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.

hang on! we aren't talking about either being in a relationship with your children's other parent or not paying any CS for them. we are talking about being a NRP who pays or aNRP who doesn't. why are you talking about two parents living together and combining their income? you seem to be suggesting PWC should suffer the cost of no longer being in a relationship by losing out on future repayment of CS debt. i dont think you have thought through what you are saying at all! you dont seem to have much of a grasp on any of it.

you may not agree but it is a fact that the money receieved for CS is not counted. so the PWC does NOT receive extra money if their NRP doesn't pay! they get the same amount in whatever benefit whether the NRP pays or not.

Maintenance shouldn't be counted when it comes to income. Being a single parent is expensive (the odd babysitter and various income / life insurance costs me a bomb but I have to have it as I'm single), maintenance means the kids can have swimming lessons, have the odd day out and I'm not screwed every time they need new shoes.

Receiving Maintenance doesn't mean I'm necking champange and flying off on exotic hols every year. (mum pays for our holiday in the UK).

It also shouldn't be counted for exactly the reason that it no longer gets counted as income.

Because they took it in advance of so many pwc's but the nrp's didn't pay.

Festive people who work pay tax. So they are paying into the system. And not just that but when you part company with a ex the whole point of being single is you have a single income not a joint one.

Off not of

YANBU. Altho I wince for for the few women who don't want their DCs to have contact with the father, that ain't the point, sadly. Payment could be made through an intermediary, eg HMRC, to avoid trouble - it would be much easier to run this if non-payment was criminal, by the way.

Festive element - you seem to be saying that it is acceptable, then, that a working family receives child tax credit but that a lone parent on the same income shouldn't receive child tax credit simply because if you combine their income with that of their ex, they would be over the limit? but they are no longer a couple and neither parent has access to the other's income (except as defined by child maintenance laws). Perhaps lone parents and their children should wear bells round their necks and cross the street when they see 'normal, decently brought up in marriage' people coming towards them?

"but they are no longer a couple and neither parent has access to the other's income "

and not only are they not a couple with combined income, they are two single people, maintaining 2 homes for their children (that would have previously been 1 house paid for by 2 incomes), on a single person income. the food bill might reduce slightly when a partner moves out but the rent doesn't reduce, the children's dietary needs dont reduce, clothing costs for the dcs dont reduce. in fact a parent who was previously paying (for the sake of argument) £300 per month of the £600 rent/mortgage (other partner paying other half) now finds themselves with an extra £300 to find, add to that increased petrol costs and childcare costs etc that previously wouldn't have been necessary, it becomes quite expensive to no longer be part of a 2 parent household.

i know i have only listed a very few expenses and there are many more associated with being a lone parent but i just wanted to get the point across.

So In cases where NRPs have no income from earnings or benefits, someone else should foot the bill?

Tell me, does that just apply to new partners or anyone who they may be living with? Parents, siblings, friends. Where do you draw the line? Or is this just an opportunity to dip hands in to their new partner's pockets?

Either way, I think it's utter tosh to expect someone else to pay someone else's CM payments. There are two liable parents when it comes to bringing children up- mum and dad. Anyone else and their money are irrelevant.

What's even MORE astonishing, is how some people are of the view that TOTAL household income should be used for maintenance purposes. Tht means new partners' earnings should pay as well. Whilst I am fully for NRPs being financially responsible for their children absolutely, nobody else in their family unit should be responsuble for their maintenance. New partners are talked about on here like they are vermin, but suddenly become relevant when it comes to finances. Sorry but they have their own household to run and their own children to support. And the SC when they are with them.

My OH was made redundant a couple of months ago. He and his ex have thankfully always been very amicable and had 50/50 contact with no maintenance involved. He doesn't claim JSA at the moment. However, if the situation was completely different and I was the only one bringing an income in, I would rather poke my eyes out than pay child maintenance for a child that is not mine. I love my partner's daughter I really do, she is part of our family, and I do everything to support her when she is here with us, and paying towards big things such as school trips, I bought her Christmas presents, etc.. My income provides a roof over her head, warmth, food in her tummy, transport to wherever she needs to be, clothing, and all of the basics she would ever need... when she is here with us. When she is with her mum, the basic needs then become he mum and partner's responsibility.

Similarly, when we were both working up until OH became unemployed, no maintenance was paid but if there was I would not be willing to physically give my partner's ex money from my earnings for her household unless it was to help my OH pay towards big one off expenses.

Well I felt the complete opposite. Dsd's maintenance was an expense if the household, so when xh didn't earn anything it continued to be paid, effectively from my income.

The money was for her, and she needed it, so it never occurred to me not to continue to support her.

