To think that not paying child maintaince should be a criminal offence like tax evasion

[ReallyTired]

One of ds's friends has a father who is extremely well off, but has been terrible about paying maintaince. The man has taken no interest in his child, and the mother has found getting maintaince out of her ex is like getting blood out of a stone. The little girl is living in adject poverty because her father owes thousands. The man is able to afford a whole host of foreign holidays and can easily afford to support his daughter.

I feel that men who hide their income for maintaince purposes should be jailed. Even if they have second families.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Boohoo I ment if your not the parent of the child and don't live in the child's household.

[Booyhoo]

you're still the parent's partner and have combined incomes with them. child maintenance is an expense of your partner's, just like the others. you dont get to cancel it. when you combine finances with a partner and are agreeing to support them financially if they lose a job then that includes their obligation to their children.

[Booyhoo]

it all comes back to this idea some people seem to have that paying for children is optional. "well i'll pay what i can, if i'm not working that means nothing" people who think like this need to change their thinking and realise that children cost the same no matter what you are earning or not earning and you just have to find a way to pay it.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Fwiw.

I would not enter into a relationship with a bloke who had children and gave me any cause to believe that he felt he shouldn't have to pay towards there upkeep. If I became aware that he had cease to pay maintainance that would be a good enough reason for me to kick him out,and if he tried to lie about his income to reduce his lability I would also dump him.

My last husband tried to use my children that he had no financial responsibility towards( we did not share finances) to reduce his lability towards his own child,I politely asked him not to he went behind my back and did it anyway so I provided evidence to the csa that he had no responsibility towards them and requested they not be used to reduce his payments, the csa were gobsmacked that I requested it. Hopefully our divorce will be final soon.

[Booyhoo]

same here sock. unfortunately many will which is why i think it should be made an undesirable choice. perhaps if they thought it would actually cost them their own money to harbour a neglectful parent they would be more inclined to think twice and maybe realise that the money has to come from somewhere, as some seem to think it magics itself out of thin air of a NRP doesn't pay it.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

And I would pay someone's maintainance for them I have been fairly open on threads like this in the past about the fact that I am currently paying towards a child of my late husband and the child of my ex ( who I also have a child with) but no way should I have to.

The csa used to take partners income into account when assessing the nrp's disposable income and what could be disallowed from there income. But quite rightly they stopped it because it was unfair.

I would rather be buggered by a rusty pitchfork than take money from someone who was not my child's actual parent. But then I'm of the mindset that nrp's partners are nothing at all to do with my children.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

I would have thought the knowledge they will also do it to them if they breakup should be enough to do it

[Booyhoo]

you would imagine so but sadly it doesn't seem to be. some people are very good at lying and others are very good at lying to themselves and saying "it wont happen to me, he/she loves me. EX was a psycho"

[LadyMaryChristmas]

I wouldn't accept money from the ex's new wife (I doubt very much she'd offer as she seems to be colluding with him at the moment ). I'm no longer going to rely upon him for anything, I can support ds myself. I am, however, going to drag him through the courts (it's the principle of it rather than any need) and any maintenance is going to be put into a bank account for ds's university course. Does this sound fair?

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Yes.

[Booyhoo]

surely it would still be from him though as they have combined their finances?

when EXp and i were together all money went into 1 pot. if he wanted to buy himself a t-shirt it came out of money we had both earned and when i wasn't working i was looking after our dcs so still contributing (by negating the need for childcare costs for him while he worked) and considered the money he earned as both of ours.

[LadyMaryChristmas]

It makes me wonder what goes through the NRP's heads. How can they care so little?

[Booyhoo]

i think those that dont pay it must really think it isn't necessary. i think they must look at it as 'extra' money for the PWC rather than essential for feeding/clothing the dcs.

my EXp for example, informed me in january that he was reducing his monthly payment by £50/month as he was buying a house, then again he reduced it in may because he was buying an engagement ring for new fiancee and then again in october as he was buying a new car. it is well below the CSA recommnded minimum. (i have now gone through CSA to try and get it back-waiting to hear back from them) he obvioulsy just sees it as optional money that he is giving to me if he feels like it rather than seeing it as food for the dcs. he must do otherwise how could he cope with his conscience?

[LadyMaryChristmas]

Ds's was reduced (briefly) so that he could pay for his wedding. He's been ignoring me since May (when he stopped paying). He won't answer my calls or return my emails. He lives in Ireland so I can't visit (not that I'd want to). My solicitor is sending a letter, I have to go through the courts myself as legal aid doesn't cover this apparently. The CSA won't help as he's not in the UK. His sister is usually supportive so I emailed her to tell her how broke we were, I was fobbed off with all sort of excuses from the exchange rate to the threat of redundancy he's been under for 4 years. He's a class A tosser. The only reason why he stopped paying was because ds said he didn't want to spend a day with him. Ds hasn't spent more than an hour with his father for over 10 years, the last time he saw ds (see's ds for an hour every 18 months) he shouted and swore in ds's face. It's just another way to control me. I can't see what else to do.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

If your in a partnership and combine finances then in all fairness something's should be removed before the money goes into the pot.

Like taxes and child maintainance if there are any none resident children taxes are made easier because if your employed they are done at source

[Booyhoo]

but tax doesn't go into the pot anyway sock it's taken before you get your salary in your account.
sorry i'm a bit confused as to what you mean by that last post.

[Booyhoo]

if it wors for both parties then no need to change it. it would be great if all separated parents could come to an agreement between themselves that both are happy with but unfortunately lots cant for many reasons.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

What I ment was we accept tax is taken before it gets to the pot, and IMHO we should also accept that cm should be paid before it gets as far as the pot.

That way less second partners would feel fleeced by there partner paying cm.

Because like it or not there are a shit load of partners who view it as being taken off them for children who are not there's or would pressure for it to be defaulted on.

If it were at source deduction or treated as such by the person liable for the payment it wouldn't even be a consideration when budget planning as it wouldn't be part of the budget.

I'm probably making no sense at all but I know what I mean

[IneedAsockamnesty]

And I'm another one who thinks that if it works for both parents then its brilliant.

That is the arrangement my ex and I made but sadly it only worked for him as he would just point blank refuse to buy anything for our child to the point of screaming at me in the street over a pair of school trousers that our child grew out of.

[Booyhoo]

ah yes i see what you mean. i support the idea of it being deducted at source like tax, but i think if they are to do that (yeah right) then they need to implement something that would mean payment would still be made if NRP became unemployed, so they would be entitled to their benefits but the CS amount would be deducted before payment was made to claimant. does that make sense? there would still be the problem of those who say they aren't working but dont claim benefits though. not sure how you would get round that one.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Yes that's exactly what I ment.

With benefits they already do deduct the fiver a week automatically at source ( due to go up to a tenner a week when the new rules come in) it may be that the pwc has to request it but I never had to my fiver came straight out of my ex's army pension. ( treated as a benefit even tho he has loads of other income).

[Booyhoo]

ah right. i didn't know that it came straight out.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Can I also throw out a random thing.

If your ex pays and you chose to save it for kids when they are adults I hope you make it clear its a gift from you not your ex.

It's your money to contribute towards what you spend on bringing up your child however you see fit.