Child maintenance

[Lalala1]

Posting here for traffic!

The amount of threads on mn surrounding child maintenance I’ve noticed there’s completely opposite opinions on it.
Some find the way it’s calculated fair some don’t.
Some say it doesn’t cover everything and “certain things should be split” out with cms.
Some say people get too much because they only get lower and are “greedy ex wives” so they should be grateful.
Some say the rules around calculations are wrong and should be changed.

So I’m curious if you were in charge of cms what would/should it be?
How should it be calculated?
Should it cover everything or not?
How would it or could it be changed to be fair for all children?
Or
Is the way it is set up and conducted fine as it is?

Just putting this for vote

YABU- cms is fine as it is no change
YANBU - cms should be changed and how?

Mainly they should actually get whatever pittance they calculate out of the weasels that won’t pay 🤷🏼‍♀️

Reducing CM if you live with another woman with children - or if you have another child should be stopped.
Men should pay for their children regardless of who they go on to be with.

One of my irritations with it is that ex gets a hefty discount because his girlfriends kids live there so essentially they have 3 people paying towards them.

He also cut his hours at work to look after them so his girlfriend works full time now.

If they allow maintenence to be influenced by household decisions then household income needs to be taken into account.

Either new partners are responsible for stepkids or they aren't, but CMS just cherry picks what's better for NRP.

The biggest change required is a whole societal one. The non payment of child maintenance needs to be as socially unacceptable as drink driving or smoking over a new born baby.

To achieve that, we need people on power who don’t worship at the altar of misogyny.

Flying pig, anyone?

It isn't the amount that gets my goat, but the huge huge swathes of fathers who pay nothing at all. It should be a crime. It needs to be far far tougher than it currently is in the Uk.

Not paying needs to be tightened up and a ruined instantly. Also agree with totally with @Dithercats the fact they go on to have more children or love with someone with children should not mean thier existing children should get less support. They might contribute nothing to the partners children yet get to pay less for their own

Exactly that. So many NRPs pay little or nothing (often down to being self employed and not declaring true earnings)..

It's fine as it is except for that nonsense about not being able to make self-employed absent parents pay the full amount. I mean, come on, it's 2022, there are ways and means of determining someones income.

@DenholmElliot

It's fine as it is except for that nonsense about not being able to make self-employed absent parents pay the full amount. I mean, come on, it's 2022, there are ways and means of determining someones income.

This was one of the things that made me laugh about furlough.

So many guys putting the minimum they could on the books so they could give less to their kids were royalty fucked by their own scam.

@DenholmElliot

It's fine as it is except for that nonsense about not being able to make self-employed absent parents pay the full amount. I mean, come on, it's 2022, there are ways and means of determining someones income.

I came on here to say the same thing, although I'd expand it to any income at all - self-employed, dividends, investment income. HMRC has full visibility of all income streams, unless it's some Cayman Islands type avoidance/evasion scheme. If parents weren't separated it would be 'normal' for all income streams to be used to benefit the children so why should the source of the income make any difference?

HMRC know (even if belatedly) the actual income so why can't contributions to children be collected through the tax system?

From what I’ve heard they’re pretty useless. I may have to end up going through them in the future, but at the moment I get £30 a month from my ex directly, which is about what the child maintenance calculator came out with for his circumstances. But still, he does actually pay. He could definitely afford more, but I don’t know his exact income and it’s a fight I just don’t want to have.

Any parent that refuses/ neglects to pay should lose their driving licence until caught up and be jailed if they still refuse, like they do in some parts of the USA,

I've got a friend who quit her job to have and raise 3 kids and because he worked away a lot, had to be a sahm. She moved into his house and was never put on the deeds. When they split he went for 50/50 so doesn't pay a penny. The original intention had been to marry but he kept coming up with reasons and excuses.

She did go back to work when her youngest started primary school but she still had to do all the housework and childcare.

