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.

Contact isn't the same as maintenance so I don't think it's relevant (sorry). Maybe NRP's who see their DC regularly do pay maintenance, it's hard to say.

Society seems to condone absent parents who don't pay maintenance, it's some sort of sick status symbol to have children and not to bother making sure they have food etc. Like smoking, society's view could change over time but children don't have time, they need food and clothes now not in 50 years time. I think legislation is the way to go. Something needs to be done to show that it's not acceptable.

Where have I missed that point? I am not making judgements on anyone's past situations just stating that at this moment in time the OP wasn't actually wrong in saying that a lot of posters are with a NRP.

Lady I know it's not relevant I just think it would be interesting to see if there is a link or not. It is only to satisfy my curiosity.

13% in the UK www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2013/november/nine-in-ten-fathers-say-they-keep-in-touch-with-non-resident-children/

That's a lot of children

It is a lot isn't it. It's quite sad really. I adore my Dad and I feel sad that my daughter won't ever have what I do with her own. At least she's got my Dad as her Grandad, I don't mind sharing

It's a huge number Ds doesn't see his father. He moved away when ds was 3 and now has a new family. I adored my dad too so it makes me sad that ds has missed this. My dad's dead now and ds isn't allowed to see his other grandfather so the only male role models he has is his teachers.

My son split up from the mother of his two DDs eight years ago , no-one to 'blame' they just drifted apart. My son has a well -ish paid job but his ex despite my eldest DGD now into her teens has always chosen not to work or go to college etc. but just be a stay at home mum/homemaker and claims relevant benefits and HB and CT benefit and so on and so forth plus CM she gets from my son and he also contributes greatly to their activities ,clothing, etc etc .

Now because of my ex DILs choices to stay at home indefinitely etc. my son has always appreciated and taken on board that this renders him the main breadwinner for his two DDs and responsible for their quality of life (financially I am talking now). When he was with his ex he was in same position as sole breadwinner btw.

As a result my son out of a deep love obviously and fantastic upbringing by me and ingrained sense of responsibility has remained single since their split in order to 'put the girls first' iows fully concentrate all his energy time and finances on the girls. He is also extremely chivalrous in that he will defend his ex to the hilt when friends challenge the fairness of all this by saying he would have been and was perfectly happy for his ex to be a stay at home mum/housewife when they were together and so why shouldn't he respect that decision now . Without sounding bitter ( I adore my ex dil btw despite her choices having a negative, imo ,impact on my son) my ex dil has otoh had three or four relationships since they split and is now very happily getting married next year to her current boyfriend.

Although I am immensely proud of my son and his selfless dedication to my two DGDs and chivalry in enabling the mother of his kids to continue to be a stay at home mum , I know deep down how very lonely he is and has been for eight long years (and counting) relationship wise that is - socially he has many workmates and good friends and has a close family.

In fact in my sons example you could argue it is the RP /mum who has employed the evasive tactics you so abhor for financially stepping up to the mark and taking some of the load off the other parent and I suspect this is an equally common scenario to the NRP dad being the evasive one.

So whilst I absolutely agree that work shy or errant dads should be pursued vigorously I can't agree with lumping those dads together with NRP dads who choose to start a new life and form or build a new family unit. So I think YABU unless you break the link between the two Hud because as you can see my son is a model citizen of your Eutopia yet I could easily weep for him at times.

Your son sounds lovely although it is sad that he is lonely. Has there ever been a mumsnet set up?

Bahhhhumbug - I think your son does you credit. He sounds wonderful. I don't see why his financial responsibilities towards his DD mean he can't have another relationship though.

Just as there are deadbeat NRPs and great NRPs, I think the decision to be a SAHP can vary in motive. Many have little choice because the unavailability or unaffordability of childcare makes it impossible. For NRPs who have typical EOW and a mid-week day contact, this is a cost and responsibility they simply don't have to bear, and as such they frequently underestimate how restricting that can be on the RP's ability to find and/or keep work. The higher up the skills set you go the easier it is, as (a) employers are prepared to be more flexible because you're not as easily replaceable as say a NMW worker, and (b) you generally earn more so can absorb childcare costs more easily. However, if you have the double whammy of being a low-skilled worker who requires unsociable hours childcare, affording to work really isn't an option even with tax credit contribution towards it. That's why the majority of parents (both lone parents and those in couples) rely primarily on family support.

When my DTs were pre-schoolers, my full-time childcare costs were £1500 a month. Even had I been eligible for the full 70% of childcare contribution from the state, the balance due from myself out of a NMW salary + top-up benefits would have been prohibitive.

Bahhhhumbug - I think your son does you credit. He sounds wonderful. I don't see why his financial responsibilities towards his DD mean he can't have another relationship though.

I agree! he sounds wonderful, and having invested all his disposable income into his DDs for so long, I can understand why he is reluctant to divert any of that into dating, or another woman in his life; even if he could justify it to himself, explaining it to his two girls (and their mum) would be much harder.

It's so sad that he is lonely; would he do things differently if he had his time again, do you think?

It's a shame that single women out there are being deprived of such a gem!

I think it can depend on how you were brought up yourself, I often think it strange that DH has a low tolerance for his ex being a SAHP when his mum was one. Although that was very different as more kids, dad in the army, different era, they stayed married, they moved around a lot etc. etc.

If Dad values mum being at home he will be more likely to support it but when dad doesn't (and that's okay too because there is no evidence that children do worse in child care with both parents at work) I think it's unfair to have the full financial burden placed upon him for something he doesn't see of value to his children. Although I can also understand that mum may have gone in to parenthood expecting to be able to stay at home and when that doesn't happen it must be hard to swallow.

