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.

THe difference is Frogby, that the NRP doesn't have that to contend with on a daily basis, only during their contact times, whereas for the RP it is a constant problem affecting their ability to work.

Also, women are more likely than men to have a less-skilled job due to taking time out for children, and will probably be earning less as well. Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but as general trends go it holds true. To some extent, CM and contact are gendered issues and will remain so while 92% of single parents are female.

FWIW, if the government (any government, not just this one) are serious about "family values" I think they should consider things like a room for the DC and contact when it comes to consideration of things like housing. But I don't see that as happening any time soon.

What about NRPs who don't actually want to be NRPs but would prefer shared care or to be RPs themselves? And are willing to take 50/50 or more responsibility but the mother refuses to allow - and I personally know more than a few of them.

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.

Ok - overlooking the fact that I've stumbled back into the 1950s for a sec, the economics of that just don't add up!

Very few two parent families currently have the luxury of only one parent earning.

What you are proposing is that when they split, the primary carer (mum) should be supported financially by the NRP (dad) - so covering on a single wage all the household bills that both parents covered by working when they were together. At the same time, the NRP has to house themselves separately somewhere suitable for staying contact by his DCs.

Where on earth is all they extra money going to come from in the NRP (dads) wage packet?

Itsbetterinabox how would this work? Would there be investigations in to whose fault the break up was? Could both have 50/50 if they so wished? Or would one be able to unilaterally decide to have the children and the money whilst the other "guilty" party lived in a tiny bedsit with no space for the children?

FWIW, if the government (any government, not just this one) are serious about "family values" I think they should consider things like a room for the DC and contact when it comes to consideration of things like housing.

Hear, hear

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

If he pays via the CSA, rather than direct to his ex, then any extra payments he makes are held on account, not passed onto the RP. I'm not sure where they go when the case is closed - presumably returned to the NRP as overpayments.

If course, if he can agree a method of paying her direct, he can pay whet he wants.

As the girls are getting older, how about he considers paying them an allowance directly?

Shewon't - again that's conflating the issue. The issue is whether a NRP should maintenance for a child. The issue of whether the residency arrangements are fair is a separate issue entirely. If the RP/NRP cannot agree on a residency arrangement they have the option of going to court. It usually goes to hell in a handcart when that happens, sadly, but it's entirely separate to the CM issue, since regardless of what the parents want and how much it changes over time, the child needs constant financial support.

I have come across PWCs who mess about with contact. I have also come across NRPs who claim they are messed about with contact but actually mean they can't have contact on their terms (e.g. constantly changing the schedule to suit their own lives).

Let's not demonise either PWCs or NRPs. There are good and bad. Trying to equate the moral imperative to support a child with saying "all NRPs are feckless wasters and should have every penny they possess taken from them" or "all PWCs are spiteful manipulators who mess about with contact so shouldn't get any CM" completely misses the point.

Agree definitely about the bedroom thing. It affects a stepchild in our family who according to the govt is not entitled as an 11yr old girl to have a bedroom separate from her six yr old brother on the three nights she sleeps at her dads.

Also agree with Shewont in a case for example where the NRP dad has his child for two nights but is able and wants to have them for three or three one week /four the next or whatever then imo if the RP mum refuses then is she in a position to complain when the dad shows reluctance to pay her to look after their child for times when he would be willing to do so?

In fact the more you go into all this the more scenarios come up to show there isn't really one clear cut baddie or victim or certainly no 'one size fits all' solution.

How is it a separate issue when you are talking about how the RP has to shoulder the majority of care of the children - that wouldn't be an issue in a 50/50 situation so there would be no financial unfairness or any parent shouldering more of anything.

Ah right thanks Frogsby I see. I am not actually certain if he pays through CSA or is a private arrangement. Seeing as it was and is mutually amicable I think it will have been outside the CSA. I will suggest to him about maybe putting some money in trust for them maybe or giving them more money directly as they get older and reducing what he pays his ex maybe , that is a good idea. My above example btw was about a private arrangement where there has been no need for CSA involvement and adequate money is being paid willingly directly to the RP. For example (and this is just a random figure , I have no idea of the actual ones) say my son paid his ex £10 per night per child for every night they slept at hers and he then asked if he could have them three or four nights. I think it would be unreasonable for his ex to still expect £100 per week. Obviously RP still has to pay for a roof over their heads etc etc but then again my son would be feeding them/taking them out /having his heating on more etc etc. on his 'extra' nights so......