He earned over £100k but when she left, she had to start from scratch and he hasn't paid her a penny. She's fine now because she's qualified and managed to rebuild her career but because they weren't married, she has no rights. But the kids are still his and she's the one who sacrificed her earnings for her family.

If men had more financial and practical responsibility of their kids, they would be more careful.

I'd set the level at half what the basic costs are of raising a child. The NRP needs to fund half the cost regardless of their earning situation - so no reduction if they move in the girlfriends children or have more of their own. And the debt wouldn't die - it would come from their pension or lottery win/inheritance.

Childcare should also be included unless the NRP offers to do half of the childcare themselves. Women shouldn't be impacted in their ability to earn and make a career for themselves.

If we sorted out CMS we could make such a difference to child poverty in this country.

There is a lot wrong with it simply because it is a "one size fits no-one" cheap "solution" to a complex problem with infinite variations on circumstances. Short of a massive increase in funding and personnel, with dedicated case workers for each set of parents, its always going to end up unfair - most usually to the RP but sometimes (though far far less often than the step parenting board would suggest) to the NRP.

Eg Any childcare that the RP has to pay for over and above what is covered by tax credits should be split between both parents as in many cases the NRP effectively gets free childcare from the RP in a "typical" EOW scenario. They get to work extra hours, overtime, take promotions, stay late / go in early with no concern for how they are going to juggle that. They can seek promotions with no worry about who is going to cover the travel required etc. The RP is frequently left to deal with all this, plus sick days, inset days and school holidays as the default parent and left MASSIVELY out of pocket. In previous MN debates on this, various NRPs have claimed they shouldn't have to pay for the child care as its chosen by the RP, but when asked if they would prefer 50/50 care and pay for what is needed on their own days, quickly back off with "can't possibly - big important job" etc

oh and there should be a mandatory minimum (not the £7 p/w it currently is for NRPs on benefits, or £0 if they are staying at home caring for step kids or second family kids), paid by the state to the RP and racked up as a debt to the NRP which is enforced the same way that HMRC chase tax owing.

@Momijin

I've got a friend who quit her job to have and raise 3 kids and because he worked away a lot, had to be a sahm. She moved into his house and was never put on the deeds. When they split he went for 50/50 so doesn't pay a penny. The original intention had been to marry but he kept coming up with reasons and excuses.

She did go back to work when her youngest started primary school but she still had to do all the housework and childcare.

He earned over £100k but when she left, she had to start from scratch and he hasn't paid her a penny. She's fine now because she's qualified and managed to rebuild her career but because they weren't married, she has no rights. But the kids are still his and she's the one who sacrificed her earnings for her family.

If men had more financial and practical responsibility of their kids, they would be more careful.

He earned over £100k

There you go. What's wrong with just applying an extra tax rate for each child to their whole income?

Obviously our Prime Clown wouldn't approve of that but any right-thinking, less fecund, PM should.

@ChiselandBits

oh and there should be a mandatory minimum (not the £7 p/w it currently is for NRPs on benefits, or £0 if they are staying at home caring for step kids or second family kids), paid by the state to the RP and racked up as a debt to the NRP which is enforced the same way that HMRC chase tax owing.

I agree with this. There should be a minimum payment of £300 per month per child. If the NRP cannot afford to pay this from their income, it should either be -

• taken out of their assets (so added as a charge on their mortgage, taken from savings etc.), or
• paid by the state and deducted from the NRP's state pension when they reach retirement age.

It should not be possible for one parent to float through life without making a decent contribution to the financial upkeep of their child/ren. £7 per week just doesn't cut in, no matter what the NRP's circumstances are.

Furthermore, the percentages should be much higher and NRPs should be on the hook for half of childcare costs if the RP has to use childcare to work.

