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.

I tried finding the old thread earlier with no joy,any body better at searching than me care to give it a go and link?

Sock what was the thread?

Who says that the remainder receive maintenance?

Any post which suggests children of second marriages should not be born if it impacts on children from first marriages falls dead in the water and is disgraceful.

The birth of subsequent children invariably financially impacts on other children - regardless of whether both parents are the same or only one is.

I don't see why my desire to have children with my much adored husband should be affected by his ex wife's desire to fuck the local tosser during their marriage.

In the same vein I don't see why my ex husband should not move on, get married and have children and me and my DCs from that marriage have less maint as a result - if exh and I had stayed together and had more children then those children would have received less money.

hud it is interesting that you have decided not to read my posts, rather than have to respond.
You post on AIBU, you don't like what I have had to say, and you throw out what appears to be essentially an accusation that my DH is a "waste of space" when he isn't even an NRP. When I correct that assumption, you say you can't be arsed to read my correction, let alone apologize for your false assumption.
That is really fucking rude.

shewont - exactly.

All this hand-wringing over the children of first marriages, but does this guarantee of minimum income apply to the innocent children of future relationships? It seems not...

I didn't respond to you because you said you were out.

Who says that the remainder receive maintenance?

By George, I think she's got it!

No one knows hud - that's my point. No one even really knows how many separated parents are - so no one knows what proportion of the whole the CSA deal with.

What is certain is that there are a disproportionate number of cases managed by the CSA which have a £0 or £5 assessment due to other legislation (as I've said, minor parents, prisoners, those subject to debt management plans). That means that the 45% figure is not unexpected given the profile of the cases the CSA handle.

Bullshit. You didn't respond, according to you, because you 'aren't interested' in my views. You're only interested in banging your drum incessantly. If you can't write my views off because I am a bitter wife of a NRP, you aren't interested.

Strangely enough, my exh and I don't go through the CSA because we are both reasonable level headed people, by the same token our divorce was achieved by a civil discussion, quick trip to building society and solicitor to take me off mortgage and share equity and divorce papers we completed together.

My DH divorce involved years in family court at a horrendous cost (to us) and legal aid, a judge returning the papers with a disclaimer because he didn't think the settlement was fair (as in unfair to dh but he just wanted out), DHs attempts at unofficial maint payments (at well over csa rates), were judged by ex as not enough - apparently I should support him, myself, my DCs and one of theirs (who had nothing to do with mum) - while he supported ex and the one remaining dc.

Now that cm is handled by csa - because it was impossible to do anything else.

While that is anecdotal we are with csa because his exw is totally off the wall - normally reasonable divorced couples who are able to work together for the best for their children avoid csa like the plague.

I'll read and respond tomorrow then shall I? If you're not out don't say you are.

Now for the night I'm out.

Also FWIW if I had a choice I wouldn't give her 10pence after what she put us and her own children through - she dedicated herself to making their and our lives as difficult as possible, she didn't care about her children or their financial stability when she was playing games with courts and solicitors time, that she wasn't paying for.

Are you ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with you hud

Nope not ignoring, postponing until I've had a good night sleep. HTH

needsasock here it is - all 21 pages of it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1940196-to-wonder-why-men-are-almost-always-the-non-resident-parent

The trouble with this issue is that it is highly emotive. Given that you are twice as likely as the rest of the population to be living in poverty if you are a single parent however, it is clearly the case that maintenance has a role to play and for those determined to get out of paying it there are few consequences. Add to this that a working lone parent (more than half of them) bears the majority, if not all, of the responsibility of child care costs too while a NRP benefits from free child care.

The trouble is that it's rarely as simple as all that. The CSA exists to handle cases that are jn conflict and yet only seems to achieve success in cases where the NRP is a straightforward PAYE or benefit dependent case. While the persistent non payers escape. This has understandably led to cases where those who will pay feel hounded. CM deducted at source using my model above would do a lot to alleviate this, it would even be tax deductible. It would be viewed as a legitimate and mandatory living expense and would also eradicate continued harassment.

Residency, contact and PROs need to be kept entirely separate issues from CM since a child needs financial support regardless of the harmonious or car crash nature of the parents' separation.

I was an LP for 5 long years - I worked 12 hour days but never did I feel like I was getting the rough end of the deal - I had my DCs - when I decided to split from ex - I planned it thoroughly - I studied, got promoted, hunted down a FT from PT job and then I left.

I believe NRPs should pay and I agree the CSA are useless - we are paying a woman who managed to avoid csa assessed maint payments for 4.5 years. But this children I second marriages shouldn't be born bollox really, really pisses me off.

My husband wanted to kill himself he was so desperate to leave and couldn't see a way out, he used to fantasize about dying.

Then he as an emotional abuse victim found the courage to leave and met me - and I desperately wanted children - if we hadn't had them I would not have continued the relationship - so should men and women like him be denied a future. It was never his choice for his ex wife to become involved with OM.

And where do LP who get pregnant again, want to retrain etc fit in - should they not strive for a better future either.

This part of the OP sickens me - literally "
Moving in with someone who has children

Having further children"

You know - some people just want a happy family life.

And I'm an exw, former LP, second wife, second and first family mother and SP - so I've got or had a boot in just about every camp there is on this one.

