Divorced/moved out dads not paying for our children

[FloatyFairy18]

Do any of you have to go through the same as me here... my ex I caught having an affair so kicked him out and divorced him after giving him two chances, which he blew. He subsequently re-married and had another child to add to his now four kids from three different women, latest one already also having two kids of her own

In the Divorce Decree Nisi + Decree Absolut it was cited he had to pay a certain amount for both children until they were 18, he did this for a few years then stopped paying the full amount so I had to get the ludicrously outdated very sexist old fashioned still believing women stay at home being housewives men go out to work nonsense of the CSA at the time, now CMS - he then had a run in with his work and is refusing to work any more making out he can't due to a medical condition (which is all on show for when he leaves the house, but not any other time) and so is on benefits now = so that the CMS can't touch him

Morally he should be paying, he signed the Divorce papers to say so, but some lawyer told me because I had to get CMS involved that wipes out any Divorce payments he is supposed to make for the children

Is this right?

I have tried all sorts of means of getting this sorted but come to a blocked wall each and every time as the government seem blind to what is going on and just by thinking "oh we get child benefits, that will suffice" ... no no no!!! These dads should be paying for their kids no matter what

How can I get him to backpay what he owes (£23K) and going forward to pay monthly what he is meant to be paying without getting solicitors/greedy lawyers/courts involved

These are his children too, why is it expected by him and the government and CMS that I am to somehow find money to clothe, feed, keep them warm general day to day expenses, they live with me but see him every other weekend and 4 weeks holiday periods but he didn't even want that, it is only because child custody had to set things in stone that we had to go down this route thank you to his controlling money grabbing greedy wife, at his all he does is tell them he is paying for them when all he does is spending money on "treats" like sweets/toys/games for the Xbox rubbish etc, but point blankly refuses to pay towards raising them

I know of many "dads" who try to fiddle the system, either claiming they are on minimum wage, can't pay this or that, but paying themselves a lot more whilst living a very nice lifestyle without the CMS knowing, same as my ex who has been on three 10-day holidays abroad in the past 7 months and about to go on another one! I also know of millionaires who have done this to avoid paying for their own children, what is it with these guys that they have a grudge against paying their ex-wives/partners for their own children

I really believe a huge campaign needs to be started her - it needs a petition to go to The Houses of Parliament, we need a massive backing here, the Family Law needs to be changed, the Child Maintenance System NEEDS to be updated urgently and change to benefit us mums, they are so one-sided favouring the dads still, it is ludicrous and most importantly of all a minimum amount of money needs to be set by law that these dads MUST pay each month PLUS THEY MUST PAY IN A CERTAIN SHORT TIME-FRAME ALL THE MONEY THEY OWE IN BACK-PAYMENTS

Who is in to help me here???

£350 is not a fortune to be paying maintenance for one DC, it really isn't @FarmGirl78.

If it's for any more than 1 DC, your DP is taking the piss.

To those saying £350 isn't a lot for my DP to pay.... it's more than he needs to pay, and it still leaves him in debt every single month, with outgoings of far more than his income. Every single month he's getting more in debt and never once complains. In addition to this he also sends physical cash to his child, pays money into her school top-up card, sends additional money for school uniforms and sports kit, and pays money into a savings account for her future.

Cruella is greedy ex did not acquire the moniker Cruella the greedy ex for getting the extra £12 written into a court order, but for the many many lies she told to the court, the manipulation of her financial figures in the settlement and the 25 years of coercive financial control she inflicted on him before he was brave enough to escape his abusuve controlling marriage. He finally escaped with the clothes on his back and nothing else. Its been 3 years but he's still receiving counselling. He's the most generous man I know, would do anything for anyone.

We tried to explain to her she was better sticking with the original wording of the draft agreement but she was so very derogatory about him and never believed he could get a better job.

I'm really surprised that people are jumping on me so much without knowing either me, him or her or any more of the background. I didn't realise I had to explain his full history!

