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.

I still don't see how it's fair. Sorry. CM is calculated on salary and I think that's enough. Anything someone wants to contribute over and above, great. But further deductions based on RP circumstances, absolutely not. Beside from everything it would actually leave NRP in a vulnerable position to being used as a cash cow by a spiteful RP. It would happen. Just the same as some NRP abuse the current system.

Maybe, it's a tricky one.

I did ask exdp to increase his payments when I was too unwell to work. He said no and then stopped paying all together. I took him to court (not for an increase, but because he wasn't paying at all) and they doubled his contribution as he'd been underpaying for years. Lucky for him they could only backdate the arrears to the date when I filled the forms with the court or else he'd owe tens of thousands. Not lucky for ds though.

I would really like one of you to respond to my post above, presenting what would happen if my DH and I split. Then tell me how it would be fair to his older child.

I'll even repost it here, to make it easier.
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.

Now, tell me how this seems fair or right. It sure would work out nicely for me. Not so much for DH or his kids. If he did ever earn enough to pay the 'arrears' he'd accrued on the basis of a flat CSA award, it would come to me and away from his other children.

Probably not the outcome you'd all approve of!

And this is precisely why one size does not fit all.

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.

The problem is, financial wellbeing and physical wellbeing go hand in hand.

A former SAHM, who becomes the NRP and is seeing her DCs EOW is already vulnerable to mental illness.
Add into the equation the fact that she is struggling to deal with returning to the workplace, has a lower and unfamiliar quality of life, may be dealing with aspects of finance and home management she's not done before -accruing a debt to her exH could be the final straw.
Isn't having an emotionally and physically healthy NRP worth anything to DCs?

Of course, both parents should support their DCs, but when one can't, and the other has the resources to ensure that the DCs don't go without, surely the non- financial contribution that the NRP makes to their DCs should be considered?

To be honest, it wasn't me that proposed this to be a good idea. The hypothetical situation on this thread has plus point and minus points.

Would it work? Probably not.

I personally don't see an issue with the current system as such. It's easy for many to avoid paying through it but as in any of these situation people would always find a way to avoid paying. The issue that I do have with the current system is the lack of enforcement and investigation.

The issue that I do have with the current system is the lack of enforcement and investigation.
I agree with you 100% there!

I don't know, brdgirl. The CSA calculate a flat rate of £5 for NRP's who are on certain benefits so he may have to pay this. There wouldn't be any arrears, they only start the clock once they have received the forms. If he didn't pay the £5 for a year, then there would be a year's worth of £5's on top of his £5. I'm not sure if this answers your question, I'm sorry.

Of course a non-financial contribution should be considered. Time and love are just as worthy (if not more) than money, but in the eyes of the law the two don't go hand in hand.

Lady, sorry - I'm talking about "arrears" because that is part of the proposal made on this thread earlier.

If DH and I split under the current system, I agree, he'd probably be assessed a £5 calculation, and I would see that as reasonable because I know what his circumstances are! If he got a job and had more income, then I'd expect him to be reassessed. If he then went on to have another kid, I assume it would once more be reassessed and probably go down again.

Arrears would be great, my ex would owe me tens of thousands through years of underpayment! I don't expect the poor sod to bankrupt himself though.

How it works at the moment is they deduct a percentage per child that lives with the NRP, I can't remember what this is, then deduct 15% of the remaining income. If the NRP is living in one of the other countries which come under the REMO remit, then the court have more discretion and can decide on a higher (or lower) amount then the CSA would award.

Whoah that is frog and brd who have at some point on this thread agreed with something I have said? What is happening to the world

I don't think it's relevant who earns more. The RP is paying and sacrificing therefore the NRP should be too. The cost should be shared. It shouldn't be the little contribution that most NPRs make. It should be 50% of the cost to raise a child. That's all that needs to be said. It shouldn't be down to one party to do all the childcare and incur the costs. It's shocking how ingrained this idea is with even women that we deserve to shoulder all the responsibility.

