To think that CM should be made harder to avoid?

[HudYerWeisht]

Just through a couple of threads I have seen in the last fews days and my own personal experience which I know is shared by many others it has come to light that it seems to be fairly easy to avoid or lower CM payments.

Is it made too easy for NR parents to do this or is it just me that thinks so?

Some of the problem I have come up against, some from the threads and some from other PPs experience include:-

Giving up work to be a SAHP for further children or step children.

Giving up work and working cash in hand.

Going self employed and being economical with the truth re salary

Giving up work to enter into full time education.

Employers (usually of small companies) being economical with the truth re NRP salary.

Moving abroad to work.

Giving up work and claiming benefits.

Giving CMS/CSA the run around.

Constant job hopping.

Moving in with someone who has children

Having further children

Sometimes the list seems endless. I personally am yet to see a single penny towards my DD (almost 3, separated/divorced from 7 weeks) despite him having been working for the past 7 months. He has taken advice from various FFJ posters (yawn) on how to actively avoid contributing financially towards DD. Refusing to CMS the majority of the time until threats of wages arrest then getting in touch to say the details they hold over his salary are incorrect and then when asked for proof starts ignoring again. I appreciate arrears are accruing but if they never get any money from him my DD will never see the benefit of that. He is not the most reliable worked and it beggars belief he has been employed this long. I very much doubt that she will ever see a single penny.

I seem to have on these boards also come across a lot of people who support the NRPs right to change their circumstances at the expense of the RP, in most cases the lowered amount has to be picked up from somewhere else and that place is usually the RPs wage packet even though quite often they are struggling to make ends meet themselves.

I fully appreciate that everyone is vulnerable to unintentional unforeseen financial hardship but if a NRP makes an intentional choice within their life that will directly affect CM payments should they still be held accountable for their existing financial obligation they already have towards their existing children.

Is it too easy for some to slip under the radar thus leaving some RP to pick up the full financial responsibility? Should there be stricter enforcement? Penalties towards NRP for not paying towards their children's upbringing?

If a RP decided to radically over-hall their lifestyle and not be able to contribute towards their children's upbringing the children would be removed. It's that simple really. And yet there doesn't seem to be anything for a NRP to duck out of paying a single penny if they know how.

DISCLAIMER: I am not referring to all NRP, there are plenty great one's out there. Unfortunately I just picked a wrong 'un.

And not actually forgetting that a RPs decision do not impact on the NRPs household. I do wonder how fair you would think it if the NRP had to pay the extra money if a RP had a child or decided to give up work and significantly lower and absolve themselves of financial responsibility.

The NRPs financial decisions can heavily impact another household. To say it's ok because it's their choice is a cop out. And here I am not actually just speaking about moving in with children or having more I am speaking about everything above. To do that knowing that your children will be the one's going without is selfish on the highest level.

If you want to further your education etc. Great, do a night course or distance learning so you can still work and provide for your children. Alternatively wait until your children don't need your financial support any more. If you do it expecting the RP to pick up the slack then it says it all.

care to apologize then, hud?
Your "waste of space" remark was in a post replying specifically to my previous post, and it was pretty clearly aimed at me among others. You don't know anything at all about my DH as a father, but I can promise you (based on your own description of your circumstances, by the way) that he has done more, given up more, and been through more for his kids than you have on your best day. I would bet my child's "financial security" on it.

Repeating your points has not improved them, by the way. You aren't "clearing anything up", your position is quite clear, it is just immoral and poorly defended.

brdgrl you know very little about what I have done for my child either so I'll take your post with a pinch of salt.

And not actually forgetting that a RPs decision do not impact on the NRPs household.

In what universe? If a RP goes back to work and teh child goes into childcare, that impacts the NRP. If an RP gives up work, and becomes a SAHP, that impacts the NRP. If an RP decides to create a new family for the child, or have more children, THAT impacts the NRP. Because, guess what, that is their child too. If an RP changes career or relocates, that impacts the NRP. These things impact the child's emotional, financial, educational, psychological life, as well as more logistical impacts on contact, travel, and a myriad of other details.

Oh wait, that's right - you are only concerned about the financial bottom line. All NRPs are wastes of space who aren't actually interested in their children's lives, only in avoiding maintenance.

I know enough to know that you owe my husband a serious apology.

brdgril I am not only concerned with the financial bottom line but that is what this thread is about. I haven't brought contact into it because the post was based purely on the financial side.

If you want to further your education etc. Great, do a night course or distance learning so you can still work and provide for your children.

Words that could only be written by someone who truly does not understand the value (economic or otherwise!) of a decent education.

My advanced degree has at least doubled my earning potential, as well as having a number of other advantages for the children, which are very specific to my field. I have a job now which I would not have had without this degree (which, incidentally, I could not have obtained through a night course or distance learning).