SATS, that doesn't really answer any of my points.
If the RP is not working and not receiving CM, but reliant on benefits, she has absolutely no right to expect to later be "paid back". The state might.
Hell (yep, another swear word!), you aren't even arguing that the repayment should go to the children, but to the RP. Who may not have earned a single cent of the money spent on the children.

Your quote from nidirect does not address this at all. That is about the fact that receiving CM doesn't decrease benefits. It doesn't mean that benefits are the same as earned income, as you would like to pretend - the source of these payments is the state, so any 'repayment', just like tax repayment, would belong to the state, not to a person who could not count it as earned income in the first place.

Your suggestion is preposterous. It would certainly suit those RPs who feel CM is their's, rather than their child's, however.

brdgirl posted "What about NRPs who aren't contributing their share? Would they in fact have to pay back benefits when they pass a threshold themselves?

Oops, yes, I made that more absurd by a typo. I meant to write "what about RPs who aren't contributing their share? Would they in fact have to pay back benefits when they pass a threshold themselves?* In other words, if children are entitled to some minimum lifetime contribution from the parent (and not from benefits) which is what you suggest they are owed by NRPs, then surely the same standard MUST apply to RPs. If an RP doesn't contribute that amount personally, because of low income, then by your logic if/when they ARE earning over the threshold, they would be equally required to make a repayment to the child's lifetime fund.

Is hell a swear word? Should mind my language in front of DD if it is.

MeepMeep, I was taught that it was, unless you were actually talking about, you know, Hell-with-a-capital-H.
DD started saying "what the hell!" recently, though, and I really wasn't sure.
What do you guys think? Is hell a swear word?

Hmmm it's one of those one's I use in front of her but would tell her off for using

Like crap

However, if you have the double whammy of being a low-skilled worker who requires unsociable hours childcare, affording to work really isn't an option

It's interesting to read that, because it implies that the work available is during evenings/weekends (unsociable hours) rather than the more traditional Mon-Fri 9-5 job.

That does mean that those unskilled jobs are also not really an option for NRP either; at least, not if they want to retain the 'usual' EOW and one evening in the week contact schedule. Which yet again, creates a link between CM and contact. If a low-skilled NRP takes unsociable hours work, they will be less available for contact with their DCs. But if they don't take the job, there won't be any CM paid.

DD makes up her own words and sometimes they happen to be real words. She has started saying "poof" to mean when something is dirty - "eww, its poofy!"
I don't know how to best get her to stop.

Thank you all. Meep I don't know might be onto something though as a lot of single parents on here , though mainly female but never mind that as more for my boy to choose from and you can definitely vet whether you have compatible morals, viewpoints and all that mallarkey on here. Might be an idea Msnt HQ ?

Dahlen thank you very much , very kind words. Yes I agree there are different motives/reasons for not contributing to the DCs financial needs whether it be a NRP or RP and I appreciate the difficulties even in todays 'you can have it all' times of single mums (usually) going back into the workplace and problems of obtaining childcare , child friendly hours etc. But I do feel that in some instances it is a conscious decision by RP mums to not even attempt to go to work even when the DCs are older , even into their teens because they are quite happy to let their ex carry on maintaining them or in some cases maybe still feel aggrieved from the divorce etc etc and that their childrens dad should just carry on paying.

Frogby Thank you and no I dont think he would as that is his personality. But I would definitely have brought him up to be , not selfish but not quite as selfless if that makes sense if I could do it all again.

Russian again, thank you , I'm going to have to start a fan club and employ minders for my son at this rate aren't I ? My son isn't so much a great believer either way in mums working or staying at home and feels there are pros and cons to both. Rather he is a believer of the mums choice in this matter being respected and he feels if he now put pressure on her to get a job he would feel he had reneged on that. He would've been equally happy/supportive if she had said when they were together that she wanted to return to work/pursue a career and /or if that's what she announced now. He just doesn't feel it would be fair ' to move the goalposts'.

I'm young free a single haha.

Seriously though he sound like one of the good ones. You done well there :-)

Gawd- I hope DHs ex isn't reading this!

She had a long term plan when she and DH were together to 'retire'when she reached 50 - although she never explained how they'd achieve that as she was the higher earner.

I hope she's not expecting DH to honor that even now!

I'm retiring at 50

I think nrps should support the person who cares for their child not just give money directly for the kids. I think we should have alimony for people who break up and have children. That person housing, feeding, clothing and looking after your children will have to sacrifice their time and income so I think the other parent should be supporting that.

If she is Frogby just tell her my son is a one off though I'm sure he's not.

He just has this old fashioned chivalry about him that the man provides for his children and the mum shouldn't have to work if she wants to be a 'full time' mum , though I hate that expression , it implies somehow those women that want to or have to work arent ! I think he was born in the wrong era although he definitely hasn't got that 'I'm the man and therefore the master of the household' attitude that went with it in the 'good' old days. In that respect he is quite modern.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year when his ex remarries (he doesnt live with her at moment either) and moves in. Hopefully my son will then feel maybe he can move on and meet someone but knowing him he will probably say they are his DCs and therefore shouldn't be subsidised by another man and insist on paying the same. Although from what you lot are saying if he did pay over the amount assessed it wouldn't go to his ex but to the state ? Is that right or did I dream that bit

I better stop now or he might walk out of his front door tomorrow to a screaming mob of single mumsnetters.

Her fiancé doesn't live with her at moment - I meant there not my son obv.