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.

for instance, cancelling childcare (and thus, saving outgoings) as one parent is available?

That's hardly realistic either. In my area a private nursery has minimum of 6 months waiting list. I had my DD registered from 2 weeks so I could return to work, the place was confirmed when she was 8 months old. If that was the same for others what exactly would the RP do for 6 months once the NRP is offered a job and abandons the child care?

Also what about people like myself and my daughter who's ex partner was abusive and alcohol and substance dependant? Would you expect me to hand over care of my daughter to him too?

frog if I cancel my childcare because I'm not currently receiving cm who will look after my child? Her father? But he is absent in every sense and hasn't seen our daughter since 2012 - his choice not mine. It's easy to say well if the nrp loses their job then they can do childcare but the nrp who avoid maintenance often avoid the child too.

ill thought out and ill informed

Pretty much sums up your solution too.

hud, I may be wrong, but I think frog was making a point, not actually suggesting it as a legislative solution.
Point being it is not feasible to suggest these sort of schemes which dictate individual parental choices.

They are two entirely different things though so if that was the point it's pointless.

So how do 'together families' manage if one parent is made redundant? Do they carry on paying for F/t nursery even though one parent is available to be a SAHP? Or do they prioritise keeping a roof over their head, and cut out the unnecessary costs?

This thread seems to suggest that all NRP should be treated the same regardless of specific family circumstances but that any new system should give the RP flexibility to accommodate life choices and changes in circumstance.

There was a comment up thread about the RP being left with the DCs. Because of course, that's what always happens, isn't it? If we are talking about changing social perceptions, how about we address that one at the same time?

jack this thread isn't about Dads who avoid paying what they are supposed to though - it's about the system - which currently (and unfairly, according to the Op) assesses a NRP ability to pay based on their income (or not) and their financial responsibility for other DCs.

Again, I repeat, no-one on this thread has supported NRP who avoid payment (or contact). That is reprehensible and the current penalties should be enforced.

A "together family" does what is jointly best for them as a family. They make a joint decision. What is the point you are trying to make because you have been given two valid reasons above why it wouldn't work forcing a RP to cancel childcare for their DC in favour of a NRP looking after them when the NRP will be presumably going straight back into work the minute they get offered a job.

I'm quite up front about my situation, I was not left with DD. I left with DD. Does it make any difference?

Of course a NRP should pay CM, some do and some dont but that goes for PWC too. Both should support the child financially, not just one. If we are going to restrict passports etc, it would have to be fair. Why should the NRP be penalised if the PWC isnt working and paying for the child either?

PWC can go on to have children just as the NRP, both mean less money for the existing child/children.

If the starting point was 50/50 custody rather then the default of the woman, things would be much fairer for all. Both parties would have equal access, child would have equal time with both and each parent could simply pay the costs themselves for their days.

The self employed issue always makes me go unless they start fiddling the figures after the split then the PWC was quite happy to benefit from the income and little tax before so can hardly then demand it be changed.

A lot of couples break up because they can't agree on things like how to raise the kids, grow the family, spend their money etc. So it's not that strange that once split, the choices they make are different. They are finally allowed to make a decision based on what they think is best for the family as a whole. They may think it a good idea to remarry and have more children, put more money in to a pension, work less and take more holidays etc. As we've all agreed, it is reprehensible to dodge the CSA and not pay what is owed. But I don;t think that the decisions listed in the OP are necessarily feckless and would in a lot of cases be considered good for the existing children.

unless they start fiddling the figures after the split then the PWC was quite happy to benefit from the income and little tax before so can hardly then demand it be changed.

It is becoming more common place for the NRP to go self employed after separation. Generally speaking that is what is often referred too.

And also the downturn in the economic climate made it easier for self employed to claim lack of work without being queried as they may have been before.

you have been given two valid reasons above why it wouldn't work forcing a RP to cancel childcare for their DC in favour of a NRP looking after them when the NRP will be presumably going straight back into work the minute they get offered a job

And you have been given a number of reasons why your proposals regarding NRP wouldn't work in specific situations but you have been unwavering in your belief that NRP would have to make it work for them for the benefit of their DCs, because at the moment, the system doesn't work for you.

You didn't respond to my comment up thread about the "value placed on contact with the NRP" - which do you think is better? Regular contact and a lower standard of living, or a set minimum amount of CM, even if that means the NRP is required to move away and contact is infrequent? I've made my position on that clear - and it may come down to personality type/emotional needs; some RP need a higher level of financial security than others and are therefore prepared to sacrifice contact between their DCs and their NRP in order to meet it.

frog the initial op is about all the methods nrp can use to avoid paying.

They are two entirely different things though so if that was the point it's pointless.
Not so very different, though. You are advocating for not just the moral right, but the legislative right, of individuals and the state to limit the educational, reproductive, childcare and career choices of nonresidential parents.
Frog’s plan would provide for the legislative right of the state to limit the childcare and career choices of residential parents.

no, jack, not at all - the OP is all about the reasons why CM can, as it stands now, be reassessed.
Not being required to pay, or paying at a reduced level, is categorically not the same thing as avoiding payment.

