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.

A RP does the lions share of the work where child rearing is concerned and pays the lions share of the cost that goes towards that. The fact that there seems to be a resentment towards the RP from often the new partner is lost on me.

What about those cases where the NRP isn't NR by choice? Where the NRP is being blocked or prevented from doing an equal share of the work?

If the RP has the financial resources to block contact through court action, house moves and other methods that require financial investment (and I'm referring to hostility to contact, not abuse victim, cases), should the NRP be expected to financially contribute to that by paying CM at a rate higher than assessed?

Bloody phone!

You can also be self employed for example a freelancer but work under a company name. I work in as a freelancer and my wages are paid by a company but I am still self employed. I bill them at random intervals for the work I do and they pay me. In order for them to lie about what they pay me they would only have to 'lose' a couple of invoices here and there.

Of course someone who is self employed has a company. They own it

No hud, they don't. I'm registered with HMRC as self employed. I don't have a company. Any profit I make is assessed on my personal tax code. I don't have company accounts. I don't take a salary.

Ok Frog that is different from the self employed I was talking about. In that case their incomings and outgoings should be heavily scrutinised.

If a NRP is being "blocked" then there are appropriate channels that they should take. The system there is clearly flawed too but generally speaking if contact is blocked through a court it is with good reason (not all the time I accept)

I expect that many NRP would like to be RP but again it is usually deemed to be in the childs best interests to stay with the existing RP (usually the mother). I'm not saying this is always the right decision by the way.

I think that every parent irrespective of new family (if that's what your asking) should contribute towards their child the amount that they would if no children lived with them yes.

And before it is said obviously adjustments are made within a RPs home if more children come along etc but that isn't to the detriment of the existing children. The RP puts a roof over the head of their children, heats the home, buys clothes, shoes, puts food on the table. That itself even split by each person in the household is more than what the NRP contributes at the highest rate.

RP pay the majority towards their children that is fact.

Just to give hope my sons father has paid his FIRST maintenance payment this month - my son is 17 next weekend. He,amongst other things, faked his own death, sent someone else to DNA test, changed jobs, left country, told CSa my son wasn't in education....the baliffs finally went in and he has to pay
Oh and he owes 15,000 back pay.

Crikey Wanna

Presumably instruments of torture were used?

I agree society has to change. I know an NRP that takes pride in avoiding paying for his kids. He says this openly himself. I will not have him in my house and I am told by others that is not my business and I shouldn't judge.

IMVHO there needs to be a lot more judgyness on this issue as if this happened and society ostracised these men (and it is men in my experience) there might be less of it.

So if I've got this right, a RP household incurs more costs for the DCs then a NRP household? And you think a NRP household should always be assessed as if there are no DCs.

So, if a RP should ever live with a NRP (and receive lower tax credits/CM as a result) then the CM received for the RP DCs will be used to 'top up' the CM being paid by the NRP?

Sorry - Child benefit, not CM reduces if a RP moves in with a partner.

wannabestressfree

Doesn't he sounds like a little bundle of joy!

Yey on the first CM payment.

The simple way to collect cm from a nr parent is via their tax code. This will catch the se as well as the employed.

I can see very little point in trying to collect from the unemployed. Or those who leave the country etc. Better to spend the time and effort to try and recover from the largest group which provides the easiest way to recover.

And I speak as a rp who has had nothing from ex for the last 5 years. Due to unemployment.

Sorry Frog I don't follow. Why would CM or CB be used to pay a NRP?

If a RP moves in with a NRP then their household should be subject to the same checks for maintenance towards to NRPs children. If you cannot afford to pay for your existing children (an amount not reduced by subsequent children or somebody else's children) then you should not move in with that person or have further children until you are financially stable enough to do so.

It's common sense. I cannot afford to have another child at the moment. I would love to but it is not financially doable. I would not go ahead and deliberately have another baby when it would impact negatively on my already living breathing child.

As a RP I have to take this into account. A NRP doesn't. They can limit their support to their children in order to support further children. Go figure, does the cost of raising children lower the more you have? Um that would be no. So why do NRP get to constantly make decisions about their own life that will impact negatively on their children and in turn the RP who will have to try and cut back further to make up for a deadbeat NRP who doesn't want to pay any more.

As a point, I could afford to have another child if my ex husband was the contribute financially towards our daughter but since he does't the sole financial responsibility falls on me. Actually every part of the responsibility falls on me as he doesn't see her either.

Further to that I would never move a man in to my home if it meant he would use me and my daughter as an excuse to dodge or lower his contributions to his existing family.

I have morals, I expect the man I choose to spend my life with to have the same. If they had children from a previous relationship they would be out my door faster than you could say "deduction for child living with you"

If they had children from a previous relationship they would be out my door faster than you could say "deduction for child living with you"

So, it's alright for you to have a child from a previous relationship but it is not ok for a new man in your life to have that?

hud I understand now.

What you are saying is that once separated, a parent should not consider forming a new relationship and sharing their life with that person if that would impact on the financial status quo of existing DCs.

That principle will impact far more on a RP than a NRP - because as soon as a RP moves in with a partner, the Cbenefit/tax credits element of the finances they receive will be affected. The current legislation places a financial responsibility for resident children on stepparents as well as NRP parents, but your proposal is that should not be the case for CM purposes. In effect, a household with Resident and Non-resident DCs would be considered a single financial unit for the purpose of child-linked assessed income, but as two separate financial units for the purpose of financial liabilities.

So if a RP wants to remarry, how can they protect their DCs financial support? If their partner is not financially responsible, then how can a RP recoup the monies lost due to their partners income, while at the same time, not impacting on their DCs quality of life?

