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.

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

Why? For a start you have no idea how many 45% equates to - it could be 45000 or 90 - who knows?
Secondly, the CSA cases are a small proportion of all separated parents - but again, you don't know how many, so that 45% could be less than 1% overall and finally, the CSA deal with cases where parents are in conflict, so statistically are more likely to be the lower assessed cases because (as this thread proves) a zero/£5 assessment isn't welcomed by the RP.

In order to make contact safe for one of my children I had to seek several prohibited steps orders.

Not one was refused pretty much all I had to produce was a statement from myself as to why the action should be prohibited a statement from a professional backing me up and confirmation from the opinionated deadbeat arse that he was behaving this way and had no intention of stopping. It was not hard.

He attempted to get several for weird things he was not successful and eventually ended up having his contact order removed.

I fund everything for my children and always have including (when it was happening) funding the other parents contact.

Despite the CSA and HMRC being handed enough evidence to prove his income and prove a not unsubstantial tax fraud (enough by one of their own investigators standards) and proof of when the fraud started and how nothing happened, now I don't much give a stuff because it does not matter to me but it does annoy me when ever I get the poor me story repeated back to me.

As a step parent I would never allow my children to be used to reduce someone's payments, my estranged husband tried this despite contributing nothing towards them in any way I wrote to the CSA insisting they did not reduce for my children.

I would not even entertain a relationship with someone who did not support their own children because its wrong.

They can't be dealing with that small amount given that they have been snowed under for years

60% of single parent receive no maintenance.

What is your source?

I believe it was a telephone survey conducted by Gingerbread of 730 single parents who were claiming unemployment benefits.

Resident parents who were working were excluded from the survey

I have taken part in several surveys from gingerbread including ones about child maintenance. I'm a RP and I work and do not receive benefits of any kind

Hud, I'm sorry to say this, but YABU precisely because you are generalising your personal values and experiences to everyone else and in the process suggesting huge infringements on people's personal freedoms.

I would rather bring my daughter up in a financially stable home than have more children.

Great. Do that. Don't make my decisions for me. You are prioritising financial stability, whatever that means to you. My own definition of 'stability' may look very, very different from your's. What you think is "enough" for your kids, may be different from what I think is "enough". What you believe to be necessities, I may not. What I believe to be a priority for my family, may not be your priority.

What's more, I would rather have less stability for my children and have [more joy, more travel, more education, more family] in their lives. You wish to fascisticly dictate when people can reproduce or form new family units.

If you can't afford to maintain your financial support to your first DC why on earth would you go on to have more?
Short answer? Maybe because I think they will gain other non-monetary benefits from the changes I am making in my life. Or maybe because I know that the financial impact on them will not actually be so severe as to cause me concern, even if it upsets my ex, who feels entitled to payments that never go down (although presumably would not object if they went up). I am very pleased my own parents did not stop at the number of children other people thought they could afford.

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
Great. Understand that other fathers might choose the time with their children instead, and that is their choice to make. Not yours.

Don't be sorry to say that. I stand by views that both parents have a financial responsibility to their DC.

If you think it's Ok for NRP who already pay an amount significantly less than the RP to lower their payments for their children or stop them altogether that's your perogative. If you think it's Ok for a NRP to pay less towards their children in order to pay for someone else's or further children then that's your choice.

I wouldn't support a man not supporting his children. I'm quite happy with my view point.

I wouldn't support a man not supporting his children. I'm quite happy with my view point.

But what you consider not supporting DCs is subjective. I'm personally disgusted by men who don't actively seek significantly more than EOW contact with their DCs, but that is my, subjective, view and not one you share.

Just as subjective are my opinions about RP's who state they are choosing not to be in a relationship for the sake of the DCs or those with the opinion that DCs in the most part belong with their mother

No matter how much time you spend with your kid your not being a great parent if you are not making sure you do your bit to feed and clothe them

I would also expect a man the be as involved with his child as all their lives allowed. I'm not going to trade in a dead-beat dad and husband for an equally shitty boyfriend.

There is nothing anywhere saying that an parent shouldn't be in a relationship. That is beginning to make things up to suit your own agenda.

The fact of the matter is that the children are better off with whomever was the primary caregiver in the home. That is, generally speaking, the mother therefore they are deemed to be the more adequate RP. Until a time that care within the joint home is split equally and even for a time after the mother will be the preferred RP in majority cases.

Now I can't remember where but I read a study that stated that if the NRP was predominantly women it would result in higher depression, anxiety rates and that suicide numbers would creep up. If I remember right this was a study done in the US however I can't imagine it would be untrue for many other countries either.

