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.

Nobody is disputing that NRP should pay CM.

I am a RP with a CM dodging, NC twat and still think your solution is completely unworkable. Ever.

insert "as an ex" between "twat" and "and" and it might make sense.

Otherwise is sounds like my beautiful little girl is a CM dodging, NC twat

Every time I see the title of this thread I read it as CM = childminder. I agree, childminders should be harder to avoid. They should follow you in the street, hide in your car and lurk in your garden. Everyone should have a childminder and a spare in the cupboard in case of emergencies. (I am a childminder).

Sorry I really have nothing useful to add to this discussion, and have had a glass of wine. OP I hope your problems get resolved soon.

It just means CM is higher. 15% of salary is very low. Why is that unworkable ?

15% is pants, especially when you have an ex earning £££ (but still claiming poverty). It could be far worse though, some RP's get little more than £5. What does that cover? A pack of nappies?

Essence

Ladies 15% is better than sweet funk all, let's face it. If we're getting that were doing okay x

Yup. Better than the sweet FA I was getting and better than the 2% he offered a week before the hearing. I'm still waiting for the arrears though

I don't get and never have got or even applied for maintenance for DS1. I'm happy with this. I don't need money from the man who caused us so much misery and have always provided for DS adequately without. My ex opted out completely when I left him for DV (hasn't seen or contacted DS in 14 years) and his room is as good as his company in all respects. I am not beholden to him and he can't ask for anything from me. I would hate to have to go cap in hand to him for anything too. It's a complicated subject as every case is different.

Otherwise is sounds like my beautiful little girl is a CM dodging, NC twat

childminders should be harder to avoid. They should follow you in the street, hide in your car and lurk in your garden.

Meep and Essence, you have saved this thread.

I've just been awarded £5 per week from my ex (thats for 2 dc). A lot of people I know are horrified/disgusted at how low the amount is. And I agree, its crap.

but it's £5 per week that I didn't have before. And the plan is to put it into a separate bank account, and use it for the dcs shoes. It works out at roughly 6pairs of clarks shoes per year (and I actually only buy their school shoes in there).
Still not a lot, but better than nothing!

Oh dear the typo's I've clearly have a wine too many

had* och I've had more than one too many!

I might just put it down to the 6.5lb weight loss this week, what I've lost is the alcohol maintenance amount

IneedAwittierNickname

It is bloody shit. But you're right it's better than nothing. Does annoy me that people get away with it but it's 6 pairs of good shoes, better in your pocket than his.

You really aren't doing RP any favours. At least Daily Mail readers know that the stereotypical "single mother" isn't a figment of editors imagination - the attitude is alive and well and here on MN, even if it is being expressed by those who aren't actually 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.

Let me get this straight.

Your proposal is that each parent should be liable for 50% of their DCs costs.

But, the RP should be entitled to benefits towards/covering their share because she they have to care for the DC.

The NRP isn't entitled to any benefits, regardless of the proportion of time the DC spends with them, or their ability to pay.

Can anyone else see the flaw in this as a social strategy? Like, it's pretty damn cushy for the RP, and is likely to significantly increase the burden on the benefits system?

That was a reply to betterthanabox not a generic 'you' btw, ladies!

How about the NRP gets tax relief on their maintenance payments so they can pay more?

lady A lot of the suggestions on this thread mirror the principles of the US system - and for a lot of reasons, I think it's the direction this country is heading in as well.

For years, only a minority of people had to complete tax returns - suddenly, the Government introduces a threshold on a Child Benefit that requires Tax Returns are completed by high earners.
I don't think it will be long before the tax system undergoes a complete overhaul and Children (be they resident or non-resident) become a tax deductible expense - which in turn will open the door for VAT to be charged on children's goods.

I pay VAT on my son's clothes and shoes. He's still a child but I pay VAT as, for some stupid reason, they stop making children's clothes for kids over the age of 14 so I have to buy him adult clothes. He can't work, he can't vote, he can't drink but I have to pay VAT for him.

Fair enough - but, when he was younger, you didnt pay VAT.

Would you prefer a system which charges VAT on all children's goods, but you are instead able to offset a state-calculated value per year against your tax payment?

Or should the cost of a child only be tax deductible for NRP?

How would that work for shared parenting arrangements?

Nope, but he's still a KID.

How about things stay the same but the child maintenance payments are tax deductible with the added payment going to the RP. Shared parents wouldn't pay maintenance, would they? If Tommy (not ds's name ) spends an equal amount of time at each parent's house then neither would pay maintenance as both sets of costs should be the same.

frog you need to chill out a bit, most of these solutions are hypothetical but remember at the back of them is a parent who is only trying to sound off, same as you.

And what I mean is your posting style can be very aggressive hers isn't. She bouncing ideas around. I've said I think things she has said have been understandable but not logically workable, you jump for a it of an attack.

I don't mean it offensively but chill out a bit.

And by the way for the PP I would love a child minder in my cupboard. That would be bliss

If Tommy (not ds's name ) spends an equal amount of time at each parent's house then neither would pay maintenance as both sets of costs should be the same.

Actually, that's not true, unless Tommy has two school blazers, two places on every school trip, two iPads etc.

Even with 50:50 care, there is a need for either parental cooperation (financially) or for one or other parent to take financial responsibility.

In my DDs case, her Dad and I have done the latter. I receive CM, despite 50:50 care (at the CSA calculated rate, adjusted to account for the nights she's with him) and I pay for all the big, one off costs - trips, uniform, bus passes and the like. We tried cooperating, but we have such different values when it comes to money, that it just wasn't possible, even though we can cooperate in other ways for DDs benefit.

I pay VAT on my son's clothes and shoes. He's still a child but I pay VAT as, for some stupid reason, they stop making children's clothes for kids over the age of 14 so I have to buy him adult clothes. He can't work, he can't vote, he can't drink but I have to pay VAT for him

This is because of the size 0 fad of a few years ago. Kids clothes used to be fairly generous in size but a few years ago hmrc demanded they shouldn't fit more than the averaged sized 13 year old (or something like that) because adults were getting away with wearing kids clothes and they were missing out on the vat. There is a hmrc page about it