Sorry completely missed out part of my sentence there was meant to read:-

If they had children from a previous relationship and tried to do this they would be...

That isn't what I'm saying frog what I am saying is that if you cannot afford to move in with someone with children and you can't afford to have further children don't do it until you are in a position that you are.

There would be no negative impact on my DC if I moved someone in because prior to making the decision I would make sure that not only could we afford it without my child taking a significant financial hit but also that we could afford it whilst maintaining their current maintenance. If it wasn't affordable we would wait until it was.

if I moved someone in because prior to making the decision I would make sure that not only could we afford it without my child taking a significant financial hit

But how would you do that? How would you ensure that the CBenefit you currently receive wouldn't stop because your partner earns over the threshold? What if you did move in and he was promoted? Would you move out again?
Would you rely on your partner to make up the difference?

A lot of it is common sense but I fail to see why CM should be lowered on account of the NRP moving in with someone with children or having further children.

Obviously if you move someone in with you they take on financial responsibility in your household - rent, bills, living costs and even a share of things for the child in the house but this should not be at the expense of their children or their ex.

If there was zero change reflected by children in the household then people would think twice before making these decisions without carefully figuring out if it's affordable.

As it stand just now, NRP can pretty much do as they please and there are zero repercussions. It is just expect that the RP picks up the slack.

As it stand just now, NRP can pretty much do as they please and there are zero repercussions

As can RP's - I know, I have taken advantage of it more than once.

I have a step son and we pay just under £700 a month maintenance via the csa. It works both ways the csa are shit. Ss mother refuses access and we are left with having to pay even more money to go back to court for breach of the order for which she gets no punishment. She does however get rewarded financially for dropping the access and some RP do use it as a financial weapon.

Likewise we've just had another baby and the maintenance has been reduced by £14 a week! How can it be right that ss 'needs' £170 a week and our new baby needs £14 a week.

Also the Child benefit point is a good one, ss mother will be assessed for child benefit before the maintenance and I suspect she gets it but I think she must be near the threshold. Likewise in a family where one of you earns over the threshold having to pay maintenance out would take you below the threshold but you still don't get it! It's all one sided from where I'm standing.

Of course some NRPs are shit and are simply trying to avoid paying CM.

On the other hand, many of the things in your list are valid life choices which result in a change in circumstances for the NRP's children.

Most of them are also life choices made by RPs, as well, resulting in changes in circumstance.

Hud, in the thread on which you commented yesterday, and which seems to be at least the partial inspiration for this one, the OP was making a choice NOT to work so she could be at home with her child, and do an online course. She did not want a change in CM because - she stated herself - she relied on the CM to pay her rent and other bills. She basically felt that her choice not to work should be funded by the CM, but her ex should not have the right to retrain for a different career.

I do see this on the boards - RPs who feel that they should be able to make whatever choices they like, based on what they feel is best for their family (and quite right, too) - but then want to deny the same life choices to the NRP. You cannot have this as a stance - if you want the RP to have a say in the career, education, marital, or reproductive choices of the NRP, that cuts both ways.

(actually, the plan her ex has may have ended up increasing the amount of CM he paid, but she was bothered by other aspects of his parenting and career choices, so that was irrelevant to her.)

(incidentally, neither my DH or I have an ex to whom we pay or from whom we receive any form of CM)

fail to see why CM should be lowered on account of the NRP moving in with someone with children or having further children.Obviously if you move someone in with you they take on financial responsibility in your household - rent, bills, living costs and even a share of things for the child in the house but this should not be at the expense of their children or their ex.

Then RPs should not be permitted to have more children, either, as this will decrease the pot of money available to the existing children.

What nonsense.

But how would you do that? How would you ensure that the CBenefit you currently receive wouldn't stop because your partner earns over the threshold?

You would work out your finances beforehand.

What if you did move in and he was promoted? Would you move out again?

That would be a change of circumstances that would need to be looked at and discussed. If it was going to have a negative affect on the family (as a whole) then either I would have to make cuts from our household budget to maintain the level of maintenance to his other children or I would have to make up the money elsewhere for my DC.

Would you rely on your partner to make up the difference?

Not any more than I would myself. I would expect a partner to pay towards their first children and contribute to our household as would I myself contribute to the household and if need be contribute towards their CM.

I am not for one minute saying separate finances, in fact in these situation joint finances are the better option. Provided that the NRP partner is willing to accept and support that their CM is as important as rent/bills etc.

It may mean that the adults have to go without certain things but as long as my DD doesn't go without the things she needs and his children don't go without CM then I can't see what the big issue is.

If you work out your finances before making the decision to move in with someone or move someone in, or have children you could really avoid a lot of the issues.

Hud, in the thread on which you commented yesterday, and which seems to be at least the partial inspiration for this one, the OP was making a choice NOT to work so she could be at home with her child, and do an online course. She did not want a change in CM because - she stated herself - she relied on the CM to pay her rent and other bills. She basically felt that her choice not to work should be funded by the CM, but her ex should not have the right to retrain for a different career.

You fail to mention that the person in question fled and abusive relationship and was in the process of trying to get on her feet financially. Whilst she did have some income she relied on CM (which should be paid anyway) to help out for bills to keep a roof over her childs head.

Her concern over his retraining was that the same man who had abused her, forced herself and her DC into a refuge, had to move over 300 miles away and yet still tried her hardest to maintain contact between the man and her DC was wanting to retrain as a social worker and whilst the CM was a sore point her main concern was actually what he was wanting to retrain in.

Also I have never said that NRP shouldn't move on to have more children but only bloody do it if you can afford it. That goes for RP too.