To think he should still pay maintenance if he takes a 'career break'

[PIPERHELLO]

Just that really. He's very well paid (six figs) and planning a career break. I am struggling to find a definitive answer online as to whether he can be forced (by court / Child Maintenance service) to continue paying maintenance if he voluntarily leaves his job.

Thanks.

I will go back to court but just sending a couple of enforcement letters first to lay a paper trial that I've tried to recover it before dashing back to court!

I put a thread in divorce/separation about it but it was a bit garbled as I wrote it in anger! Then drip fed unsuccessfully.

Sorry to derail yours OP!

You're equating an NRP who doesn't contribute financially to a SAHP who contributes in literally every other way they can?

I don't make the law, and the law cannot be altered to suit one person. If you want the law altered so that anyone parent not working, with no income, has to make a financial contribution then that will impact on the many SAHPs.

Who measures 'impact' or 'value' of the NRP in time? It is unmeasurable.

this man is a high earner and has the luxury to live off savings for however long and just drops their children.

Has he actually dropped contact with his children? (Do we know how old the children are) will they be keeping up contact? is he a Disney dad full of gadgets and good times? We don't ever get enough information on these cases.

And we can all come at it with anecdotal stories - I'll give you the abridged version of my colleague (this is going back 10 years so the benefits system has changed somewhat)

• 3 children

• H left her with 3 under 5
• H 6 figure salary, paid in the region of 3k per month maint
• friend worked as a TA, deliberately on short hours, 25 hours per week, take home was around 1200 pcm
• opened up the world of tax credits
• had one child with ASD - I did the DLA forms for her, she got full award
• ex H very good at extras - eg driving lessons, car, car tax and insurance, petrol allowance, sports clubs, school trips

So her income was in the region of £5,500 per month - I don't think anyone would odds that that is a healthy income? Never saved a penny, never over paid her mortgage, went ape shit every time a child hit 18, left college and maint was proportionally reduced.

The Op here has obviously had a hefty steady maint stream incoming, plus all the other add ons, has she prepared for the day this ends. Her ex might have fallen under a bus, become terminally ill, had a second family, had a breakdown , any number of reasons for giving up work/income falling away. A poster made a wise comment a few days ago - maint should be treated as a bonus, never relied upon becaue you never know when it might end.

My colleague ? her solution was to have a melt down and pack each child off to live with its father, new partner and baby half brother until he reinstated hand outs (because it was no longer maint)

And of course I do throw in the odd grenade on these posts - I have no idea who the OPs husband is - for all I know he could be a top notch surgeon who is having a mental break down hence a career break. Who ever he is, on 6 figures, clearly money isn't his God, or he would keep on earning, he''s perhaps burned out and needs some time out for his own mental health and well being too. Who knows, we only ever get one side of the story and are expected to believe this is the whole truth, the whole set of circumstances, when its unlikely to be anything more than an edited version for maximum thread impact.

misillusioned I think it should be a criminal offence anyway!

@PlainSpeakingStraightTalking

Very well put.

Good post Plain

I think child maintenance should br paid to the RP by the government and claimed back from the NRP. Then the RP could rely on the money and any attempts to evade payment from the NRP to the government department could be treated as a criminal offence like tax evasion.
I am sure this would make government departments look at closing some of these loopholes nrps exploit so as not to pay

Yep!

I am sure this would make government departments look at closing some of these loopholes nrps exploit so as not to pay

Or it might decide the NRP can become the RP …. be careful what you wish for

Earnings based maintenance is a flawed system which is the cause of a keeping far too many women/children impoverished and has longer term implications for the RP's financial position.

I'm in agreement that it's misogyny/sex discrimination/patriarchy at the root of the problem but lets stick to RP/NRP for the sake of being PC.

The absolute basic cost of raising a child does not actually vary according to earnings. Sure, some parents spend more on clothes/food/housing than others but there is an underlying basic cost that exists until the child reaches the age of being able to support themselves. Let's assume for simplicity that the age is 18.

The RP shoulders the financial burden of raising the child(ren) including the psychological/emotional impact of that burden. The NRP currently contributes based on earnings so their contribution fluctuates whereas the underlying basic cost of raising the child does not fluctuate dependent on earnings, remaining constant and generally increasing as they get older.

If the NRP decides to study/become a SAHP/remain unemployed/become self-employed "but making very little money", the RP's overall income used to raise the children falls despite the fact that the cost of raising the child(ren) remains constant/increases over time. Consequently the RP is likely to go short financially, possibly failing to be able to pay into pension etc, possibly accruing debt.

The NRP is free to earn whatever they can from the age their children reach 18 and the RP is left with a life long shortfall in overall income due to the years when the NRP pissed about avoiding/minimising the amount paid towards raising their own children.

Simple solution...….make maintenance a cumulative (possibly low interest) debt and stop linking it to earnings/lack of. Set a reasonable basic minimum amount which accumulates as a debt if not paid at the relevant time.

This would mean that the debt accrued over the dependant period of the child(ren)'s lives would still be owed to the RP if it is "unable" to be paid during those years up to the age of 18. Then there would be no point in playing silly games to avoid/minimise the maintenance payments but no undue hardship for the NRP during periods of genuine unemployment/sickness/SAHP etc.

In the OP's circumstances above the children's father wouldn't be able to avoid paying in the long run so might be persuaded to continue paying from savings during his career break.