Paying her to look after the child?

That's an issue in itself when people think CM is paying the RP to look after their children.

It doesn't matter whose fault the break up is. I don't mean entirely support them but as much as possible. Obviously they have to house themselves but enough to mean the RP can afford more childcare or be a sahp without hugely struggling. They do it in America!

I don't think of it as paying her to look after their child and my son certainly doesn't but my understanding (and I have no personal experience of this matter) is that the amount paid in CM is calculated on how many nights the child or children stay at each parents home. When I say 'paid £10 per night' I meant paid in the context of that mathematical equation resulting in giving/handing over/contributing that amount of money. I didn't mean 'paid' as in wages.

I understand what you mean.

box I actually don't think your idea is a good one. Whilst I think that every NRP should pay for their children I don't think that it is a NRP place to financially support their ex. Their obligation is to their child not the other parent.

Also from a single parents perspective, even if my ex wasn't a deadbeat I wouldn't want to rely on any ex partner financially. It is important to have financial independence and not be subject to their ex's current financial status. That is why there are the benefits in place that there are for RP.

If someone can afford over and above the minimum and want to pay it then that is their choice. I think in those cases they should buy practical items for the DC like clothes or shoes. But whilst many NRP agree and would do that for their children many also do not think they should have to contribute more than what the CSA say.

Dahleen I'm. Not demonising anyone - I assume you missed my previous post And I'm an exw, former LP, second wife, second and first family mother and SP - so I've got or had a boot in just about every camp there is on this one. I've been everyone in this scenario.

brdgirl

Can you not conceive how many RPs in the UK are trapped into a life on benefits for many years ?

Do you not think that bringing up children and being the main goto adult in respect of their welfare 24/7 for the majority of each fortnight (assuming eow access with NRP) is pretty hard work ? I seriously would consider it to be harder work than being unemployed and doing a bit of cash in hand work from time to time to avoid paying CM.

I find your posting style aggressive and the use of the word "Fucking" unnecessary, it adds no credibility to the point you were trying to make.

This country will not solve many of the CM avoidance actions taken by too many NRPs unless we think outside the box and recognise the long term effect on a single parent's financial circumstances of such shameful behaviour.

Whilst NRPs and second partners may abhor the concept of cumulative maintenance because it may take away some of their financial freedom and may improve the RPs financial position we need to remember that if a NRP has set up home with an RP their joint situation may be improved by the RP eventually getting some CM.

SATs, can you not conceive that you cannot solve a problem by coming up with a solution that is based in a completely illogical and unfair premise?????? The fact that parenthood is hard work is fuck all to do with your proposal.

If benefits are to be repaid (problematic premise all on its own!), there is absolutely no logic, reason, or morality to giving the money to someone who never contributed income in the first place. This is greed and misappropriation of funds at its most extreme.

"Thinking outside the box" is not shorthand for ignoring basic logic or proposing arbitrary measures which violate the most basic rights of individuals.

I actually would have never imagined that there were mothers out there who genuinely believed that they had a right to collect a lump sum payment of the money meant for their children's upkeep, after a lifetime of not working, to spend "as they liked" as some kind of 'reward'.

(Incidentally, I find your posting style equally irksome, but if you wish to report my post, go ahead; I am under the impression that swear words are acceptable on here, used for emphasis and not as an insult against an individual. On the other hand, personal attacks are allegedly prohibited. So if you wish to call MN's attention to this thread as a whole, I'd be most grateful.)

SATS how would your suggestion work when the RP has a significantly higher income/quality of life than the NRP?

I appreciate that these situations are a minority, but they are not unique and may well become more common as courts more frequently award residency of DCs to the traditionally higher earning father.