@Starseeking it Isn’t right that your having to fund something that should be provided on the NHS but it isn’t fair your ex should have to either. Although if I think about my dh I’m sure if such a situation with his dc we would agree with his ex to share funding until got help until through the NHS and of course any usual decent father would attend appointments etc and not be leaving you to navigate through all this on your own. He’s definitely letting you down.
I would say in general though this is an exceptional expense, parents don’t generally have to spend £200 on any expense key to their welfare for their child a month except childcare, accommodation and food. Have you applied for DLA as most people I know whose children have disabilities equivalent to your dc and less do receive DLA which is none means tested and intended to make life just generally a bit easier ( things like speech therapy should really still be on NHS) but would help towards nappies, the special food and the whole array of extra expenses which make life a bit more comfortable if your trying to juggle life with a child with extra needs. Even if it’s a cleaner to give you that bit of extra time for all the things you have to do additionally for him that you wouldn’t ordinarily have to do. There is also an additional element in UC for children receiving DLA so if you might become eligible for some UC too even if outside the threshold at the moment.

Very true sadly

I think if £350 is the CMS rate and earnings sent being hidden then that’s fair enough. It really isn’t about suing 50% as that isn’t expected of PWC even if dc at school/old enough not to need childcare. It is about a fair portion and that fair portion has to be calculated after their basic living costs. Also it isn’t about funding 50% of the lifestyle the PWC chooses, yes maybe it works out that the CMS rate does do that for a high earning NRP and low spending PWC. However when you look at most low-medium earning families they can’t afford half the expenses listed by the higher earning mothers on MN, yes if I send my dh out to work 60 hours a week we could afford to spend £200 a month on dcs clothes and a trip to the cinema every fortnight but that would be unreasonable when our dc don’t need that level of spending to be well and happy. If I was desperate for our dc to do £15 baby swim and go on a 2k holiday every year and eat wheat ever out of season exotic foods they fancy and have amazing birthday parties and French lessons then fair enough if I’m going to pack in the extra hours to pay for it

Yes, my DC receives DLA for the care element only.

To be honest I wouldn't expect the state to fund my EXDP's shortcomings. Leaving aside my own personal situation (I don't qualify for any benefits as earn too much), I just think NRP's should be forced to face up to their responsibilities, and the only way to do that is through some sort of government enforcement.

For someone on £30,000 a year (average salary), £350 per month is £4,200 per year or 14% of their gross salary, so I stand by the comment that it really isn't much to support a DC he chose to create.

Good, I’m glad your getting that help. We don’t claim any benefits and we pay tax and quite happy for it to go to people needing it like I did when a single parent or even just to level out the extra costs e.g. for disabilities so that parents with disabled children don’t face that additional financial burden. I think it is unfair and unrealistic for NRPs to be expected to fund to a higher rate than an accurate CMS rate, even if they can afford it. Yes my dh could drive round in an old banger for me insisting on a certain standard of living for the dc but that’s silly when we can all be happy and modestly comfortable. On the same scale it shouldn’t be the case that a NRP earring 100k and the children not sharing in any of that wealth. It has to be taken into account that 2 parents on 60k are not going to be able to give themselves and the children the same lifestyle as if they were together and unfair to expect the NRP to live in reduced circumstances (in comparison with PWC and dc) to make that happen. For lower-modest income parents the benefits system does tend to negate that impact on the PWC

For a NRP earning 30k paying 9% pension contributions (less than what an NHS worker on 30k would pay in contributions) that leaves them with a net figure of £1457 or 17k take home. The NRP has got to house, clothe, feed themselves and their dc when they care for them, plus get to work etc. How does that compare to what the PWC would have? £350 is quite a significant sum to the NRP and think more would be unfair. £350 would more than pay for the dc in some circumstances and cover less than 50% of essential costs in other situations. It depends very much on what PWC decides to spend money on and there can be a very big gap between what dc need to be happy and healthy and what some parents spend. That is by the by as a PWC will have their income topped up if doesn’t meet a certain threshold, I don’t see people disparaging low income PWC not earning enough (thankfully) and UC will pay 85% of their childcare

People don't disparage PWCs who are low earners as much because they can understand that being the PWC massively restricts their earning and working potential in a way that is not the case for an NRP. And anyway, they are disparaged, constantly, as "benefit scroungers" and "feckless single mothers who should have made better choices" etc.

