Should CM be considered as part of income

[SnowJon]

Should Child Maintenance be included when claiming benefits?

Example child maintenance is being paid to the resident carer. Why should that parent then be enabled to claim further benefits like Free school meals etc? Is that not what the cm is for?

The system is screwed in my eyes

And wages are too low compared to rent.

We as a society should be aiming for a situation whereby no one needs top ups to live. With the exception of medical need

YABU. We've already tried your idea and it failed. Because it requires a system that enforces consistent maintenance payments, and we don't have one.

I'm going to go out on a limb, based on threads I've seen recently, and guess that @SnowJon is the wife/partner of a non-resident parent who resents the amount of maintenance being paid to the resident parent/her partner's ex...

SnowJon you sound like an idiot. A quick Google will tell you that only a small proportion actually gets paid, billions is owed.

How can it be relied on as income when for most it never comes? Also no matter the resident persons income, the non resident person should still pay towards their own children.

Also it should never be reduced because new children are born, the original child or children was here first.

In addition the cms levels are pitifully low, especially when the non resident is a high earner.

Go and do some research then come back to discuss.

My sister claims UC (she also works ft, minimum wage), she also gets cm of £500 per month when her ex bothers to pay it. He sometimes "forgets", he sometimes "can't afford it, I'm decorating", sometimes he doesn't pay because he took the kids on holiday that month, etc. In the 7 years they've been separated he's not paid almost as many months as he has paid. He thinks he's a good dad and she's fleecing him.

My sister has to be able to pay her bills and feed the kids without his cm, because if she was relying on it she and her children would be going hungry on a regular basis. If UC took the cm into account the household would be short of a couple of thousand each year, because he doesn't pay so often. Even as it is, where she gets the full amount of UC, and the kids get free school meals, she is painfully thin because when he doesn't pay cm she prioritises feeding the kids rather than herself (which is the right priority, but leaves her hungry a lot).

Whether male or female SnowJon is a fool.

You know nothing, SnowJon

YABU. The reason CMS payments aren’t taken into account with benefits is because it’s relatively easy for a NRP to stop paying child support whenever they want and notoriously difficult and a long process to get them to start paying again.

Anyone who begrudges children of split parents not living in poverty because of this set up is a massive wanker IMO.

The only way this would be workable is if the CM amount was paid to the RP by the state and then the state claimed it back from the NRP. With severe penalties for non payment similar to non payment of taxes.

Otherwise there I too much of a risk of leaving children without

It’s not money for the parent, it’s money for the child. That’s another reason why it shouldn’t be classed as income
It wouldn't work as RP could claim most of their wage is spent for the child, it wouldn't be tax deductible.
It should only be taking into consideration if it is a guaranteed payment, as it is not it shouldn't.
The government should deduct the maintenance from NRP if they want to include it as income.

I haven’t voted because of course you’re right in theory, but in practice no, you’re completely wrong for all the reasons people have said upthread.

I don’t know how other countries manage this? I know that the US is better at attaching income (and their IRS are truly fearsome). Is there a country which treats non-payment if child support as criminal child neglect?

The only way this would work is if the CM payment was paid by the state, and they then reclaimed this from the NRP- like tax. Until a system like that is in place, the NRP can stop paying on a whim and screw over the resident parent and their children.

Even with a system like that in place, you could end up with situations where the resident parent is suddenly left short- e.g. if the NRP lost their job and didn't tell the resident parent.

The system at the moment tries to protect the children of separated parents, which is as it should be.

But yes Missillusioned’s ides could work - it would be astronomically expensive to implement for all CM recipients but it might be possible to implement it for who are in the UC system.

You do have a point OP if you only take the ones who receive regular maintenance payments into account.
Unfortunately to many don't recieve regular maintenance there is no way of policing it.
Some people will always be better off but you need to protect those who would lose out.

I do see what you’re saying. I don’t get a penny as ex doesn’t work or claim benefits. So no maintenance at all for 4 children and it’s always been this way. Yet some people are getting £1000+ a month and still benefits aswell. I told my sister about some of the amount people get on here and she was like “wow you wouldn’t need to work if you got that amount”

I’m in 2 minds. I completely accept that if it was included and ex fails to pay then NRP would be short which is unacceptable HOWEVER as it isn’t included, now my ex has moved overseas and stopped paying, I am short £65 a week whilst not being entitled to any additional help.

For me this is the money that pays for the extras like Xmas, school photos, days out, school dinners etc and it is now missing.

The only option is to take him to court which isn’t feasible at the moment. He is untraceable and it’ll be costly to get anything out of him. If we ever did he knows how to play the system.

So I don’t necessarily think is should be included BUT it should be taken into account for those who don’t receive it on a permanent basis.

I am a lone parent who receives CM.

If the system is in place to protect the child then no, it shouldn't be taken into account.
The NRP can stop payments whenever they like.

The idea we are all in receipt of a whole range of benefits is not true.
I am not entitled to free school meals or housing benefit. I receive tax credits, like alot of couples do.

Any income at any time can just stop coming in , there are no guarantees (with a wage, a company can go bust etc)

The way I see it at the moment is the system is open to abuse by both the RP and the non paying NRP.

So the abiding NRP is giving the agreed amount of money for the Children why then should the RP be allowed to claim for school meals etc? Seems wrong in my eyes cos this wouldn't be available if still together

The RP can abuse and control what's best for the child when in fact is best for them to line their own pocket.

Are you not reading the posts about what happens when NRPs suddenly stop paying? We know this because it's what happened when we tried it.

You’re arguing about feeding children.

Feeding Children? That's the bit that gets thrown around so easily and is why the system is abused. The debate is much more nuanced than that and is open to abuse.

The debate isn't nuanced. Your idea has been tried and failed.

Oh I agree. All those resident parents living the high life because their DC get a free sandwich. Something should be done.

Snowjon you are just seeing what you want to see. Again with the school meals, this is not a given, I do not qualify and I am far from comfortable. Blanket assumptions are not helpful.

The other point here is that the government calculation of what should be given by the NRP is a bare minimum. RP are lining their pockets?

What a load of bitter bullshit, I hope you feel better soon.