What proposals? I have voiced my opinions I have said that the system is unfair and what I think shouldn't happen but not what I think should happen specifically.

I just don't see why either parent should be allowed to absolve their existing financial responsibility by deciding to father more children or even just moving in with a woman with children. I would rather bring my daughter up in a financially stable home than have more children. And as per my above post of the breakdown the NRP generally speaking pays what 1/3 of the total cost? If the RP can pay twice that much then why is the 1/3 breaking the bank for the RP?

I will repeat a previous question, if I was to have another child should I expect my ex to subsidise me? No of course I shouldn't, so why should the RP and DC be penalised for the NRPs decision to have another child or in many cases by moving in with someone else's? If you can't afford to maintain your financial support to your first DC why on earth would you go on to have more?

My Dad worked away from home Mon-Fri while I was growing up, he worked away to support his family. Yeah I would of loved to have spent more time with him but as an adult woman I have massive respect for my Dad for doing that. I respect him as a father, as a husband to my Mum and most of all as a decent man who would have done anything to support his kids.

Bear in mind the norm is EOW for most NRP where contact has been issued through a court so how much time would really be sacrificed if the NRP was to work away during the week? Or even to move for work. It wouldn't have to affect their access.

60% of single parent receive no maintenance.

That's more than half of all children in single parent families growing up with no contribution from one of their parents. I think that's disgusting personally.

My vision of utopia is that all benefits and tax should form part of the same system and should all be based either on the individual, or on the household, not a mish mash of the two as we have now. This would wipe out a lot of tax/benefit fraud and make it a lot harder for anyone to slip through the net.

I'd also create a two-tier system of CM.

Tier one is a basic level that each child is considered to need to live to a certain standard. At the moment this is sort of what happens with the Lone Parent Element of Child Tax Credit, although that obviously only applies to those in receipt of CTC.

Currently CM is not deducted from benefits because the state recognises that CM is often unreliable and that children suffer when benefits are deducted and a NRP plays fast and loose with CM. However, this is causing a burden on the state. In my vision all resident parents would receive this Tier 1 level of CM regardless of income but the state will then recover that amount from the other parent based on that parent's ability to pay. If the other parent is on benefits themselves, obviously they will pay less of a contribution than a working parent but the state will still get to claw back some money and the child and PWC will not suffer from a feckless RP.

Tier 2 would be a bonus payment applicable where the NRP has more of an income. The same percentages as the current CSA will apply but it will be administered through the tax system and deducted at source.

In the rare cases where a PWC is able to claim benefits while receiving significant amount of maintenance, this will stop wasting tax payers money. In the more common scenario where the NRP tries to duck out of maintenance, this will become much harder to get away with.

Nope the OP is all about how people avoid paying CM and how people attempt at significantly lowering CM. It was about people doing these things purposefully.

The subsequent posts although entirely related are actually different from what I was posting about.

60% of single parent receive no maintenance.

Wow! That's pretty shocking.

Of the cases being dealt with by the CSA in 2010 (I haven't checked more recently), 45% of cases were assessed as having to pay £5 (benefits rate) or £0 (no income or self-employed with not enough profits).

That's also depressing.

What gets me is that parking fines and bank loans are gone after with more determination than CM. Says a lot about the priority in which children are held.

I have 2 major cultural issues with the current regime and social outlook in the UK.

1. If a nrp doesn't WANT to support their kids, then at the moment they don't have to. They need have no fear of the imposition of penalties.

1. If a spiteful ex wants to restrict contact to a nrp with NO tangible evidence (& I've seen what it takes in terms of hard evidence to get a prohibited steps order from the courts btw!) then they can just ignore a court order to do so without fear of penalties.

(Cafcass has just been declared unfit for purpose - sorting this would help protect many at risk children too btw!)

Taken together the two issues are causing a generation of children a LOT of harm and they need to be tackled at the grass roots level. Generally as a society we need to start pointing fingers at "deadbeat dads" and "spiteful mums". It need to happen at a political level. It needs to happen around the coffee cooler in the workplace. It needs to happen at the school yard gossip session. It needs to be pounced on in the media and even at the Daily Fail!

Until we engender a cultural change yet another generation of kids will be collectively failed again. Right now, as a society we do not want to change, and are content to see our children suffer as a result (no matter how strongly any of us feel at the individual level). There's no point being bitter about it, life isn't fair, but it's still life.

Those who commented on the penalties for non-payment of council tax and the TV licence had it spot on imho.

60% of single parent receive no maintenance.

What is your source? The last time statistics started to be quoted to support a thread like this, it was established that the % of RP not receiving maintenance quoted was take from research that included Widows.

I know there are strong feelings amongst RP about Dads who don't pay, but is death considered a reasonable excuse?

Of the cases being dealt with by the CSA in 2010 (I haven't checked more recently), 45% of cases were assessed as having to pay £5 (benefits rate) or £0 (no income or self-employed with not enough profits).

Well, yes - statistically that's to be expected, isn't it? If course, it's meaningless unless you know how many cases the CSA dealt with overall, and what % of all separated families that accounts for.

You think it's expected that 45% of csa gets paid at £5 or less? I thinks it's awful.

It is attitude like that that make it accepted when it should be.

Shouldn't *