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.

As I suspected then, a rogue twat rather than MN common place as suggested.

A few on this thread have talked about the sisterhood. We need to be focussing on the men who aren't paying and stop assuming that behind every fecklass father there is a Disney style stepmother cackling away whilst planning how to spend her step children's inheritance.

This is why I do not pay anyone cash, I always transfer money into their account to avoid this going on.

I think NRP should always be open to having HMRC and personal and joint bank accounts looked into by the CSA or whoever they are now. I think partners or employers who help NRP's avoid CM, should be given a minimum of six months in prison, that would sort it out.

I have been through everything you have OP. I am not bitter because I am a kinship carer, not a relationship split. The father of my GS has done absolutely everything to avoid paying but I have persisted and insisted the CSA chase him.

They have got it wrong many times and I have been paid compensation on three occasions. Before anyone gets excited, it was 50 each time. It was because of the way the staff spoke to me, which I think is very sad, so recording conversations with the agency does protect both parties.

Unfortunately he has now gone self employed. I have checked at Companies House and he has no Company. They were very helpful by the way. They tell me it is likely he is a "sole trader" which means only HMRC see the financial details and you cannot apply for a copy of the accounts as it is confidential. I think this is where the problem may lay as CSA tell me HMRC rarely check thoroughly as it would be impossible and generally just wave accounts through and then of course HMRC have ok'd the accounts for the CSA.

I could be wrong but this is the current situation I appear to be in.

I really am not bitter about my situation either. I was for a period of time. I find it outrageous that NRP get away with it.

I have accepted I probably won't ever see a pennies maintenance for my daughter, if I do it'll be a bonus but not sometime I'm bargaining on.

It's awful that you whilst doing something amazing for the child are being subjected to this. It does boil my blood.

I still think my idea is the simplest at the lower earning end of the NRP scale.

How does one start a campaign or plant the idea with officials to think it through properly and cost it up ?

Mostly I'm coming from the angle that it makes me sad seeing NRPs feathering their own nests/retirement funds whilst pleading poverty to their children/the children's RP who makes sacrifices to make sure the dc do not go without as far as possible thereby leaving themselves no savings/very little pension built up for their old age.

As a plan it needs work but it also needs RPs to think whether it would benefit them in the long run and campaign accordingly. There'll be an election soon, time to get lobbying for inclusion in someone's manifesto me thinks.

Are you an RP ? What do you think, although I know it's hard to visualise without knowing what the agreed minimum CM level should be. Any thoughts on what that level should be ? Remember, under my plan there isn't a maximum but more usefully there is a proper average costed minimum. None of this "whilst unemployed your dc are entitled to nothing or

SATSmadness

On the front of it I think it seems like a pretty good plan. I'd definitely vote for you to head in and overhaul the system.

Unfortunately he has now gone self employed. I have checked at Companies House and he has no Company. They were very helpful by the way. They tell me it is likely he is a "sole trader" which means only HMRC see the financial details and you cannot apply for a copy of the accounts as it is confidential. I think this is where the problem may lay as CSA tell me HMRC rarely check thoroughly as it would be impossible and generally just wave accounts through and then of course HMRC have ok'd the accounts for the CSA.

Yes. Exactly. And this is why, when I read posts ranting and raving about how crap the CSA or HMRC are, I wince. Because they won't help you if you are rude and confrontational - they don't care whether you can feed your DC, pay the electric bill - they are there to investigate and, when necessary, enforce the rules.

Now must really do some work...

I think it's a type of abuse to refuse to pay maintenance for your child, so I'd like to see it treated as such. If the RP didn't feed/clothe their child then the same would happen so why is it OK for the NRP to do this? It's the child that suffers. Taking it out of wages directly, like tax or national insurance, would help, if they change jobs then it just goes with them as it's attached to their tax code. If a NRP gives up work then they should be forced to do community service, the pay for which would go to the RP.