To an extent but I was able to work full time as a PWC and received the financial help towards childcare any household on a low income able to access. Once I had established my career I choose to work part time so I would have time with my children and free time for myself while they were at school. I did do overtime when the ex had them at weekends. I wouldn’t expect ex to be doing silly hours just to afford more maintenance

No not gone, just not able to log on for a bit - YES he is disabled but plays on it when it suits so is playing the game of making out he cannot work when he can easily but it choosing not to as would rather be paid to sit and watch TV, this is the difference that some of you are not understanding - has even been overheard both he and his wife saying don't go without your mobility scooter in case you get seen - he lives in a large house, is driving a sporty expensive car, goes on a whole load of holidays abroad so he can pay but is choosing not to

A lot of you here are very much with me that CMS needs a complete overhaul, so thank you, however one very valid point being PM may not be interested unless there is a huge signing petition for this to be looked at

It is very questionable as to why this has not been looked at already, besides of course it is very much a man's male chauvinistic point of view here, for some unknown reason they cannot see that it is morally wrong to not pay for their children, they assume the money is being used elsewhere without a clue of how much bringing up children who grow by the day so clothes and shoes become more expensive, let alone the food bill

I'm guessing the minority of mothers on here who do not agree with us others (who are bearing the brunt of these greedy dads) as their precious sons are supposedly being made to pay for what they should be, but have no doubt spun a whole story of no doubt lies about how greedy the mother is being rubbish - yes we've heard it all before

Please if you are not interested in helping here then I would say best to leave this thread, as there simply isn't the understanding if you are not going through it

Where does he get the money from then if he doesn’t work op? Do you think he has a source of money he is not disclosing?

im a single mum and my ex doesn’t pay what he should. He should pay what he is assessed to pay but I don’t think you can force either male or female nrp to pay money they don’t have.

YES he is disabled but plays on it when it suits so is playing the game of making out he cannot work when he can easily but it choosing not to as would rather be paid to sit and watch TV, this is the difference that some of you are not understanding - has even been overheard both he and his wife saying don't go without your mobility scooter in case you get seen - he lives in a large house, is driving a sporty expensive car, goes on a whole load of holidays abroad so he can pay but is choosing not to

if you think he isn’t really disabled have you reported him? If he is fit for work but choosing not to then that’s fraud.

where is all this money coming from? DLA doesn’t fund that lifestyle.

issue with CMS is it has to be a one size fits all and that is a % of wage. It may not be perfect but I really don’t see how else it would work.

as we’ve seen on this thread there are commonly held beliefs which are incorrect, such as hiding income via dividends. You cannot do that without committing fraud, so again should absolutely be reported to HMRC.

if someone is actually fraudulently reporting their income to get out of CMS then that should be taken very seriously, criminal charges etc. BUt it needs reporting, every time. How else will the authorities know?

the issue here is not the CMS but people suspecting the NRP is not paying what they should. If they aren’t, and you think they aren’t giving correct figures, get HMRC on to them. That will open up a world of pain, especially if they are a business. That’s a better solution that trying to tell CMS they should be paying more without proof.

They shouldn’t be able to load their pensions up either in order to avoid child-support that’s the game mines playing.

I have to save what’s left after supporting my family not before.

As for self-employed income I actually dated a forensics accountant who worked for HMRC and they have a line below which they don’t bother it’s not financially viable for them to enforce obviously he didn’t tell me what that line was but pretty clear it’s certainly not the same line of tolerance that HMRC would investigate for benefit fraud. ie zero.

They shouldn’t be able to load their pensions up either in order to avoid child-support that’s the game mines playing

cms is calculated on gross income, so before tax and pension deductions.

so how is he doing that?

Salary sacrifice apparently, he’s a sales manager who apparently hasn’t had an increase on his basic salary in seven years and also doesn’t own commission either sounds like a bit of a shit sales job to me.

Its before tax but after pension deductions so people can and do load their pensions to make the % smaller.

There we go then I knew he was up to something he’s literally put in in the maximum it’s the only logical explanation for it there’s no other sales manager in the world that wouldn’t work for commission and as I say no pay rise in seven years yeah right pull the other one.

I had it written in as part of my divorce settlement that my ex would pay x amount while child in full time education. Not that I have an issue but was advised if payments stopped to go through court as its part of the financial settlement .

It could be challenged under a motion to vary if his income reduced - its not set in stone. - as I found out to my cost.

I was told that after a year application to the CMS overides any court order. Presumably to allow for income going up or down.

which is why court orders rarely specify amounts for child maintenance.

they may order payments for continued private school etc.