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.

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.
Yes, but 'working out finances' doesn't mean not making the changes. And it doesn't have to meet with the approval of ex-partners.
DH and I 'worked out our finances' before having a third kid between us and before DH decided to pursue a PhD. For us that meant saying we would go without certain things as a family, the two older kids would go without certain things, and we would put a premium on other values and long-term goals.

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.
I don't mention it because actually, the question of the abuse is a separate issue. It doesn't change the fact that the ex (even if he is a terrible human being) is still entitled to make choices about his own life just as she is. Moreover, while he should absolutely be paying CM (and actually, she goes on to say that he is paying her directly because he pays MORE that way, so he doesn't seem to be dodging), CM is meant for the children, not as alimony.

Can you not see that an NRP can decide that he or she can afford it while that still being compatible with a reduction in CM???

Very different for instance if a reduction in CM means his/her older child cannot eat, versus a reduction which means that there may not be a holiday to Europe that year.

Some RPs may not want any reduction in CM, but that doesn't actually always equate to depriving one's children. An RP can choose to have another child and tighten belts. So can an NRP.

I don't think subsequent children / step children should affect the calculation.
Just as I didn't have a second child within a marriage because I couldn't afford, so the same goes when you're separated.

That would be a change of circumstances that would need to be looked at and discussed

So you as RP would be prepared to accommodate changes of circumstances in your life, but when it comes to your DCs NRP, such changes of circumstances are not permitted.

What about differences in parenting values? Should they be taken into account? If the RP chooses to spend the CM on activities that the NRP disagree with, should the NRP continue to pay CM above the assessed rate at the expense of a younger half-sibling?
I can see a lot more court action as a consequence of your proposal - I'm certain that my DH would have sought a prohibited steps order if he'd been funding activities he disagreed with at the expense of providing them with somewhere to stay when they had contact with him.

So how about we turn it on it's head and say that going forward if the RP makes a life choice that would reduce their income the NRP should make up that loss for the RP and their children?

Not fair is it? That is what the RP has to do. If a NRP makes a decision to support another family it is at the expense of their first family. They have to make up the loss somewhere.

The RP is the one responsible for all rent/mortgage, gas, electricity, food costs etc. That is to the benefit of the children too so overall they pay out a hell of a lot more in order to keep the children in a liveable home. On top of that there is a share (if CM is paid, if it isn't the full whack) of clothes, shoes, bedding, toys etc. The RP pays more towards the children than the NRP so if they cut out some luxuries in order to have another child they are still paying over and above that of the NRP.

The RP may frequently pay more, but in fact doesn't always pay more. (As demonstrated by the thread you referred to earlier, but many others as well)
The RP also has recourse to more of the benefits available.

The NRP has no obligation whatsoever to his or her ex. Only to the children.

My DH pays well over the required amount for his DC, as well as having SN son living with him half the time.

I understand how frustrating it must be when ex partners don't pay up, but there are some good guys out there too!

No there is a reason that the RP doesn't have to declare what they are spending and that is because irrespective of what the money from that actual transaction goes on it will be made up throughout the month by the RP to benefit the child.

Even if the RP pays child maintenance towards rent what's the problem? It keeps a roof over the NRP childs head and the RP will then provide the other essentials throughout the month. It is generally better for the child to remain with the mother in the eyes of the law, that isn't going to change any time soon (as I have said before I'm not saying that is always the right decision but mostly it is).

No hud, that is not the reason. You are making a facile assumption that isn't held up in every case.

And you really do undermine your position. I think you are very angry with yor ex, but you are being illogical and making dangerous over-generalizations.

You will get no argument from me that there are some nasty pieces of work out there masquerading as parents. And the current system can't prevent people (RPs and NRPs alike!) from playing the system to their benefit, or using the system to punish an ex, or making the choices which suit them selfishly and expecting the other parent (again, both NRPs and RPs do this!) to make it up. There are deadbeat NRPS and there are RPs who refuse to work because they want, effectively, alimony. All that is wrong, when it occurs, and by whichever parent does it.

But the alternatives you suggest are a path to absurdity.

Completely agree.
There should be a system similar to emergency tax codes, where by if you don't supply the proper documentation by a certain point, you go onto a default deduction until they can ascertain the correct salary deductions.
If it transpires you have overpaid, then of course you get it all back, as per tax rebates.
But it takes away any incentive to dick about and not provide proper paperwork.
It is seen as acceptable when it is the government who need paying. I don't think it should be any less acceptable a system when it is an RP

All this stuff about NRPs moving in with RPs irrelevant with the cumulative maintenance model I proposed.