Our household income is completely based on the fact that we chose to pursue education and training despite the short-term loss of income. In ten years time, the children will be benefiting greatly from the choices you'd obviously view as such a selfish mistake.

that is what this thread is about.

Ok, then, hud, thanks for telling me what this thread is about. After all, it's your thread, so you must be in control. Despite the 233 posts making it clear that it is about a lot more than finances.

Is your husband on this thread? No. I'm not owe your husband any kind of apology.

You don't know me and you don't know anything I have done and gone through for my daughter. But I have protected her from the worst kind of man so excuse me for not giving a flying fuck what you think.

Now I'm off today so away to spend the day with my little girl. Have a lovely day.

And not actually forgetting that a RPs decision do not impact on the NRPs household.

That single sentence exposes the complete ignorance you have of a step/blended family situation.

Many of us have battled to give NR DCs any support - watching as our purchases and financial support have been destroyed or disposed of, despite the very real need.

Oh, if only it were as simple as giving the NRP more money. You do realise that if a NRP overpays the CSA, that money doesnt get passed on to the RP? It gets held in account.

So, the only way for a NRP to overpay is to negotiate directly with the RP. The same RP who refused to negotiate and sought CSA intervention in the first place.

Shoving an envelope full of used tenners through the letterbox might be the preferred method of CM payment by the RP represented on this thread, but NRP are advised to keep records and pay in a way that can be tracked - because too many RP claim never to have received anything and NRP have lost their homes/jobs and families as a result.

So, forgive me if I continue to support those NRP who abide by the system - yes, it's tough on honest, struggling RP, but the 'lack of sisterhood' mentioned earlier in the thread is equally prevenlent amongst RP and has resulted in those honest RP being disadvantaged by the system. Sound familiar?

Should have read financially impact.

I assumed it should - hence my reply.

I didn't really expect you to apologise, but in declinging to do so, you really show yourself to be a nasty piece of work.

You come on here spewing judgement about everyone else, and in the process you have made a false assumption about my husband and insulted him, and rather than make a simple apology like a decent person, you continue to be a complete jackass about it.

I think you have amply demonstrated to everyone exactly how bitter, nasty, and prejudiced you truly are.

A few weeks away from Mumsnet and this is the first thing I see.

I see the usual suspects are out in force today. OP you are not being unfair.

You'll realise quite a few of the posters have an axe to grind when it comes to single mums. I would say lone parents but... No I think it's just single mums.

Ignore them.

meep The OP invited discussion. Both by the wording of her OP and the board that she posted it.

Advising her to ignore anyone who disagrees is disrespectful to her, and to MN - it fails to acknowledge the purpose and desired outcome of the thread. Why should she be advised to ignore the posts she invited?

If the OP was seeking validation, then there are more appropriate ways of asking, and more appropriate areas of the forum to seek it.

But, in a later post she has confirmed that she wanted debate, she wanted to read other opinions and she wanted to share her own views with others.
To do that with the sole intention of causing dispute and conflict on the board would be a breach of talk guidelines, wouldn't it?

And instead when she said it's wasn't lost in any way that some PP who are defending bad decisions and bad dad's are married to the NRP she has had her parenting attacked. It sounds like she overcome an awful lot for her child. And it is true a lot of the posters against are involved with NRP, she wasn't wrong. She didn't actually say those NRP are shit parents.

Anyway I'm not going to get into it with you. We don't tend to ever see eye to eye and doubt we ever will so continuing a conversation would just result in rehashing the same debate we have had many times before.

Let's rephrase the question:

Should payment of CM from non-resident parents be made as compulsory as taxation?

Taxation is dependent on circumstances, and if your earning falls below a certain level or you are dead, you don't pay any. Therefore, the only possible decent answer to that question is Yes.

Any further discussion about second families or residency arrangements is related but independent of that question, since a child needs financial support no matter what.

Dahlen - hell yes!

I agree with meep (I know,I know) - yes, CM should be as compulsory as taxation.

Actually, it already is, the failure is in enforcement, and that is an issue for society, rather than legislation.

I've just read through that thread (odd that I did not recall it due to being on it lots!)

I also read the links and the dwp and gingerbread stuff.

It clearly states where the child has a living NRP so does not include widows/widowers

Sorry I forgot to include the word liable so living liable NRP

Someone under 18,in prison, or a pensioner would not be liable

I'm curious at what % of those households the NRP has no contact.

MeepMeepVroooom again misses that fact that most of us have been single mums at some point in our lives.

brdgirl

brdgirl posted "SATS, there is a HUGE problem (well, at least one!) with your model..............If the children's costs have been met through (fully or partly) benefits whilst the NRP was not paying, then surely the arrears ought to be paid back to the state, and not to a RP who essentially would be receiving money twice, whether earning any income at all or not."

I say........found this on nidirect website
Child maintenance payments will not affect any social security benefits received as receiving parents can keep all child maintenance paid and it will not affect their benefits. Housing Benefit and tax credit awards also won’t be affected by child maintenance