Oh, and one more thing. Cancel passports of any NRP unable to keep up with basic maintenance payments. Not having to pay for holidays abroad (or just the spending money if "someone else" is allegedly paying for the holiday).

Oops posted to soon.

not having to pay for holidays abroad might free up some funds for paying the maintenance needed by the RP.

See I disagree its geared towards men. If we assume the resident parent is the woman:

1. Mother doesn't have to declare maintenance as part of household income for benefit purposes but father cannot claim any deduction before working out if he's entitled to anything

1. If fathers income falls it has to fall by at least 25% before he can claim any reduction in payment meaning father with variable overtime can be tied into making payments out of money they don't have

1. Mother can lie and because she has the children it is assumed she is telling the truth unless father proves otherwise.

1. If there is an underpayment then the father can have collect and pay imposed and a deduction in earnings at the last resort. If there is an overpayment, the only way the father can get the overpayment back is to take the mother to small claims court.

If you are on PAYE and a higher average earner, EVERYTHING is loaded to the mother.

Purposeful deprivation of income for child maintenance should be punishable by massive fines proportionate to the NRPs assets which are enforceable by the court system so non-payment results in a CCJ.

These people are abdicating all responsibility for their children and it shouldn't be allowed, if money is so precious to them. Hit them where it hurts (this applies to men and women who abandon their children with no maintenance).

Oh, and father cannot work overtime to pay for something specific without a portion going to the children. In families which are together, it is not unusual for overtime to be worked to pay for a golf holiday or a new car for example without the children benefiting.

And finally, paying on time every month does not mean the mother can be forced to allow the father to see the children even where there is no court reason or welfare reason not to. Again, the only way to enforce this is take the mother to court.

Also, as well as the above, as a gesture of good faith the RP should be forced to prove that the money provided to them is spent on the children and not frittered away on hair cuts and holidays (that their kids likely don't want)

it could be like an end of tax year thing where they have to provide receipts on food. The kids can then be weighed and a calculation done to ensure that they have consumed this food. the nrp should not be responsible for the rp.

I don't think this subject can ever be debated sensibly as there is so much bitterness and selective logic, as this thread proves.
Some nrps are dead beats and do anything they can to avoid paying. Some, but not all.
Some rps are utterly unreasonable and their only concern is getting as much cash out of the nrp as possible. Some, but not all.
The trouble is, these threads attract a certain mn demographic with an axe to grind, and often ridiculous projections of their own situation (as they see it)
They don't want opinions, but just an echo chamber, which is exactly what they get.

But wouldn’t courts take into account other money?

@whatdoesitmatteranyway

1. you do know the reason that maintenance isn't counted for benefit purposes is because NRP's can be unreliable in paying it ?

2. "if you're the parent paying maintenance you should tell the CMS if:
   your current income changes by 25 per cent or more" So it works both ways, income can increase by over 20% with no need to inform CMS

3. NRP's can lie too and often do, even getting family and friends to lie for them !

4. Do you have statistics regarding the current level of outstanding arrears in comparison to overpayments. I suspect one is negligible compared to the other so not worth mentioning.

You should never rely on maintenance or benefits tbh, can be stopped at anytime.

he''s perhaps burned out and needs some time out for his own mental health and well being too

With respect that’s tough shit. The OP hasn’t the luxury of time out. You procreate, you financially support your offspring.

If you don’t you’re a dick.

The reason maintenance isn't counted towards benefits is because we've tried that already, and ended up with situations where some RPs had nothing when the NRP decided not to pay. In order to be able to take maintenance off the value of benefits received, we would need a maintenance enforcement system with sufficient teeth to prevent RPs from not paying when they don't feel like it. We don't. It is, of course, mere coincidence that the majority of people benefitting from a system where we don't force all NRPs to pay are male.

Catontherun and Jacqueshammet, thanks for proving my point

If we could all just agree that all men are misogynistic bullies and all women are virtuous victims, life would be soooo much easier.

cathf

Except it didn’t “prove your point”. I have no axe to grind. My ex is an amazing man who amongst other things:-

Paid spousal maintenance for 2 years as I gave up my career to support his.
Has a flexible income and adjusts his maintenance each month, never falling below an agreed amount.
Has ring-fenced an inheritance so if he doesn’t earn he can still pay maintenance.

I just think if you’re a parent, you BE a parent. Not opt out. By all means opt out of a marriage, but parenthood should be non-negotiable.

But just to point out Cath I didn’t mention sex of the parent....is that your own assumptions at play?

The only reason we’re discussing a man in this instance is the OP is mentioning an ex-husband. My point is exactly the same for either parent.

@Jaques With respect that’s tough shit. The OP hasn’t the luxury of time out. You procreate, you financially support your offspring.

I suppose a dead father is even better - you can milk his estate?

@jaques You procreate, you financially support your offspring.

^^ this, in my opinion, should include the RP (usually the mother) - so taking your line here literally - you'd do away with state sponsored financial support and make all parents work to fund their desire to procreate? I look forward to a reduction in my tax burden if this is the case.

I suppose a dead father is even better - you can milk his estate?

You’re extrapolating massively.

You can deny my point is true all you like but it’s valid. The RP does not have the luxury to opt out of financial support whether for their “mental health” or not.

And yeah, we BOTH have life insurance policies so the ex-partner will get the benefit of our estates to support our child. Neither of us (and most importantly our daughter) will be negatively impacted financially by the other’s death, leaving us free to focus on supporting our child through it.

You might call that “milking the estate” I just see it as sensible financial planning where child(ren) are involved.