The NRP moves in with a RP or has a second batch of children with a new partner and one way or another decreases the contribution to his original children. This causes reduced financial circumstances for them in the here and now but in the long run they should still get all the CM they are entitled too as it is at a minimum fixed rate per child (no maximum cap either) and any shortfall will just accumulate, needing to be paid eventually so the NRP's financial responsibilities do not end once the children reach 18, the arrears of what they should have had still has to be paid off to the RP who then decides to top up their pension with it (because whilst they were bearing the brunt of the shortfall when the kids were young) or , quite frankly do whatever the like with it as they subsidised the NRP with their own earnings/benefits money when the kids were younger.

If we can operate a student loan debt system (Ha, well maybe that's debatable) we can operate a cumulative CM system. It saves all the hassle of CSA needing income information at the bottom end of the earnings scale as the state prescribed minimum would apply. Individuals tax return information is already available to the government each year, no need to ask the NRP and allow delays to creep in. In fact anyone subject to a CM order could have an earlier filing deadline set by HMRC to speed up the information flow.

sparechange, I think that isn't going to address things to hud's satisfaction.
I agree that there could and should be better ways of verifying income and circumstances and cracking down on cheats.
But hud isn't talking about changes to help monitor and enforce existing rules, she is talking about new measures aimed at preventing people from changing their legitimate assessment based on changes in circumstance by making some of those circumstances in-applicable.

sparechange, I think that isn't going to address things to hud's satisfaction.
I agree that there could and should be better ways of verifying income and circumstances and cracking down on cheats.
But hud isn't talking about changes to help monitor and enforce existing rules, she is talking about new measures aimed at preventing people from changing their legitimate assessment based on changes in circumstance by making some of those circumstances in-applicable.

Ok brdgrl what is the reason that RP don't have to declare how they spend CM money?

I'm not angry with my ex any more. I think he is a waste of space. He doesn't pay CM, he doesn't have any further children and doesn't have a girlfriend who has children either so my comments don't come from a place of anger.

I am glad he doesn't see my DD (through his choice) because she is better without him. It would be great if I ever receive maintenance for my DD but the likelihood of that is pretty slim.

I am financially stable by myself and don't actually need his money in order to raise my child with everything she needs but I'm bloody luck to be in that position. Not every RP is.

Personally I think that morally and legally a NRP should have to provide for their DC irrespective of selfish decisions made that will impact their first children. Does that make me angry or bitter? If you say so. I think it means that I have hold of my moral compass and love my child enough to want the best for her and don't understand why any parent wouldn't.

sparechange

That is another good idea. It would definitely limit the people who refuse to give information or change information constantly.

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.

I want to comment on this, because its an attitude I read a lot.
Again, I think it applies both ways and as a RP I made an intentional choice within my life that significantly affected my ability to maintain the same financial obligation to my DD.

I chose to leave my job, rather than relocate, in order for my DD to maintain a relationship with both her parents. The impact on her quality of life was immense. She's not starving, and she has clothes, but it is a very basic existence.

Why should I be allowed to choose that for her, but in the same situation, her Dad would be expected to relocate in order to continue to pay CM?

Even if the RP pays child maintenance towards rent what's the problem? It keeps a roof over the NRP childs head and the RP will then provide the other essentials throughout the month

I may be wrong, but it's beginning to read as if you consider it unnecessary for the NRP to provide a home for their DCs - if you believe that it is only the RP who puts a roof over their DCs head, then I assume you place no value on staying contact?

I may be wrong, but it's beginning to read as if you consider it unnecessary for the NRP to provide a home for their DCs - if you believe that it is only the RP who puts a roof over their DCs head, then I assume you place no value on staying contact?

You are wrong.

I 100% place value on contact.