Obviously where situation allows 50/50 is the ideal but it is so rarely sustainable that I can't see that coming into play properly until there is complete sexual equality in the work place.

Obviously where situation allows 50/50 is the ideal but it is so rarely sustainable that I can't see that coming into play properly until there is complete sexual equality in the work place.

You're out of touch hud - it's more common then you imply; either that or myself and several of my social circle are freaks.

Three years ago, my DH was represented in court by a solicitor who I'd known of socially for 10 years; when he and his DW (an accountant) had their first DC, they both dropped their hours to part time to be equal SAHP parents. If that was 10 years ago, and now I know of half a dozen or more successful 50:50 arrangements (not including all the ones on MN) then your assessment of its prevalence and success is clouded by your own bigotry limited experience.

I cam categorically say it's not the norm where I live frog

And you can call me a bigot I won't lower myself to personal insults. But I will say through speaking to you before it doesn't surprise me that you do.

And for the record I do not have limited experience my work entails work with RP trying to cope with NRP so my experience is professional and personal.

And scoring out attempted insults just say it out right instead of scoring out and substituting. It's quite bizarre.

But that's not what you said, hud - you asserted that it's not sustainable.
It is, it's just you've not experienced it.

I've never experienced a non-paying NRP, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility that they exist.

And for the record I do not have limited experience my work entails work with RP trying to cope with NRP so my experience is professional and personal

It's probably unlikely that you've encountered co-operative parents getting on with things successfully then - RP don't have to cope with NRP when they get on.
What proportion of separated parents does your service area target?

Reading your OP in the knowledge that you are a professional in the field certainly puts a different perspective on it.

Did I say it's not sustainable?

And did I say I was a professional in the field? I said my work entails work with RP coping with NRP. That could be anything from a Social Worker to a reporter at the Daily Mail.

I didn't say how frequent the work was or what field I am in.

It's a recurring theme that you read a sentence and fill in the blanks. I wonder why you do this.

it is so rarely sustainable

Yes

Did I say it's not sustainable?

my work entails work with RP trying to cope with NRP so my experience is professional

And yes.

Your words, in both cases.

Yup but that doesn't anywhere say I am a professional in that field. It says through to profession I come into contact with them. It doesn't say I am a professional in that field. There is a massive difference

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?

you completely miss the difficulties PWC face when it comes to working. My ex is in and out of work like a yo-yo on a self employed basis. I work full-time with huge amounts of responsibility. I have three children I have to manage in terms of childcare. I have no choice but to pay for full-time childcare because I cannot trust my ex to not chop and change his contact arrangements to suit the latest girlfriend/work project (or both). That's hundreds of pounds a month I am worse off than I would be if my ex were consistent and reliable. I cannot just give up childcare when he's available because what would happen when he was working again? My childcare provider has a waiting list - there is no way I would get 3 children back in again at a moment's notice. I would be facing losing my job because my ex would never consider it his responsibility to find childcare if his situation were to change - that's my problem - he's allowed to do whatever he likes.

It is not as simple as one parent taking on the caring responsibilities because they are out of work. Separated parents dont' necessarily have someone to full back on if things go wrong and as such, it is absolutely essential that their childcare arrangements are solid if they are to be able to get on with their lives and support not only themselves but also their children. That is, after all, what we expect adults to do, isn't it?

So, what do you do, hud? What profession gives you the experience of "RP coping with NRP" that allows you to assert confidently that 50:50 parenting is rarely sustainable and children are better off with the primary caregiver and yet is not "in the field" of separated parenting?

You say I have been filling in gaps that you have left - you've certainly begun to ignore questions that don't support your agenda, which may be why I'm filling them in.

As usual, a RP vs NRP thread has turned into a he-said, she-said row. I often wonder the motivation behind such threads - let's be fair, you knew that there would be as many people who agreed as disagreed, and as you have said that you don't really care what others think anyway, why ask?

Except from the questions in your last post what exactly have I ignored?

I don't think it is a RP vs NRP because all that has been said from yourself you are a shared care parent so my views differing from yours surely don't fall into either category?

I don't care what anybody thinks about me, that isn't the same as not caring about what people think as a whole. I didn't ask for opinions on a specific person situation of mine. I have used very little of my personal circumstances in the thread other than a very basic overview of what get's paid (or more to the point doesn't get paid), how a RP managing to clothe and feed their child could have a very hard back story and a very minimalist description of what my job can entail.

You seem to be taking this very personally when I have not aimed a single post at your direct situation. That would suggest you have something to take personally frog