@FatFredsFriedEgg yes. At the moment the way it works is that he gets to splash out on the kids. His brother is disgusted by him because he can afford it and she is a good mother and was a good partner to him - I think in the future her kids will realise just what a shit he is and it'll come back to bite him. During their relationship (and part of the reason of their breakup) he was very much he earns the money so it is his. He said he paid her every month when in fact he only paid her just enough to cover food and essentials. He didn't understand that he wasn't paying her, he was covering costs and that the only reason he could earn the money he did was because she covered everything else. He now does 50/50 but that's because the older ones essentially babysit when he works and leaves them to fend for themselves.

I think that the rates are too low and unrealistic especially with the rising cost of living. I get aeasley 40 a month (albiet more than most may get) how can they seriously say kids cost 40 a month? I think if a partner is with you through conception, pregnancy and birth there should be some sort of legal document that you too planned qnd agreed to this pregnancy so things should be split 50/50. I wouldnt mind 40 if he even seen his child but he doesnt at all. Furthermore i know he now has a new better paid job and hasnt declared that so hoping for a rebate when the yearly review comes round (that too needs sped up). Perhaps parents could submit receipts or the government looks at the average monthly cost of raising a child ans they have to pay a percentage of that. A fair one at that why does the mother often get stuck raising the child alone the dad can walk away scott free and get away with 40£ a month how is that fair? I have every tear, every sick day, everyday off work when hes ill, every tantrum, every activity, everything. This should be taken into account. You would never see the benefit system handing unemployed 40 a month to live on so how is that enough to feed, cloth, heat, nurture a child on? Apologies aswell to the single dads out there im not saying its always the mum who has the main caring responsibility.

Cms should be forcible and have consequences for non-payment. My ex would wait til calculations were done, till they were just about to start collection from his pay, then quit that job and move on. It would take 6 months for cms to act on this, recalculate arrange collection, he would change jobs again. Regardless of how it is calculated, first and foremost they should be made to pay and contribute. I have 3 children, planned children, from a marriage, that I left in 2014, he stopped contact in 2015, I've never received anything from cms. At all. I have to work my socks off to provide everything they need and want 100% of the time and the current system doesn't see this as an issue. That needs rectifying more than amounts. IMO

It should be socially unacceptable to not pay. Take passports off them. I never had a penny.

its ok raisin - yes there are instances of female absent parents but the statistics massively bear out the FACT that the vast majority of NRPS are male and the millions, owed in unpaid maintenance is overwhelming owed by men. And no, this is not because all "crazy, bitter ex wives" deny access or restrict contact. I would LOVE my ex to do 50/50 and never take a penny from him, but he doesn't want it and nor do the vast majority of the exes I know from my single mum friends. Not one of them is saying "no, you can't have the kids more, I don't need a break, I'm fine doing 26/30 days without a break". In the cases where they the exes have taken up more contact, its lasted a month or two and then reverted as the NRP "is busy" "has an extra shift" "is entitled to a life", or they are asked to buy new shoes, or sort a haircut or a brownie uniform and fuck it up, or forget and the RP has to swing in with an emergency fix. So lets please not have this thread descend into "but what about...." CMS is shit in SO SO many ways. That really can't be argued with. The real question is which party / MP or prospective MP is going to have the guts to really stand up on this? At present, none, because the status quo suits the (male) power base in all parties far too well.

@newbiename

It should be socially unacceptable to not pay. Take passports off them. I never had a penny.

It should be impossible not to pay. We have a functional tax system and it could be collected through adjustments to tax codes.

There should be links between the various government departments to assist CMS in collecting. Turn up at the airport to fly abroad and your passport scan reveals arrears? Can’t go until they are cleared.

Car rego office shows purchase of new vehicle all whilst you say you have no income for the year? Automatic tax audit

No deduction in amount payable for moving in with someone with kids
Any self employed person with cms claim against them is audited by tax office.

Claims are never cancelled or arrears wiped. They are a debt against the estate of the non payer and go to their ex partner or their child

Any 50-50 order in court states that this includes costs of clothing, clubs, etc and is enforced.