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.

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

What do you mean, sock?
Neither SATs nor I are talking about the people who receive maintenance repaying benefits.

SATs is suggesting that NRPs pay a lump sum to RPs or former RPs based on a 'lifetime minimum' of CM per child. Her argument for this plan is based on the idea that the RP has endured financial hardship and had to spend either his/her own income or benefits on the child, and is therefore entitled to recompense.

I am not suggesting that RPs would repay benefits received. I am saying that an NRP paying a lump sum to an RP to 'recompense' him/her for money given to the children by the state is ludicrous. No one should be recompensed because the whole idea is so immoral, unworkable and irrational - but even if you could set those objections aside, you would still be left with the glaring fact that the RP was expecting to first receive money from the state and THEN also receive money from the NRP - while putting in, potentially, no contribution of his/her own.

And any pretense of the money belonging to the child has been completely dropped - instead, the RP is expecting a payoff from the NRP to use "as she likes".

But that's it, you take on the risk together. Those descions that you take on as a family may be quite frankly funking terrifying and crippling for a lone parent. Can you really not see that?

And - to clarify my point - that isn't AT ALL to say that an RP should not receive both benefits and CM, where CM has been calculated accordingly!! But that a 'lifetime minimum' that ignores the NRP's other commitments and circumstances is inherently unfair.

They may be funking terrifying too but that was meant to ready fucking terrifying

Bloody hell read

I apologise I misunderstood your post,I thought you were saying that if the NRP owed CM that did end up getting paid then it should go to the state not the RP

I can see it, actually. But there may frankly be no solution to that. In a divorce, you do not gain the right to control the other person's life choices. It's that simple.

And the RP's choices are not being called into question on this thread - only the NRPs. I find that disturbing.

Because the RP has made up the loss that the NRP should have been paying.

No you don't get to have a say and you won't ever but NRP should consider that. It's cruel not to but it seems the norm.

oops, sorry, cross-posting there!
Needs, I think that CM owed - as assessed by reasonable criteria - should be paid to the children. The RP of course administers that money, but it doesn't make it 'her's' to do with as she (or he) pleases.

And to be arguing for a retroactive lump sum that the RP can do whatever the hell she pleases with once the children have reached maturity whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that the NRP may have obligations to other children, or insisting on the NRP paying a set minimum amount towards a child's upbringing whilst not requiring the same of every other parent in the country ...it is sort of surreal.

Of course NRP should consider their children. That is not anything that anyone has said a word against.

My first problem is that there are people proposing all sorts of absurd solutions to a problem which basically comes down to something that cannot be legislated. There have been shitty parents since the beginning of man. And many of them are RPs.

My second problem with this thread is that there is an assumption - no, more than an assumption, an assertion - that NRPs choices, where they don't match up with the desires of the RP, are open to increased scrutiny. That an RP can choose to remarry and have more children, and therefore decrease the amount of time, money and attention available to her children, but an NRP who does so is committing an outrage. That an RP can choose to retrain or change career, or even not to work, and to accept help from other sources - but an NRP is required to maintain a status quo.

There is no question that people should act decently towards one another. The things being proposed on this thread are not decent.

Sorry I'm sleep deprived and being dense.

Are you meaning CM should be treated like pocket money or a gift to the child?

I have a ccj still not satisfied by my ex for court ordered CM (some 7/8 years worth) he has not contributed towards our child,that child receives a significantly above average lifestyle and I have never claimed any benefits.

Should he ever pay up does he owe me the money or our child?

I'm pretty sure it's owed to me given that it was meant to be his contribution towards the expenses I incurred providing the lifestyle that I have, his life style did not decrease as a result of none payment I just covered it all

Brdgrl. Currently RP are the ones screwed and the take care of the kids! It's very hard to retrain or career change when you have to pay for child care. Even if a RP has more children they still have to house, feed , clothe and care for the other children. If RP still have to pay for and take care of their kids however they change their lives then why shouldn't NRP have to do the same? If they want to change their lives in some way why do they get to neglect their child?

betterthan but that's not always the case. Are you reading any of the posts from RP who are better off (financially/socially) than the NRP?

Sadly, it's the RP who perpetuate that myth who are damaging the opportunity for the system to be overhauled. All the while RP bleat that they are always the victims - without acknowledging that NRP can be equally disadvantaged - then the Government is going to dismiss RP opinions with the contempt deserved.

Does it matter who is the parent that is better off? Even if the RP is the one that is better off it shouldn't have an effect on the NRP contributing towards their childrens upkeep.

