit the child, many NRP claim this not because of the child but purely in order to reduce thier payments to the RP.
cherry bakewell; Wilst you and me may think its tax evasion i can tell you that this happens alot an i can also tell you that HMRC are not interested in small people that reduce thier incomes in this manner they take it that they are telling the truth they are only interested in the larger companies where they can recoup large amounts of money from. If this is not the case please let me know how to redress this situation beacuse i have personally informed HMRC in several cases of this only to be told they are not interested and the NRP has continued filling these returns for at least another five years in one case!!!!
There are many loop holes in the system for the NRP and if they want to use them they will weather it is ehtical or not is another question.
As the law says children are not pay per view and whilst CSA regulations remain poor its the children that suffer. Not all NRP work in the best interests of the child .
I still urges you to give your dad an allowance at least.
"Not all NRP work in the best interests of the child".
And yet here you are encouraging an NRP (the OP) to follow suit
Leaderscorp, it's the child's dad, not the OP's dad! You keep referring to "your" dad.
allnewtaketwo: are you another FNF fanatic? seems to me from ACTUALLY reading the post and thread thats what the OP has done all along and now is being taken for a ride, what should she do ? say thank you?
No, she should contribute towards the upkeep of her non resident child. I don't think that's an extremist view . Adult disputes between her and her ex come a very poor second to her moral and legal obligations to the child
she has contributed!! she was finacially supporting the child, the father wasnt!!! now the child has decided to live with dad. therfore he should step up to the plate and provide for him no? perhaps he should get a job? i am sure she would welcome him back should he wish to go back.
It's pretty awful that he didn't financially contribute to his dc when they were living with you, and since you both have a child each you wouldn't be in the wrong to assume that neither pay maintenance. Unfortunately things aren't always fair, your ex is on benefits so your son is living in a household with much less money coming in so you should contribute maintenance to improve his standard of living.
Start a CSA claim up for the other child living with you, it may only be £5 per week just now but if ex gets a job in the future then this will increase.
"therfore he should step up to the plate and provide for him no? perhaps he should get a job?"
Do you say the same about women pwc's? It seems it's you who holds the sexist views, not me
its not a sexist view at all, you are just making it one.
it wouldnt bactter if the sexs were around the other way! the Op that wrote this is a WOMEN and i have therefore used that as a basis in my replies.
You are making yourself out to be a sexist here!! by your comments. I fail to see why you NEED to turn this into a bttle of the sexes? perhaps it is because you are a male of the species as its a common trait in the males!!!!
Just checked, and no, I'm definitely not male.
Here we have a child living with an unemployed parent (pwc). You are recommending that the OP (nrp) lies and cheats to avoid paying maintenance to the child. That's indefensible. And your excuse is pretty much that well plenty of nrp's do it. Getting her or your own back on the OP's ex will not feed the child. Grow up.
I am in a situation just like yourself only I have two of our three children with me ,my thirteen year old asked to go and live with his father in oct,i reluctantly gave in,a few weeks past and the csa contacted me asking for £41 a week, my x pays £5 a week for his other two children ,he and his new partner dont work and have between them five kids living with them,my working tax and child tax are taken into account,however his and his new partners are not,can anyone tell me this is fair??? i pay cos i love my job and dont want to rely on bennafits yet they are better off!!!
i am NOT recommending a NRP cheats and lies allnewtakestwo. I am mearly stating the FACTS that the OP has stated here!!
She (in this case female) has finacailly supported the child by her self without any finacial support from the NRP for years!
Child has now gone to live with unemployed father (in this case).
Unemployed father wants child support ( and as you say to feed the child). !. how is this fair? 2. he should get a job 3. If he cant afford to feed the child surely he should tell the child he should go back home . 4. CSA is a joke 5. a parent that pays £5 per week child support is NOT supporting thier child. 6. There are an awful lot of NRP that cheat and scam the system ( mostly these are men) what you are saying is dont tell anyone how to do it!! too late its all over the internet, NRP have been doing it for years.
It takes two to have a child, why is it when parents separate suddenly the NRP uses every trick in the book to reduce thier finacial support of the child. As in this case the father paid nothing for years !!!
"i am NOT recommending a NRP cheats and lies allnewtakestwo"
Yes you did exactly that, except your post recommending how she should do it has been deleted
"Unemployed father wants child support ( and as you say to feed the child). !. how is this fair? 2. he should get a job"
So you're saying that nrp's should not pay child maintenance to unemployed pwc's
My DH's ex is unemployed. Should he stop paying CM? He would like his child to live with him. You're recommending pwc should send the child to us because she's unemployed and DH (nrp) shouldn't be paying CM because she should get a job.
Actually no, you're not recommending this, because in DH's case, he is a male nrp. I strongly suspect you're opinions only refer to female nrp's not having to pay a male non working pwc
Allnewtaketwo: THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU!! get that chip off your shoulder!!!
You quite frankley are talking S***T. YOU are playing the sexist card here!!!
If dad cant afford the upkeep of his child, can he come back and live with you?
No it's not about me, it's about your view that NRPs shouldn't pay CM to a non-working PWC, and that if the PWC doesn't like it, the PWC should send the child to go and live with the NRP. Or that the NRP should commit tax fraud to avoid paying child maintenance in cases of shared case of children.
Those are your views. They are fairly controversial views, and I think you should expect them to be challenged on a public forum (p.s. people tend to give personal examples on public forums. On this thread I have given one personal example - so hardly making it all about me).
There really is no need to swear.
As previously stated my view is not about committing tax fraud!! nor do i promote it!! i merely stated how some NRP reduce the amount of child support they pay by using the LEGAL tax clause. Just because you dont think its ethical is not FRAUD.
Yes this is a public forum. The Op has asked a quesyion becaUSE THEY WANT OTHERS VIEWS OR ADVICE. Yours is your personal view, some may agree with you some may not. Views are often formed by personal experiences mine comes from working with many cases involving RP and NRP.
I take the view that both parents are financailly responsible for their children, but often it is the NRP that takes little or no financial responsibility .
You have not responded to the OP question, you are just stating your own views on other peoples views which is clearly biased and uninformed.
I hardly think it's biased to suggest an nrp should pay towards a non resident child. Pretty much a mainstream view I think you'll find.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.