Thank you frog, that was kind

Yanbu OP.

There will always be feckless NRPs who refuse to provide proper financial support for their children. There will always be feckless new partners who encourage and facilitate this.

There will always be women who insist that their rights to have a child far outweigh the rights of any existing children to be cared for financially.
The current system where an NRP is allowed to screw his or her children over even more when they take on someone else's kids or have more if their own, is unfair and flawed.

But for every feckless, selfish money grabbing NRP there are good decent ones who ensure that their children don't suffer financially because of lifestyle choices that THEY make. You just have to hope that they hook up with a decent and good second partner.

The current system where an NRP is allowed to screw his or her children over even more when they take on someone else's kids or have more if their own, is unfair and flawed.

Is the value of a family home environment with their NRP worth less then £4 a week? Is a DC really screwed over by having a happy NRP, and by sharing part of their life with another family?
Are we really that monitarily driven as a society that we can no longer place a value on family, friends and happiness?

NRP who create a welcoming home environment for their DCs with step and half siblings aren't screwing over their DCs. It's the deadbeat ones who do that and in those cases, the lack of financial support is superficial - the damage goes far, far deeper.

We don't provide a happy home life for dHs children - but it wasn't for lack of trying, so what's the point there.

Their mother was determined they were never going to be happy with their father - she had no dad and believed his place in their life was as a cash point.

We did have one live with us until he was removed by police for assaulting me (he was adult), ironically he still didn't chose to go back to his mother.

Again, anecdotal, but in our scenario - DH is berated for "shacking up" with me and my DD because apparently we cost him money (never mind the fact that I earn more than him and he actually doesn't take advantage of the reduction in CM because of living with my child)

But Mum has gone on to have a baby with her new partner and has decided not to go back to work and to be a stay at home Mum, meaning that DSD often goes without (well, she doesn't because my DH covers it)

Mum's reasoning as to why it's okay for DSD to have few funds in the home with Mum is that she is providing her with a "family" instead which she thinks is more valuable to all of them than money she may earn from working. Fine.

But DH's decision to move in with us and have a "family" for DSD when she comes here (not to mention the personal emotional value and happiness he gets from this) is selfish and feckless?

What it comes down to is a lack of compassion for other people's (particularly your ex's) values and freedom to choose. You'd rather have the £4 a week in your pocket than in your partner's. No value is placed on the set up that the NRP provides, therefore the only logical thing is that money should be given.

I'm afraid it is grabby.

But this is a completely separate issue from that of those NRPs who simply don;t pay or who lie about earning etc. in order to get out of paying.

I think what has got people's backs up is that the list in the OP is presented as if it all comes under the same scummy umbrella.

monet oh do keep up, you're a bit behind!

Too many to actually reply to but to clear a few things up:-

I'm not sure how it can be bitterness fuelling my views since my situation doesn't even remotely resemble the one that it being discussed.

With regards to the step children/further children argument. I have not once said that NRP shouldn't be free to move in with whomever they like and continue their life however they like. What I have said is to do that knowing that the result of that will be a decrease in the amount that you currently give to your children is pretty low. There is the figure £4 going about however that is only based on 1 child. And if it's such a low figure that the RP can do without for their children then why would the NRP remove it. Presumably if it's such a low amount that the RP should barely even notice it why is it so important to hold onto that in the first place for the NRP?

I will always stand by my views that if you cannot afford to maintain the finance that you give to your DC by having further kids or moving in with someone that does then why would you do it? Have I actually said it shouldn't be allowed? No. Because it's entirely unrealistic, you can't stop people from having children plain and simple but I personally would not go onto have another child unless it meant that I could provide equal financial support to both that wouldn't leave my living breathing child going without.

There is also talk the RP can have further children and that would mean less money spent on their DC. Well I'm wondering what the difference here really is. The RP is responsible for providing everything for their DC (minus any maintenance they get, if they actually get it), those costs of essentials do not go down because you have another child. They still need clothes, shoes, food, etc etc. Now when a NRP pays maintenance as most of you have said it should be spent directly on DC, so presumably clothes, shoes or any other essential, again those essential don't change so lowering a maintenance payment will mean that through a NRP personal choices the RP who already does the lions share of the work and takes on the majority financial responsibility will have to make up that difference from their budget themselves.

As per a previous post it was determined that a single parent will pay approximately 2/3 of the cost of raising children. A NRP 1/3.

Also what the post was originally about there are men who use these things to their advantage. I worked with a man 2 weeks ago who moved in with his new girlfriend who has 3 children purely to lower his CSA payment for his own DC. He was fairly open that he would only be staying until he got somewhere of his own but would continue to claim he was living with girlfriend in order to keep the amount of CSA lowered.

Now that was what the OP was about. There are a lot of the same posters (brdgrl I did not say you specifically) that post here that are married to or partner of NRP so I guess it's expected that you will stand for your right to lower maintenance to fit in with your own family.

However as someone who has not received a penny in maintenance I would not support anyone who didn't fully financially support their children and I certainly wouldn't let them use my family as an excuse to lessen his responsibility to his existing family. To me that is scraping the bottom of the barrel and I wouldn't want to be with a man like that or have him around my daughter.