AIBU to worry CMS deductions could push my son into crisis?

It’s not fiction. CMS are not out to punish absent fathers. The reason there are fees - and significant ones at that - is because the ex has asked CMS to collect the payments. There is a direct payment route in which CMS calculates the maintenance amount, but parents arrange and transfer the payments directly between themselves via bank transfer or standing order. There are collection charges for this service.

It appears that the ex is the one who has opted for CMS collections so in these circumstances it’s standard for them to contact her to see if she is willing to switch to direct payment. DS would be 90 per month better off and ex wouldn’t have £18 deducted from her own payments. I can’t comment on whether that’s feasible because direct payments depend on whether the NPR is reliable in making the payments.

It’s not outside of their service, it’s called direct payments and doesn’t attract fees. CMS will absolutely contact the ex as it’s in her interests to switch from CMS collections as there are no fees. Not understanding why you think that DS can’t be trusted to make the payments given that he was voluntarily contributing more than the CMS calculation before he was ill and as soon as he was earning again contacted his ex to reinstate payment.

Thanks so much for the condescending lecture. Almost makes me wish I hadn’t rejoined the thread.

Sorry, this should have read that there are no collection fees for direct payment. Bloody autocorrect !!

Oh, so maybe this won’t lead to a change in approach. That’s a shame

Like I said I post as I see and I’m definitely willing to look at my posting style in future because I absolutely don’t wish to cause offence. I’m very grateful to you for pointing that out, but that absolutely doesn’t entitle you to speak so condescendingly to me after I’ve explained myself. Are you willing to admit you were wrong about direct payments ? Because you were. You described it as fiction and I don’t see a retraction. Equally a shame.

I still get paper letters from the CMS. But agree that this is a fishy scenario.

OP said upthread that DS has dyslexia. Given that and his mental health problems CMS, as with most government departments with direct public contact, will revert to paper contact if that’s what’s needed. Why is it fishy ?

This is going to sound harsh but it’s not his ex wife/girlfriend fault he has mental health issues and didn’t work for a period of time. She still has 2 of his children to raise and house clothe and feed. If he had been my son I’d have offered him to live at home until he was sorted financially and I’d have also loaned the CMS amount he had to pay….but then again I’m a sole parent of 3 young children whose ex husband hasn’t paid in 2 years so perhaps you have been lucky in life OP never to have been in this situation

oh and my ex has had mental health issues in the past and if he had been sectioned I’d have stopped contact with the children as well as I don’t think it’s a healthy environment to be around (or safe when you read about so called family annihilators)

in these circumstances between a couple that have had a very fraught back story with maintenance and arrears etc - there is no way CMS will say they’ll ring the ex to suggest direct. I just don’t believe that.

anyway, I am pleased that you’ll at least think about a change. It was getting out of hand

oh and my ex has had mental health issues in the past and if he had been sectioned I’d have stopped contact with the children as well as I don’t think it’s a healthy environment to be around (or safe when you read about so called family annihilators)

and in fact in a later post the OP said that social workers are involved and setting minimum standards before he’s allowed contact

I worked for CMS and I can tell you first hand that when the calculation has been made and all parties have been contacted, the first thing they would do is advise the collection fees which apply to both parents/ Where one parent indicates they would be happy with direct collection, which does not include fees, CMS will contact the other parent to see if they agree. It costs money to both parents and usually it’s the parent with care who initiates it not realising that they are responsible for part of the fees. Why is that so difficult to understand ?

And again if you re-read, it was the courts setting minimum standards for overnight contact, not overall contact - he needed his own home before being allowed overnight care. See why I was so vocal ?

Oh here we go.

fingers crossed you will change your approach because way too many threads have been ruined by you, as many multiple of posters have told you on this and other threads.

We can but hope

Well for a start the child that isn't biologically his is of course not his financial responsibility. He would not be expected to pay CM for that child.

Look at your own mistakes before criticising me. You asked me whether OP was being truthful about CMS contacting the ex about direct payments that will cut down on fees. I confirmed she was and you refused to believe it, describing it as fiction. Would you like me to quote the section of the Act covering this because I can and will - it’s online and I worked with it every day.

You also misread the conditions for DS overnight contact as being for overall contact and in addition misinterpreted his arrears. The first three months - Jan-March would have been disregarded as he was hospitalised and not earning. It took from April to now for CMS to calculate the payments and the ONLY arrears DS would have accrued would have been as a result of that time frame. The sheer audacity of you lecturing me in such a bloody condescending and rude manner when you can’t even grasp these basic concepts yourself is batshit. I’m out for good - terrible thread, don’t blame OP in the least for abandoning it.

OP probably realised her son is in the wrong as did the majority of the people on the this thread

I can only assume that your DS whilst having mh issues didn't give CMS the correct figures. As others have said CMS do not take such large amounts of income and never leave a person with £500 pcm to live on.

I dont think that's right. The OP didnt mention anything about overnights, just that her son was previously seeing the kids at his ex's house and can no longer do so. Also, its what the social worker advised, not the courts.

"he had them at his former home as he was in a bedsit and he couldn't take the children there, but now due to another issue that I can't go into he can't face her so he needs his own home so he can facilitate having his children again and this is what the social worker involved in the case has advised him"

Not a great start to a change of leaf unfortunately

Exactly

From OP’s updates.

If he loses his home he won't be able to have his children overnight. It's all so messy and their is only so much we can do that's why I have put it on here as I'm desperate to help him.

Great 😞

Wow. Just wow. I may have been overbearing on this thread and hopefully it’s come from a good place - but at least I was willing to admit I was wrong. Last post. Thread deleted.

Are you absolutely sure of the facts @Wokeuptired and seen this all in writing? See https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance-for-employers/how-to-make-deductions- CMS can deduct up to a max of 40% of net earnings, employees must be left with the protected 60%, so this doesn’t make sense.