In fact I continue to fully support her now I am no longer with her Dad.

It's ironic really that he is refusing to pay maintenance for dd or dsd, who both live with me. He claims he has no money but he runs 4 different vehicles, has managed to buy the stereo-typical massive tvs, can afford to take his girlfriends children to the other end if the country to see their Dad - but claimed he couldn't afford to but a three quid bottle of Calpol one night when I asked him to get some as dd was poorly.

The bit I don't get is why his girlfriend thinks its ok for him to be avoiding paying anything. Especially as she has been a lone parent herself. I couldn't have stayed with someone who refused to support their children - but no doubt he has justified it to her somehow, and not necessarily with the facts!!

I would like to see it taken with tax and by the same department -that way if a NRP is self employed the two sets of papers will go in together and there would be deadlines of January other wise big penalities would be paid and interest added.

This government is changing or wanting to change the CSA so that parents that do not live together sort out their own arrangements - this way it will take a lot of pressure away from the CSA and dump it back with the resident parent - to try to get any money from some NRP. Then the press reports will be able to say the new system is working - cos they will not have a clue whether NRP are paying or not as the PR will have to pay to get CSA involved and then pay a % of the money each week to the CSA for collecting what is rightfully the childrens money.

What sort of sick society do we live in where NRP don't pay for their own children

YANBU. It should be taken PAYE and be an acceptable level of support-not the crap it sometimes is and be regardless of sex- there's a couple of women I know of who've been the dumpers and abandoners.

My aunt's ex works on the side cash in hand and so she's not entitled to anything because he claims he hasn't anything to give and his parents support him. They support him in this lie and don't ant anything to do with my aunt's children. They're encouraged him to 'find someone new' and have 'better children' (their words). He's got shit loads of money and she's struggling. He's recently found someone else and had a child with her. They are allowed benefits that my aunt can't get because his new gf doesn't work and he 'fakes it'. The parents even wrote a letter for him which said if the council didn't find them a place they'd boot them out so they were found one. They're living it up on his back handed cash and with the parents who are wealthy themselves while y aunt gets sweet fa since he's not bothered to pay in years.

One of my sister's exes was a fiddler too, got his just desserts though; he dumped them for another woman after which he set up a company, invested all his (and her savings which he'd taken from my sister and his joint account) and put the company and assets in his new bits name to stop CSA getting their hands on. My sister hasn't got a penny from him and he was rolling in it with his new gf for a couple of years. However she's cheated on him now, dumped him and took the company. So while my sis is devastated he took their money she's glad he's been screwed over now too-she never was going to get anything from him after all.

Yes, you can be jailed here in the US if you don't pay. And also the government will garnish your wages.

I am sick to the back teeth of these men who just think they can walk away. Get it snipped or keep it zipped if you don't want to deal with the responsibility!

if someone isn't working and isn't claiming any benefits then they either have savings somewhere or someone (partner/parents/friends) is funding their existence. the NRP should be made to show how they are surviving. there will be a paper trail. unless they are homeless and begging for food then someone is providing them with money. if it deterred people from bankrolling neglectful NRPs then yes i do think that the Govt should have the power take the CS from that person. they are providing an income for the NRP that isn't being forwarded to their child. it needs to be made far harder for NRPs to get away with not paying and it needs to be made an undesirable option for people to support neglectful parents.

" I would rather poke my eyes out than pay child maintenance for a child that is not mine. I love my partner's daughter I really do, she is part of our family, and I do everything to support her when she is here with us, and paying towards big things such as school trips, I bought her Christmas presents, etc.. My income provides a roof over her head, warmth, food in her tummy, transport to wherever she needs to be, clothing, and all of the basics she would ever need... when she is here with us."

as for this! you love your SD but would rather poke your eyes out than make sure she has enough to eat when she is with her other parent! really? she's either family or she's not. not just when she's in her dad's contact hours!

Mia.

If your aunt is in the uk, she is either telling you lies or has not done her paperwork correctly.

Her income has nothing to do with any incoming maintainance she could be a millionaire and it won't matter.
If her pay is that low she should be getting in work benefits.
If he is on benefits she will on claiming automaticity get awarded £5 pw ( if he has other children this gets shared between each mother) the £5 gets taken at source so he cannot chose to not pay it.

Booyhoo, contact hours? Is that what you call it? Call it half of the week instead. I support her for half of the week.

She then goes to her mum's where her mum and partner provide everything for that household. Why should 3 incomes (mine, mum and her partner) pay for her household and only part of mine support this one? Can my partner ask his ex's new partner for support when his daughter is here? Is that how it works? If so, then count me in.

