Ex negotiated seven years to pay maintenance arrears

[Idontbelievethis23]

Name changed. Am so, so sad for my children. Ex had been paying nothing though I knew he was working (I gave all info I had to CMS), it’s taken a year but Child Maintenance Service has finally had confirmation from tax office of what ex earns and the arrears are thousands…yet speaking to CMS today they confirm he telephoned them and successfully negotiated a much smaller payback amount than they had assessed (would have taken two years) and he is now allowed to pay arrears at a figure that will take seven years to pay off.

AIBU to think this is disgraceful, that with inflation the amount he pays per month towards the end of those seven years will be worth less than it’s value now, and there should be repercussions for hiding wages from a government agency.
He pretends to the world he is the most loving parent, and I’m crying worrying about school shoes and winter coats. Feel sick.

Absolutely ive been to court for council tax after 2 missed payments yet hes gone4 years no repercussions. Sorry for putting my kids food and shelter b4 council tax
He had 4 holidays last year

Does he own a house? If he does look into pushing CMS into putting a charge on it until his arrears are gone.

Totally restricts him selling/moving until it’s paid off so tend to find they don’t quit their jobs so often…

It's a shit system. The CMS should be able to take wages at source, and should have the same powers as the inland revenue to take money due. Men need to be scared of the CMS. That would sort out deadbeat dads. There has to be some sort of penalty for not paying CM.

The worst thing about CMS is they do have the powers they need. They just don’t use them.

They can do a DEO without a court order. They can take money from a bank account - either as a one of lump sum or regular amount.

With a court order they can impact a credit rating, put a charge on a house, remove a driving license, send in bailiffs, and a whole host of things.

They just don’t.

I would happily implement a system where a livable minimum payment was implemented with NRPs given the choice of paying or having the value to the taxpayer extracted through hours of community service (excepting those too disabled to work where the minimum would be covered as part of their benefit package). Men can just abdicate providing for their offspring to the taxpayer and I'm mad about it.

Thank you. Did you manage to get this x

Is there no way you can appeal this decision? It's disgraceful and there's no way I'd be facilitating a relationship with his DC let alone perpetuating the myth that he loves them.

What an awful man. Tell him you will tell the children everything if he messes you around again (but don't actually tell them)

In short, yes.

The state have decreed that the RP requires an amount of financial support from the NRP on a sliding scale (depending on how often the NRP provides overnight care), so there is a clear cost of providing care for a child.

Failure to receive this, the child is directly disadvantaged. So yes, it should be payable by Govt (aka taxpayer), and it then becomes the State's problem to solve - rather than simply expecting the RP and the subsequent children to scrape by on minimal money.

And I'm a full time working taxpayer, living with my full time working tax payer husband, and our children, with no CM money required, so don't have skin in the game - but do accept that for this, I would need to pay more tax.

It would then be on government to push/force non Oakington men back into some kind of work, or deduct from their unemployment benefits, or, radical idea, work harder with young families to improve this awful culture of men just fucking off without a care for the children they create.

Depending on whether you are happy to tank your relationship with him, I'd he tempted to post a screenshot of his monthly payment to and tag him on facebook? Something like...

"Thanks DadOfTheYear for you £9 contribution for your 2 children this month. I've used it to buy 2 packs of vests for winter"

It's madness isn't it. My ex and his partner put him on her child's, child benefit claim so he could knock CM payments down by a whopping £30.

I don't understand how you can do that over a child that isn't yours. So my children get less so you can pay for someone else's? It's crazy!!

The system needs changing so much. If the government started paying the RP and claimed the money from the NRP, I bet that non payment rates would crash. They have ways of investigating and prosecuting people who don't pay VAT, council tax etc

Csa are a joke

I've had £1 in 27 years thanks to them

(Not a race to the bottom-just facts)

They'd finally find him,he'd quit,pay nothing and once they'd backed off,he'd get another job

He once swore blind he had no money-while sat in his 4* hotel abroad while wooing his new girlfriend

He refused to see them-that was all my fault-and didn't see why he should pay 'so that bitch can spend it on herself'

He once chased me through town,screaming that I'd used his money to buy my clothes,have my hair and nails done and 'his money was meant for our children!'

What bloody money?a quid doesn't go far!(it was all about control)

The csa finally told me that they thought he didn't exist (so I got myself pregnant?I'd be the talk of Harley street if I managed that) and got a letter telling me he owed me nothing

It's a joke-at the time I was on benefits (tax credits-i did work 16 hours)-i was looked down on for having to claim them so the kids could eat,but nobody looked down on him for not paying

That’s not what happened the last time a huge amount was owed to the government for maintenance. The debt to the sec of state is why the system was changed to the current one.

The biggest change that would make more men pay is if it became socially unacceptable to not pay for your children.

If parents took their sons to task. If men became undateable. If mates spoke out at their mate rather than laughing when he says “I’m not paying for her hair and nails” etc.

Thats what would make a change imo.

You’ll never make them care about their children, but they care about themselves and their social lives and their reputation.

But do accept that for this, I would need to pay more tax.

I wouldn’t be happy to pay this. As PP has said, it didn’t work before. It should be taken off at source like tax, but it’s not for others to bear the cost.

It is absolutely disgusting that this is how the system operates. It should be for the benefit of the child not the person paying the maintenance.

This is a good suggestion.

Thanks for all your input everyone…rather depressing that 10 percent think I am unreasonable. It’s all so galling.