An absent parent who's pissed off abroad to avoid maintenance can still be forced to pay. There's an agreement between a lot of countries to enforce maintenance (called a REMO). Quite a few countries have signed up to this so they can't get away with this one (depending on where they are).

My ex's DW supported him when he stopped paying maintenance because he didn't think I was grateful. I looked at his cash flow when I took him to court. There were payments for a second home (their 'pension fund' despite them already paying for one), jewellers, a holiday every month (seriously), they were even sponsoring a child in the developing world

The UK is far too lapse on parents like this.

Ok looks like very little work is getting done today. We have had this discussion in the office today too and we have looked at some figures (just to satisfy our curiosity and tendency to have a wee skive when the boss is gone )

The average cost of raising a child from 0-18 is around £190,285
The average earnings of a 25 year old is £26,500
The total amount of child support for 18 years at this wage is £56,160
That remains that a total of on average £134,125 is what the RP is potentially liable to pay towards their childs upbringing over the same time frame.

These figures are based on someone in my position (if the actually received maintenance).

Obviously the money would all change because peoples earnings will change, so would the cost of living etc but based on today's figures this is where a RP stands who also raises their child single handedly.

It's pretty depressing actually.

I think it's a type of abuse to refuse to pay maintenance for your child, so I'd like to see it treated as such

I could not agree more, it is abuse, why it is not recognised as such I have no idea?

I agree - It's neglect and yet it doesn't get treated that way at all. It is widely accepted. I can't understand it at all.

I also don't understand why it is ok for a NRP to abandon a child, why is that not neglect also?

Those figures are quite shocking arent they... most people get CB which is 17k over that term, plus lots get tax credits etc. Also, I think a man's average wage is higher so, given most NRPs are men, the figure would be different. But yes, it's not enough really.

I pay more than that, Hud. I have a disabled child £££££

It is neglect, it's also abuse. If the NRP and the RP were in a relationship it is now classed as domestic abuse to with hold money from them. Why is this any different to an absent parent refusing to pay maintenance? The money goes towards their child, for food and clothes, forcing the RP to go without (sorry, I'm working so this may not make full sense).

lady that is a situation I'm really not aware of if I'm honest. I wouldn't like to even pretend I know what the cost could be there.

I've got to say I didn't expect the figures to have that much of a difference, was a bit of a moment.

The stated reason why RP don't have to detail expenditure is because as the RP, they are supposed to make judgements about the best allocation of CM for the child's needs. NOT, as you claim, hud, because of an assumption that the CM is only a drop in the bucket which the RP is inevitably 'making up' later if s/he spends on other (non-child) expenses. Very different.

The secondary, unstated, reason is of course that this would be completely unfeasible and a logistic, bureaucratic nightmare.

I agree.

It does seem bizarre that you can go to prison for not paying your TV licence but don't support your own child and nothing happens to you.

Oh well after chasing up the csa again it's now going to be the end of may before I get any money. The company failed to put the new schedule issued at the start of january into place. Why this couldn't have been confirmed last month when I chased up I don't know. Even with a relatively simple employed person paying via wages it still goes wrong. I have very little faith in the csa, it shouldn't take a phone call from me to notify them that the payment is late but they don't appear to have a system that flags up late payments.

The maintenance I get doesn't even come close to covering half the cost of nursery for our daughter never mind anything else.

There are just too many darn loopholes the size of the Grand Canyon for those who don't want to pay- does my head in!

Self-employed selfish so & so.
I just don't get the issue between the taxman and the CSA for the self-employed. To me they are BOTH government agencies and if the government can collect it's OWN debts, why can't isn't it a simple GCSE level piece of programming/admin process work to add in the facility to pay the child maintenance due to the resident parent at the same time as tax is collected.

A nearly 2 decade career in IT and business process and noone has been able to explain this anomaly to me. We don't actually NEED a whole new agency in the form of the CSA (and the army of quango expert advisory consultants who think it's a good idea to charge the resident parent with not a tin of baked beans in the cupboard!).