People argue, Meep. Here, have some

Very true, itsbetterthanabox.

Haha I was joking but I'll glad take the cheers

itsbetter, I don't disagree that both parents should be contributing.

I do wonder how we'd ever establish what "50% of the cost of raising a child" is. I don't agree that it is up to the RP to determine that and then collect from an NRP. I don't agree that the life circumstances of the RP should be taken into account, as when the state decides to award benefits to help defray the cost, but the life circumstances of the NRP should not.

I would still really like to know your reply to my post above. at 14:13:11. You can't just blindly keep insisting that there is a simple answer to this that fits every case.

It's not usually down to the RP to decide the maintenance though, and the courts and the CSA do take life circs into account. They do look at expenditure and both parties can ask for them to look at extenuating circumstances into account to vary the order.

I don't think 50% would work either. Where does it start and end, is housing included in this, or the gas and electric?

What if the RP is a higher earner, they may have more expensive tastes for their children. How would essentials be defined. My DD has a pair of proper clarks shoes, a pair of converse style shoes, a pair of winter boots and a pair of trainers and wellies. My friends daughter (same age) has 11 pairs of shoes "because she needs them". Would receipts have to be submitted monthly to decide what is essential and what isn't?

Figures have to be capped, it is unworkable otherwise. And nobody could ever financially plan from month to month.

3 of those shoe items were supermarket bought to. My friends are all Clarks.

It would be too complicated and where would the man power to check all of these things?

One other thing, how could you be sure the RP purchased all these things. I regularly take £100 cash out the cashline. This pays for anything from grocery top ups to a lunch out and bus fares, lunch at work, a random pack of night nappies or wipes to every now and again a night out.

My Gran buys my daughter a lot of nice clothes as gifts and always gives me the receipt, she pays by cash because she doesn't trust chip and pin it's the devils creation apparently. What would be to stop me taking out my £100 that I use on various different things and using her receipts to claim from the NRP?

I pay school fees for ds so 50% of whatever I pay out would mean his other children would have very little.

It should be 50% of the cost to raise a child. That's all that needs to be said

Which is completely unworkable without overhauling nearly every other piece of welfare legislation that exists.

If we start from the premise that both parents should contribute 50%, then what considerations will be taken into account?

If the PWC isn't earning, how do they contribute their share? Is a value placed on their care of the DCs? Do they receive a state contribution if they are on a low income?

What about the NRP? Will they receive 'child based' benefits if they are on a low/no income, in order to support them to contribute their 50%?

Even if the cost of raising a child was calculable (and it isn't because there are too many variables), allocating a 50:50 financial split to each parent is unrealistic within the current system/welfare state.

And, of course, we are dealing with people. Who have shared their lives and subsequently split. It is unlikely that they are going to be able to cooperate. Despite the 50:50 care arrangement I have for my DD with her Dad, I am financially responsible for her. We cannot agree/cooperate/co parent when it comes to money.

Benefits count as part of income.
In my mind your ex is just being neglectful in not paying for his child.

But the benefits system would need to account for the fact that both RP and NRP have equal status financially - at present, that's not the case - the RP is responsible for day to day financial management and so would receive Child Benefit and tax credits towards their half, whereas NRP would receive nothing other than earned income. Oh, and as tax credits are based on the working status of the resident household, stepparents income would also be a factor.

In my mind your ex is just being neglectful in not paying for his child.
Where did I say he's not paying? I said I'm financially responsible, as in, I make financial decisions based on the income I receive (from a range of sources, including CM). As she lives with her dad 50% of the time it is ridiculous to label him as neglectful - but again, more evidence that reasoned debate with some RP is impossible due to their entitled attitude.

Sadly, all the while their are RP who have your attitude, there will be deadbeat dads justifying their lack of support.

exactly, frog.

I'm not a RP so you aren't arguing with an entitled RP.
The reason the RP is on benefits is because they have to care for the child. Their costs are much larger. NRP still needs to pay to support their own child. The RP benefits aren't relevant.