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.

Hud, you're completely blinded by your own prejudices. You keep saying that you 'aren't bitter', and that this has nothing to do with your own particular bad feeling towards your ex, but if you believe that yourself, you are living on a river in Egypt. Your position is illogical, your suggestions are unworkable, and your views are about as fascist as any I've seen on MN.
You have zero interest in an exchange of views, and zero awareness of the flaws in your own argument. You insist on generalisation, half-truths, suppositions posing as facts, and statements of opinion put forth as evidence. Your house of cards is tumbling down, dear. Your thread-about-a-thread has gone pretty much nowhere.

"And for that reason, I'm out."

Oh and one other thing Frog to the contrary of what you say there are more posters that agree with my morals than do with yours. I ask because one day I hope to find someone that can actually explain how/why a lot of NRPs behaviour is acceptable to society when to me and many other it is yet another example of piss poor parenting. Maybe I won't find my answer in someone else because I already have it.

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

Why do you think 45% of CSA cases being assessed as £5 or £0 is awful?

You have no idea of the context, not a clue what proportion of all separated parents it equates to and fail to acknowledge that CSA cases are as unrepresentative of society as a whole as your professional experience is.

I haven't actually said things would be better one way or another my view point is very much open to how things could be changed to benefit the children more. Inserting more children into the dynamic instead of paying for your existing children is not the answer to me, so shoot me.

I was open to a debate end of story. I still am. I never once said I would exchange views.

And actually my thread-about-a-thread(?) has solidified my views and probably a few others that something is seriously wrong with the system.

And it really hasn't been lost on any poster on this thread that is defending wastes of space men are married to or paretners of the NRP. Thou doth protest to much?

If it's hit a nerve it's for a very good bloody reason.

partners*

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?

Are they mutually exclusive? The RP/NRP status is a legal one, and I am, for the purposes of the law, a RP.
A "shared care parent" is not a term I've heard before but (presumably) refers to the fact that I share my DDs care with her equal parent and is what all responsible parents aspire to?

Frog Seriously? Why is it awful? 45% of RP claiming child maintenance for their children which they share with their ex partner get £0-£5 a week and you need a reason as to why that's shocking?

It's shocking because in simple terms it takes a hell of alot more than that to raise them. That isn't even a tin of milk or a packet of nappies. Or for older children it barely covers 2 days lunches.

Not only have you just proved your view point of what a child deserves from a NRP, you have also proved you are ignorant and morally bankrupt yourself.

FYI - That's an insult based on fact and without your precious middlescore.

I share my DDs care with her equal parent and is what all responsible parents aspire to?

Not if it's in the childs best interest to be kept away from their father no.

Not in*

To answer some questions:

60% statistic is taken from DWP research.

CSA/CMEC has more than 1 million cases on its books. There are approximately 2.5 million lone parent families in the UK.

hud you've just proved brdgrls point. You have neither read, nor comprehended the post that was made and have jumped on it as evidence of your point when it is exactly the opposite.

The statistic quoted related to cases administered by the CSA.

You have misquoted that as referring to "45% of RP claiming CM".

But don't let that glaring inaccuracy stand in the way of you making your point about my values and beliefs.

You've also proved the point I made earlier, which is the reason why the Government has stopped listening to RP is because of the ill informed and poorly considered (or in this case, inaccurate) expectations.

Thanks dahlen.

Would you happen to know if 'the "lone parent" figure includes RP who have remarried (and who should therefore included in CM recipient figures) or only the proportion who are single?

Ok frog

Who else apart from PWC or CWC apply for CSA?

The rest of your post you can rest assured I've rolled my eyes at but there is zero point in debating with you. Considering previous posts I have known and seen of yours I don't hold your opinion in that high regard.

The DWP research was debated at lengthen a thread a few months ago, and iirc, it was established that it included widowed single parents.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I really didn't want to waste any more time on this, but since you've put forth another insulting and erroneous assumption, I will have another go.

I haven't actually said things would be better one way or another
Yes you bloody have! Your own OP is precisely about how things could be "better" and repeatedly you have asserted that the answer is for NRPs not to make certain choices that would (potentially) impact on their CM payments.

I was open to a debate end of story. I still am. I never once said I would exchange views
I am confused, then. Do you understand what it means to "exchange views", hud? Not "change views", "exchange views."

And actually my thread-about-a-thread(?) has solidified my views and probably a few others that something is seriously wrong with the system.
There are hardly any posters on this thread actualy agreeing with you. There have been those who are actually "agreeing" with a completely different point about enforcement, which NO ONE has any disagreement with. And a few have made general comments about not liking to see NRPs get away with nonpayment. A very, very few if any that have built upon your actual arguments about NRPs having more children, etc...actually, given what an emotive topic this is, you should probably be discouraged by the lukewarm reaction you have gotten.

And it really hasn't been lost on any poster on this thread that is defending wastes of space men are married to or paretners of the NRP. Thou doth protest to much?
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here as it is not a complete sentence, but let me just make one thing VERY CLEAR. My husband is not an NRP and neither am I. You're making a completely WRONG assumption about my situation simply because you can't believe someone might disagree with you on any other grounds. Very telling.

If it's hit a nerve it's for a very good bloody reason.
You have hit a nerve with me for the following reasons: 1) I can't stand people that can't engage in a logical argument; 2) I believe strongly in reproductive rights; 3) I have children; 4) I believe passionately that ALL parents have a right to pursue education and personal growth; and 5) My husband and I have prioritised other aspects of life for our children over our financial security, and I find it deeply offensive when it is suggested either that we have no 'right' to do so, or that any other parent ought to be deprived of the ability to make similar choices.

It's single parents only.

dahlen so out of 1 million loan parents 45% receive £5 or less a week?

It's single parents only.

brdgrl If you don't want to waste anymore time then off you go, other than the first paragraphs I haven't bothered to actually read your post. Your views have been made clear, there is zero debate with you so I'm not really all that interested.

Of cases with the csa, yes. Some 840,000 of those 1m are considered eligible for maintenance.

brdgrl If you don't want to waste anymore time then off you go, other than the first paragraphs I haven't bothered to actually read your post. Your views have been made clear, there is zero debate with you so I'm not really all that interested.

And there you show exactly what sort of person you are. Congratulations.

I 100% agree that it's pisspoor that a NRP can get away without paying a basic minimum % to any children they have and that its made so easy for them to do so.

My personal experience of the CSA is that they couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery. I spoke to 3 different people over the course of a week, and they all told me different things.

Since I opened a case with them nearly a year ago, I have not received a penny, but then that's because my ex is an arsehole who puts his step children above his own children, and his dp encourages him to do so. (i guess she's just putting her dc 1st, but I personally couldnt be with a man who behaved like that)

hud. The point is that not all PWC apply via the CSA. In fact, the 1M figure quoted by dahlen is a minority of parents - most separated parents sort it out on their own.

So, the 45% figure that horrifies you but that I think is to be expected is only 45% of a minority of all.

And, those 1m cases handled by the CSA are not representative of the whole. They include, for instance, all minor (under 18) parents. And all parents in prison. And all parents with debt management plans. Because there is other legislation that says that they have to use the CSA. And these parents are more likely then others to have a zero or £5 assessment.

But hey, you carry on pearl clutching about how awful it is that a 14 year old isn't financially contributing to his DC and what a dreadful person I am to think differently.

One who doesn't agree with NRP exploiting their apparent rights at the financial detriment of another household? I'll take your congratulations proudly.