I'm sure that some self-employed resident parents would end up underpaying child maintenance, just as they do their taxes. BUT the cultural foghorn would be that they'd be caught up with eventually, so they'd pay something to avoid severe penalties, just as they currently do their taxes and something is better than nothing iyswim.

I'll refuse to work rather than support my child

For the serially unemployed - to be fair the government is in the process of clamping down on welfare payments generally for both resident and non-resident parents. Nowadays, once your youngest is school age (4/5) you are expected to look for work as a resident parent. The days of push out a baby and be supported by the state for 18 years in a free flat are gone. Social housing is also VERY hard to get nowadays. (The ONLY exception to this is the disabled - and for them welfare is a VERY insecure existence nowadays, and the burden of proof is ever higher to qualify with each year that passes).

Hopefully the number of useless absent parents in this category will reduce over time, especially now DWP demands better info on why people have left previous employment before handing out job seekers allowance than it used to. Resignation no longer means you qualify for benefits automatically, neither does deliberately getting yourself sacked.

The bugger off abroad brigade

WHY aren't passports garnished? This comes under the CSA's existing powers - they just need to do their damn job! In the states this is done as a matter of course, and this in a nation where 70% of the population don't even own a passport ffs! (Unlike here where it's needed for banking, getting a job etc)

I'd have no objections in theory to my ex having another kid - however I'd be furious if I thought he was producing yet another burden on the welfare state! It would make no material difference to two of his existing kids as they get zero anyway from him. (As a foreigner he stopped paying on the advice of a new British girlfriend after he'd left me).

If CM were sanctioned through a court then non payment could be recovered through the courts like any other debt and penalties applied and recovered - ultimately the non payer could go to prison.

Seems mad that this doesnt happen. The uk government places more importance on TV licensing and council tax than child support

Sorry brdgrl I think you misunderstood. Of course that amount of money is for the DC. My point is this. Once since my DD was born my ex handed me £50 for her that was last year once I was on my feet again. That physical £50 came with me of a night out however the following day I went out and bought my DD new shoes and new clothes all of which coming to over £80. £50 of that was the amount her father gave me even though it wasn't the physical cash he handed me the day before.

SATS, there is a HUGE problem (well, at least one!) with your model.
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 the children's costs have been met through (fully or partly) benefits whilst the NRP was not paying, then surely the arrears ought to be paid back to the state, and not to a RP who essentially would be receiving money twice, whether earning any income at all or not.

Why on earth should a NRP have to pay their earned income back to the other parent, after the children are no longer there, if the state was providing the support in the first place? SO they can "do what they like with it"? Fucking insane.

Furthermore (as second problem), would not the threshold after which the NRP is judged able to start paying, still depend upon other obligations?

If children in a 'broken' family are entitled to a minimum, then surely every child must be as well. So the subsequent children of the NRP would be just as entitled to their minimum contribution from each parent.

What about NRPs who aren't contributing their share? Would they in fact have to pay back benefits when they pass a threshold themselves?

It's another absurdity.

No one on this thread has supported NRP who avoid their legal responsibilities - and the current system should be more rigorously enforced - hopefully, once the new agency begins to charge fees, they will be able to increase resources to enforce the rules.

The problem lies with the fact that any new draconian system that is designed to prevent the minority from avoiding it will create significant hardship and disadvantage for those who are currently complying.

One of the reasons that "the government" has stopped listening to RP is because their ideas are all to often ill thought out and ill informed. This suggestion for instance:

If a NRP gives up work then they should be forced to do community service, the pay for which would go to the RP.

How exactly can that work? A community service scheme does not generate pay for the participants (in fact, it costs money to administer), so there won't be anything to give the RP. In the mean time, the NRP is spending time away from job hunting, and is not available as often/frequently to see their DCs.

If we're trying to replicate a scenario that would happen in a together family, then how about a scheme where, if a NRP loses their job, the RP should be expected to seek to reduce outgoings by, for instance, cancelling childcare (and thus, saving outgoings) as one parent is available?