Child maintenance during lockdown

[Idratherbeasleep]

So I got a text from the cms today saying payments are going down to £6.87 a week of something down from £50, DC's dad is self employed I think, has been fiddling his earnings for years. I've been furloughed so am 20% down already, luckily we can still get by, it will be tight though. I get people aren't working to earn money but I feel a bit annoyed that it seems to be the resident parents who are left in the shit in a sense. And yes before you jump on me I get he has Bills to pay too and isn't earning anything, but. I am paying more having DC at home constantly in food, bills etc. Still need clothes and shoes. He's had years of working FT all the hours he can (literally) only declaring a small amount now has a mortgage while I've only been able to work minimum wage/flexible jobs because I cant afford childcare. Like I said luckily we will get by but aibu to think they need to come up with a plan for this? I mean I know people who do rely on maintenance to feed/clothe their kids and if the nrp is able to just call up cms and say I'm not working I cant pay with no questions surely lots of kids are really going to suffer?

Plenty of people you speak to any the CMS care.

One of my friends handles calls from people like you and she's regularly breaking down at home right now because everyone is shouting at her and being utterly vile.

So please don't say they don't care.

@Umnoway I got my furlough money today too, what a prick!

CubixRube if cms did care then they could use their powers to enforce maintenance. They don’t though. They do nothing if your ex won’t pay. There is literally no consequences. I’m sorry your friend is getting abuse but that’s why she’s upset, not because people aren’t getting cm. and I’ve never been rude to anyone at the cms despite how frustrating it is.

Is that fair? It’s possible they care but don’t have the resources to effectively help everyone.

Of course they have the powers. They choose not to use them. If this was mainly men being affected then trust me it wouldn’t be so easy to get out of paying. How someone can get away without ever paying for their children I will never know. Cms dont give a shit.

@Idratherbeasleep yup and I’m guessing my ex was paid too, the amount is only going to increase the longer he delays it so I’m not sure why he’s doing it really. Maybe thinks he can get away without paying it all together.

Plenty of people you speak to any the CMS care

I'm sure on an individual basis they do, however the CMS has powers to enforce maintenance they simply choose not to use. The CMS as an organisation simply aren't interested and it isn't difficult to see why.

I'm sorry your friend has received abuse; that's inexcusable.

It really bothers me when the through process in general is: -

Man has no money and can't pay for their children: - "oh well if he can't pay, he can't pay"

Woman has no money and can't pay for their children: - "tough shit you have to adapt"

Why are we still as a society allowing this to happen?

Woman has no money and can't pay for their children: - "tough shit you have to adapt"

Women are eligible for increased benefits if they have children, so it’s not exactly “tough shit”.
If she isn’t earning, she can access financial help.
Whether that help is fit for purpose is another discussion, but benefits do take into account dependent children. I suspect the CMs would have far greater motivation if CM affected benefits- but as pp have said, unless CM is completely reliable the admin costs more than discounting.

It’s a complicated subject and one that is never going to be resolved.

I think individual call- handlers care. It would be really tough to receive distressed/angry phone calls. At the highest managerial and political levels, they care mainly about not visibly failing. The concern is to
find ways to make the bottom line look okay (by writing off arrears/reducing amounts owed). It's just the somewhat cynical way that management works. Set your KPIs and be seen to meet them.

Whether that help is fit for purpose is another discussion, but benefits do take into account dependent children

I think people forget this. It’s more difficult for a man to access benefits to keep him afloat but women do have greater access. Things like child benefit, PIP, carers allowance (I know not everyone will get these but for those that do they represent quite a significant sum) are not shared regardless of how often the father has the children.

CMS is not fit for purpose and it’s very much a one size fits all. I have total respect for women that struggle alone. I know many have no choice.

But equally I think there are women for whom no sum is enough. Clearly I’m not talking about women on the breadline, but I do think there are women that seem to want compensating for having children rather than a proportion to their overheads. I don’t think focusing on the lifestyle of your ex is particularly helpful for maintenance purposes. Some people are careful with their money and others splash it. You don’t know someone’s worth from the outside looking in. Which is why CMS can look at tax returns.

There are often no winners in blended families, least of all the children.

Women are eligible for increased benefits if they have children, so it’s not exactly “tough shit”

Some women are eligible....but yet still we’re focusing on women coping whilst men are walking away with a spring in their step.

I don’t think focusing on the lifestyle of your ex is particularly helpful for maintenance purposes

It's very helpful actually. Our lifestyles depend heavily on our income...cm is based on income.

Some people live on tick and others don’t. Some people value designer clothes others don’t. Lifestyle isn’t the only indication of earnings. A tax return is especially for those on PAYE. CMS is a proportion of income and not lifestyle choices marked by extravagance.

Lifestyle isn’t the only indication of earnings

Of course...I never said it was but what this thread shows us is there's many women out there who know their ex has the ability to contribute more but thanks to clever accounting can legally get away with not providing more for their dc. It might be legal but it's immoral.

I agree. I think you have misunderstood my point. I meant more being bitter because you perceive the dad has a better standard of living isn’t helpful. It’s all relative to what each of you value (in terms of spending) and it’s easy to be bitter. It works the opposite way of course.

I agree clever accounting etc with a view to reducing maintenance is crap.

Women are eligible for increased benefits if they have children, so it’s not exactly “tough shit”

Really? What about women who are middle or higher earners? Not everyone gets benefits. Or are we saying because you earn over benefit thresholds you earn ‘enough’ so child maintenance doesn’t matter?

It should not matter how much money or benefits the women get, they could be really well off and working hard to provide for their family and the none resident parent could be on only £20000 a year, they still should pay for their children.

I know this isn’t what you asked but there has been a letter sent to the Chancellor about increasing child benefit to £50 per child. If you are eligible and it would benefit, maybe see if there is a petition or else send a copy of the letter to your MP to try to get more momentum behind it?

The link is here (in it’s entirely for people who don’t like clicking on blind links) and it links on to the letter that was sent as a PDF. www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/c-March-20/Helping-families-facing-Covid-19-crisis

@Aeris1

Well it does if those benefits are directly towards the care of the child. If one parent is receiving x amount for the perceived costs and the other parent has the child 40 or even 50 percent of the time (there is no provision to share such benefits) than the parent who doesn’t receive them has to absorb that cost themselves. If the costs are reflective of the child demanding a higher level of care those costs don’t disappear at the RP’s door.

CMS is supposed to reduce disparity between households but there is no provision where that disparity is RP earning more than NRP. A father still needs to meet his basic costs of living to be an adequate father.

I’m going off on a tangent now. Sorry OP.

It doesn’t matter if the RP is a millionaire, the NRP still needs to pay for their children especially if they don’t see them very often. Every child has two parents and both should be financially responsible for them.

I don’t disagree and I haven’t said they shouldn’t pay... I was responding to comments upthread re help available to RP that NRP fanboy access even with shared care. It’s not a level playing field.

*Cannot

Not sure where fanboy can from 🤣

It’ll come out in the wash. The self employed 80% is taxable income they 100 cannot hide

@TriangleBingoBongo difference is the NRP has no limitations on their earning ability. Take away the DC and I’d have no need for CMS even with the costs of children I put earnt him 10 fold when we first met