And can I just say as well, if my partner was paying maintenance I would quite rightfully not bat an eyelid. It's his responsibility if his ex ever made a claim. I'm not a bitter twisted evil SM who hates my partner taking responsibility for his child. I just don't see why I should ever foot the bill for him. Like I said I am more than willing to pay the extras and big expenses, but to do the weekly shop or pay the gas bill would mean we struggle and as I am not liable I won't pay it.

Not that his ex has ever even asked! Even when she was single.

Sock, actually her solicitor told her that she couldn't have anything except basic child maintenance since he a) declared bankruptcy and b) signed the barely paid mortgage over to her to take over as both a 'debt' and a 'payment'. Despite the mortgage being barely paid it counts as what be pay since he has nothing else.

He has no benefits, he lives off cash from cash in hand and his parents, his gf has benefits. She's not entitled to anything else because she works all hours, doesn't matter that after paying off his debt and the mortgage they have nothing but hey. Point is, he like many others find a way around the system and continue with their loopholes.

I wouldn't pay for my SCs in their mothers either, hell would freeze over - but thats related to what has happened in the past and also what she chooses to spend her money on.

Its her choice but I know she is living a life she cannot afford and sooner or later it is going to bite her on the arse. I wont be subsidising that, and honestly - neither will DH.

When the day comes she can't pay the mortgage or put food on the table, it will be because of the choices she has made, including her abysmal treatment of her own children, me and DH, youngest SC will be welcome to come and live here, if needs be - but not a penny more than we have to give will enter that house - but then not a penny, including money she should have paid, even entered ours.

Mia I apologise I thought you ment the gf and him lived together and had a joint claim and/ or that he was faking an illness to claim some type of benefit in his own right.

But tell her to put in a claim for either DWP benefits or tax credits as she is entitled to them in her own right as long as she earns less than the cut off. It's likely that Eric solisiter is not a benefits specialist and if so has given her incorrect advice. And for information the only csa payments that can be included in a bankruptcy are arrears ( and even then its not guaranteed that they will be) bankruptcy does not impact at all on current or future maintainance liability awards via the csa.

Oh and a joint tax credit claim is taken into account by the csa as income for the nrp.

That's ok Sock, sorry I just get a little touchy when it comes to my aunt- I worry about her and my cousins a lot.

I wish it was that case maybe she'd get something. I'll talk to her about it, I think she just doesn't have the time or energy to do anything, nor any money for anything legal. She's raising 4 kids alone and is the other end of the country to all her family. She can't afford to move, even if he allowed it, which apparently the solicitor says she couldn't because of the mortgage and the stipulations in their divorce contact. Her solicitor was shit, his was excellent-unsurprisingly. It's all very disheartening how easily he can walk away.

Worse with not being able to move is he lives just a few minutes away and crosses the road when he sees his kids. The littlest one doesn't even know him anymore thankfully but it hurts the others to see.

sowhatif

"Can my partner ask his ex's new partner for support when his daughter is here? Is that how it works? If so, then count me in. "

if you weren't doing 50/50 (as you are now so this talk of you paying his CS is theoretical) and you had her the majority of the time then your partner's ex would be liable for CS, if she was out of work and her partner was supporting her then yes i think he should take on the CS the same way he would be taking on the rest of her bills! why is that such a drastic concept? if you are willing to financially support your partner whilst he is out of work then i would imagine the first bill you would make sure was paid would be the one that feeds his children! i dont get how you can love her like family but no want to make sure she is eating!

But the simple fact is that she IS eating and is well provided for and cared for in both households. You are being quite dramatic saying that I wouldn't make sure she is eating by not paying child support. Obviously, if it EVER did get to that point where her mum told us all of her cupboards / her fridge/ freezer were empty and there was absolutely nothing left in the house (which come on, highly unlikely!) then of course I would make sure my partner can get his daughter some food. If it was something that would jeorpordise out household though, like her mum was severely behind on rent and we have our own rent to pay, then ours comes first and his daughter is welcome here. Otherwise where would my child live?

She is part of our family by the way.

the thing is in many families the children aren't getting enough to eat and the money from CS would make a difference. it's all great to say your SDC is being fed and well cared for but you have to look at the whole picture. it might not make any great difference to your SDC to have the CS and maybe you and your partner's EX can come to an arrangement where you wouldn't pay it if your partner was out of work (if she stayed with her mum most of the time and not the 50/50 you have) but for those families who really do struggle without the CS then it can be the difference between eating and not eating. i couldn't understand anyone being happy to support their partner financially but not wanting to make sure their dcs ate in that situation.

i'm not sure why you think it's highly unlikely that someone's cupboards would be bare, unless you are talking about your partner's EX specifically?