How would your model apply to a former SAHM, who on splitting/divorce, becomes a NRP? She will have significantly less earning potential over her lifetime and is likely to have a much lower quality of life during the DCs childhood. And yet, your model would see her accrue debt that she must pay to her DCs father.

Frog, if DH and I were to split now (we've no plans to do so! :) ), that is more or less what would happen. I would almost certainly be the RP (DH would be in agreement with that statement for a variety of reasons), and would continue to work in my current field, with childcare for DD. My income which currently supports a family of five, would now be mine and DD's exclusively. (Of course, if I decided to, I could quit work, because as RP that would be entirely my decision and I could apply for benefits while I wait for my lifetime DD payout.)

DH would have one child still living at home, and no source of income. He has a small pension, and would receive benefits. When he finishes his degree, he would be looking for work, but at his age would only be in the workforce for a few more years anyway.

Presumably, though, if his contributions to DD were less than the 'prescribed minimum lifetime payment', he'd owe me anyway. Anything extra he made over some 'threshold' would be paid to DD (or, if she's grown) to me myself, while his older children would not be eligible for anything at all from his earnings.

Hmm, maybe I should get behind this idea after all. (

Sheis - because the issue isn't how CM is calcuated, it is should it be paid when it is owing.

Dahlen, the OP, at least, is all about how it is calculated. I don't think there has been a single person on this thread arguing about whether CM should be paid if it is owing - the replies to that are all a resounding YES - the OP and much of the subsequent thread, though, is about calculation, not recovery/enforcement.

The basic question posed has been whether it is reasonable for an NRP's changes in circumstance (through the factors named in the OP) should or should not be cause for a change in calculation.

But don't you see that if the RP weren't looking after the child then the nrp would have to do it themselves and either work less or pay for childcare. Why should the NRP be the only one to take that burden? Alimony helps redress that imbalance and means we get less struggling, single parents.

I don't think it matter whether we think they should or shouldn't reality is that that section cannot be removed. If it was then free will would be removed which just isn't going to work.

However that is not to say that NRP shouldn't be taking the impact on their children and the RP household into consideration when making decisions.

I personally wouldn't have a partner of mine doing some of the above at the expense of not just his children but also his ex. Morally they should be taken into account. I think it's sad that people disagree if I'm honest.

There was a comment up thread saying further education will benefit a child in 10 years time. It may not, I know many who have studied and can't get a job in their field. And let's not forget that if a child is 10, 10 years waiting on this isn't going to do them much good when they may well be financially independent themselves by that point and it still leave the RP footing the bill for not just 10 years but the most expensive.

Why should maintenance be about repaying benefits, no other group of people that lawfully claims ever have to repay based on any other exempt income

Meep

There was a comment up thread saying further education will benefit a child in 10 years time. It may not, I know many who have studied and can't get a job in their field. And let's not forget that if a child is 10, 10 years waiting on this isn't going to do them much good when they may well be financially independent themselves by that point and it still leave the RP footing the bill for not just 10 years but the most expensive.

That was me commenting not as a generalisation, but on my specific own circumstances, in which my further education has gotten me to this point where I am the one supporting a family of five. It was in response to a comment that someone who wants an education should choose night school or online courses while continuing at their present level - a silly solution that won't work for everyone (not all working parents can also go to night school), and which ignores the fact that - sorry - not all education is created equally. Night school wouldn't have gotten me here, frankly.

I chose ten years I suppose with my DD in mind who is quite small so I am thinking in terms of our lifestyle in ten years time; however, she has seen the fruits of my education already and she's not even four.

There are moreover a great many other benefits to education than incresased salary, and those other benefits are the reason my DH and I both chose to pursue higher degrees - the increased earning potential (and yes, education increases earning potential, even if that potential is not always realised) is a bonus for me, frankly. I'd have done this anyway.

The point really was that the suggestion that an NRP's choice to change career, retrain, or pursue an education may be a conscious choice aimed at bettering life for their child, not the selfish CM-avoiding tactic which OP imagines. Just as an RP (like myself and my DH) may choose any of the above, with a full knowledge of risks and rewards and still choosing to do it.