If someone avoids child maintenance payments from birth to 18 then the RP is the one who has incurred all the cost of raising the child. Therefore hypothetically speaking, why shouldn't the backdated payments go to the RP? They have already covered the expense.

It would certainly act as a deterrent for the NRP that do work cash in hand etc because unless they plan on doing it for life they will always know that one day they will have to pay what they should have been paying all along.

There's a lot of discussion about fairness here. It's not relevant. Unfortunately, doing what's right for the child quite often results in unfairness for one or even both parents.

In my case, contact dwindled and then stopped completely after I insisted on it being supervised only after my X assaulted my DS. His initial reaction, however, was to tell me he was going to court because he wanted the DC every other weekend. Having childcare every other weekend would have been a godsend for me. I'd have practically ripped his arm off had he been even a halfway decent parent. Instead, I denied myself child-free time because I consider my children's safety paramount. For those who think I've been 'obstructive' I'd say that this is a man who I offered 50/50 contact when we first split on the basis that a child has a right to a good relationship with both parents, although within a month of the split that had dropped to once a week, and within a year once a month. His choice.

Then you have cases like NRPs on incomes that are above NMW but below national average who are struggling to live because they earn too much to qualify for reduced CM or help with their living costs, but don't earn enough to pay CM, pay their other bills and have any decent quality of living. They wouldn't be human if that didn't rankle when they see the RP with a better quality of life (although appearances can be deceptive, of course).

There are numerous other scenarios. The common denominator in all of them is that a child needs financial support and in order to meet those needs, a parent may have to suffer.

Sadly, that's life. Do I get angry that my X neither sees nor pays (self-employed) for his DC? Not anymore. I'm past that. He is what he is. Ultimately, I can look in the mirror and know that I've done my absolute best by my DC, despite the personal cost. He can't, and at some point that may well come to haunt him. And if it doesn't (because some people just don't care), well the DC are probably better off that he was never that involved.

Do I think the current system is unfair? Yes, to both RPs and NRPs. But anyone who just wants to reduce payments without trying politically to change things by contacting their MP or getting involved in the numerous organisations involved in this field, is just trying to duck out of paying and I reserve the right to judge them accordingly.

It's not about which parent is 'better off', it's about the child, surely! When a maintenance payment means the difference between the child getting to school or not, or having to wear unsuitable shoes because the NRP can't afford anything else, then that's where the problem is. Both parents should put the child first.

lady

Even if the RP can provide adequately which let's face it most of us can. Even when it doesn't come down to getting to school or not, or having suitable shoes the NRP should still be providing.

I don't care if I've got a million pound in the bank my daughters Dad should still contribute.

I've accepted that my daughters Dad probably won't ever pay a penny towards her upbringing, I will provide for my daughter regardless but I shouldn't have to do it alone and it's insane that so many NRP actually can just walk away without a backward glance.

Enforcement is the biggest issue, without it many RPs will continue to take on full financial responsibility when they shouldn't have to.

Things happen, Meep. The RP can get sick, loose their job, allsorts. The NRP should provide, regardless. Why should the responsibility always lie with the RP? It should be taken out of wages at the source, the same as tax and national insurance.

Yes but there are benefits in place to protect those RPs if that happens.

I agree that NRP should provide, but only for their DC not for their ex partner.

Have you seen how little these benefits are?? SSP is practically nothing, if a child is over 5 then the RP has to claim JSA, which is also practically nothing. It's not easy.

His maintenance (which I had to fight for) goes into the kitty which covers everything so I'm not sure if you'd class this as him paying for me, but if I didn't have ds (heaven forbid) then I'd live in a one bedroomed flat, I wouldn't have to buy clothes for him, nor extra food, toys, school fees (my choice here, he has SN so it's the best place for him but his father doesn't contribute as such). My utility bills would pretty much be the same but I shouldn't have to shoulder the additional costs of raising our child by myself, nor should any other RP.

That's different, that's the CM amount. What that goes on is your business. Your DC will benefit from it.

My point is that you cannot expect a NRP to increase that amount in order to support another adult. Their obligation is to the child, not the parent.

And on that note, if the RP is the higher earner and the NRP has the child 3 nights a week (therefore needing another bedroom) should the RP be responsible for subsidising the NRP and supporting them financially if they enter financial difficulties?

Excuse my language but fuck that!

I get you, but if the RP looses their job or is too unwell to work then their contribution towards raising their child is going to be less. It would be the same if the NRP was unwell or lost their job, their contributions would reduce also. See what I mean? It can't just work one way. It's not supporting the other adult, it's supporting their child.

There's a lot of different families, Meep, all in different situations. Maybe it needs someone to look at each family's circumstances and make an impartial decision (how about the courts?).