I'm an NRP, and have regular contact with my son - I pay, and have paid, CM since the relationship breakdown and also in addition pay half towards uniforms, Scouts, and any other big expenses that come up. At present I've had to inform the RP that his payments will drop as I'm starting Statutory Maternity Pay in July... I've given him lots of notice so he's got time to minimise any expenses and I've asked what I can fund now for the next 6 months to minimise any impact.
I think it's difficult to judge what will happen, when I left the relationship I didn't have plans to find someone else and have more children, and my son is 12 so it is a bit of an age gap. I am aware that my choosing to have another child will have financial impact on the RP, but feel that for my circumstances, my son having a new sibling is worth that. I can afford to have a child, I will be returning to work after my maternity leave, and will try to minimise any impact on the RP on my return to work by supplementing any income further where I can. He is in a relationship with someone who has a child herself, she unfortunately doesn't get CM from her ex partner - but they're taking steps to budget for that 6 months now. Granted they both work so have some wriggle room.
Just to put another view out there. I do know tons of NRPs who don't want to pay their way, but some of us do, and I would find it really difficult to feel that I'm not allowed to have more children just because an earlier relationship broke down. If I was still in that relationship and had more children my son would be financially impacted not being the only child, so I think it's a grey area. Just my input :)

Purple IMHO I ththe if everyone had your attitude it would be so much easier.

Unfortunately many don't and many do see the bare minimum as sufficient even when they could afford more irrespective of circumstances.

My ex has no rent to pay and is atm working full time and yet he doesn't think he should contribute anything and from my experience that is widely accepted when I don't think it should be.

And what if one or both of you get made redundant or can't work after then? All sorts of things can change that mean you can no longer afford what you had hoped to. That's just life and is just as likely to happen if RP/NRP are still one unit as after they are separated. Finances change, someone picks up the shortfall, you manage with less.

The problem is, Hud, there is no "one system fits all" solution. Whatever the system is, someone will feel aggrieved.

I have said that I appreciate people a vulnerable to unforeseeable financial hardship. There really is no way around that.

I do think that people who have been made redundant etc should be entitled to a CM break but not indefinitely. That falls more into a benefits vs force to work argument though. It could also mean that whilst unemployed after a certain period of time arrears are accrued to be paid once a certain amount of time has lapsed.

hud if you place value on staying contact, then there should be equal priority on providing a home for the DCs by both parents - not a system where the NRP parent is forced to go without in order to maintain a specific standard of living for the DCs in their Resident home.

You have somewhat undermined your own argument. Despite not receiving CM, your DCs have not been removed from you because they are starved, badly clothed or neglected. Therefore, it is possible for a RP to support their DCs financially alone, with help from the state.
When a NRP is paying CM, the quality of life that the RParent can offer is higher than if the NRP isn't paying CM. So, if a NRP decides that their DCs lives will be enhanced by regular/frequent contact, a stepfamily, a half sibling or other change in circumstance, that NRP makes that decision in the knowledge that their DCs standard of living in the RP home may change. They offset that change against the change in their own home that the DC will benefit from.

In an ideal world, separated parents would both place the same weight on financial and no-financial support and quality of life. Is it worth losing £20 in CM if the DC can continue to spend time with both parents weekly? Or, is it more important that the DC continues to attend music lessons or have the latest gadget, but only see their NRP in school holidays?

A few days ago, the 'blog of the day' was a woman's very honest account of what she had learned in her divorce.
One of the learnings was that she had no idea how much her ex would try and hurt her and get to her.

I think, unfortunately, this vengeful position is all too common. During my own divorce (with no children involved), the lengths my ex went to be to petty was eye opening, to the extent he would happily spend thousands running up legal bills to fight having to pay me a lower amount. So to him, if he was going to lose thousands, he would rather it was to lawyers to stop me getting the money, than to hand it over to me.

I suspect an awful lot of NRPs who avoid paying maintenance are doing it to get back at their ex. They know full well their children aren't going to go hungry, be made homeless or really suffer. They know the RP will make every sacrifice possible before the child doesn't get new shoes.

And that is part of why they do it. They have a way of getting back at the RP in a way that hits them, without really hurting the child that much, and with a way that doesn't get them in too much shit in the long run. They can give the courts the run around for long enough, they can dick around with documentation. And if that doesn't work, they can cut of their noses to spite their faces and give up work altogether.

Sadly, there is no magic bullet. It cuts across all financial circumstances, classes, parts of the country and sadly, genders (my dad was the RP when my parents split up, my mother refused to pay a penny and did 3 degrees, dropping out of each one months before graduation and starting a new one) How do you stop behaviour like that, without becoming a totalitarian state? I think it is very difficult, but some things (like emergency 'tax' for CM can be implemented with relative ease