This is a Premium feature
Please please please sign my Child Maintenance Service-related petition!!!(1 Post)
Hi everyone! I have started a petition which reflects what I feel is a real injustice in the Child Maintenance Service. I hadn't realised prior to formally starting the petition that there was a restriction to the number of characters you can use (which really isn't a lot) so apologies for the rubbish title and I have posted below my original version to give you a bit more understanding about the petition as you may not otherwise fully gather what I am getting at due to me having had to cut down a lot of it!
Thank you to anyone that does sign the petition, it genuinely means a lot. Please click this link to sign the petition, if you wish:
End deductions made to your Child Maintenance calculations based on 'other children a paying parent supports' in the absence of any legal obligation from the paying parent to the 'other children'.
I start this petition as my ex-partner - whom has been avoiding making any Child Maintenance payments for our 3-year old son and has moved money around to ensure that the standing order set up with his bank has repeatedly failed - has now managed to have his payments (which are not forthcoming in any event) reduced on the basis that he lives with three children for whom his new partner is in receipt of Child Benefit.
How can this be just and fair? My son is a registered child of his and is having £60 a month taken away from him because his father's new partner has children that are in the same household - children whom, no doubt, have biological fathers that are making Child Maintenance payments to support them financially. Why should my son lose out on a percentage of his own Child Maintenance when the children of his father's new partner are receiving financial support from both their biological father and my son's own father.
The Child Maintenance Service purports to exist to assist separated parents and, in particular, parents with a greater custody of the child(ren) concerned. Why then does it have the audacity and sheer disrespect to take financial support away from the child(ren) that is/are in need of it, leaving the parent in receipt of Child Maintenance with even less?
The Child Maintenance Service assumes parentage if the person to be named as the 'paying parent' meets the following criteria:-
° was married to the child’s mother at any time between the conception and birth of the child (unless the child was adopted)
° is named on the child’s birth certificate (unless the child was adopted)
° has taken a DNA test that shows they’re the parent
° has legally adopted the child
° is named in a court order as the parent when the child was born to a surrogate mother
Surely, then, it follows that the above criteria should be applied to 'any other children a paying parent supports'? Surely the same principle should be applicable if the end result holds the potential for deductions to be made to monies that an actual registered child should be receiving?
Family Law - namely the Children Act 1989 - stipulates that the Court's paramount consideration shall lie with the welfare of the child. Is financial support not directly linked to the child's welfare? Any single parent can tell you that even Child Maintenance payments often do not come close to providing the standard of life that you hope for your child. Clothes, shoes, books, toys, school trips, school uniforms, school donations, holidays, gifts for friends' birthdays - the list of financial demands as a single parent are endless!
Sign this petition to ensure that the Government exercises the overriding objective of the Children Act 1989. Juggling life as a single parent is hard enough without such an unfair knock-back taking its toll too.
The Child Maintenance Service as it stands is simply an unjust system. Not only are we accepting deductions that we ought not to be accepting but 'paying parents' across the country are getting away with withholding payments for not just months but years without facing a single fine or prison sentence. Let's end this now.