How would you change child maintenance?

[CountessaExplainsItAll]

I’d make it direct pay as standard, coming from PAYE wages, like an unavoidable tax which is paid when they are.

I’d make arrears payable over the next tax year. If unpaid, assets should be seized.

I’d increase the percentage of salary paid by NRPs with no overnights significantly. NRPs who do weekly overnights have much higher costs than those who don’t.

I’d stop the reduction for NRPs living with other children they haven’t created or adopted.

I’d make maintenance count towards means-tested child benefits. If the NRP legitimately can’t pay (for instance because the parent is dead) then the state should.

I’d punish self-employed tax evaders more severely (not sure exactly how).

You?

So £510 + housing allowance + childcare. That’s loads!

I do think we should be far harsher on tax evasion. The number of posters here who tell people to keep their noses out when someone suggests reporting it is absolutely baffling. It damages us all.

Divide by two parents though!

Children living in homes on full benefits are not exactly living it up though are they.

I’d make it direct from wages, no friendly arrangements. It should be linked to benefits so jf the receiving parent gets a large amount benefits should go down ( dh ex wife got a large sum monthly, more than my salary at one point yet because she didn’t work also got all benefits and free school meals, holiday clubs etc etc) and if a self employed nrp lies about income heavy sanctions should be imposed

But people in nuclear families frequently choose not to have more children if the cost would impact the children they already have. You see it all the time on here with people considering if they should hava a 2nd/3rd baby.

The NRP has a commitment to pay for the children they already have, they can then decide if they can afford to have more children on not. It shouldn't be up to the ex to make up the shortfall of NRP's contribution dropping when they choose to have a baby with someone else.

For maintenance purposes I’d divide the government value by two and have that as the minimum ever child maintenance.

Then for wages over a certain amount it increases to make sure the child also benefits and doesn’t have drastically different home styles in each property.

I also still stand by no reduction for more children. You know what your costs are prior to having more children. Be that still in the original family or in a new one.

I fully agree with what you say. I think no reduction based on future children, you know what your costs are when you choose to have further children. I think it should be direct from wages and I think like in the US it should be enforced properly ie lose your driving licence if you don’t pay, you can be arrested. I think if you can’t pay in wages you should have to pay in assets. I also fully agree that nursery costs should be fully split proportionally to each parents income.

Oh true!

I think that’s the problem- if 50/50 was mandated, many parents couldn’t get by on half the benefits.

I think if you look for punishments.

Then passport would be the one I’d go after.

You can need a car to be able to work in some areas but nobody needs a holiday aboard.

I don’t think you ever mandate 50/50 to be honest.

Making a parent, parent who doesn’t want to isn’t a safe environment.

There would be huge amounts of neglect I think or people pretending to do 50/50 but not still. Often mums picking up the slack secretly to make sure their children are safe.

I’d agree with you if we were on a system based on paying half of a set minimum figure. But whilst it’s a percentage of salary, that salary needs to be split.

Otherwise what if the NRP has three or four children with different RPs? Should the later ones starve?

Mad that so many households get this per child AND maintenance.

I agree with this, other than the inheritance thing which I think is more complicated.

But the main change I'd make is actually making the bloody payment enforceable in the first place. To many NRPs (mostly men) don't pay and no one can be bothered to make them.

Well yes I agree. I think it should be the starting point and the societal expectation though. But too many families can’t afford to live without benefits when they’re in one house, let alone two.

More like it is in the US, so any arrears are automatically taken from pension lump sums etc.

There isn’t an issue with parents on PAYE in a regular job. The issue is the self employed, serial job hoppers, agency workers, those paid cash in hand.

The starting point for CMS simply needs to be political will for it to work properly.

Staff it properly. Train the staff properly (I knew of CMS powers that the person training me had never heard of when I started work there!). Allow, even encourage, staff to use the large swathe of powers CMS already have.

Although, the single biggest thing that would help with maintenance is societal change. My ex started paying, and paid flawlessly, when his CO made clear his career would be impacted and people he respected would think poorly of him. If non-payers knew that their mates would snub them in the pub, the five-a-side team would see them as surplus to requirements, their mum would be ashamed of them and no new partner would want them then they’d pay.

I’d add community service too.

A lot of posters here think it’s not enough.

That should only ever happen if the state is going to pay the maintenance then reclaim it imo.

when I was a child my grandparents should have got £64 a week from my father. That was classed as income for benefits despite the fact he never paid. It was crippling for my GPs and not a situation any child should live in.

That can already happen. It’s just very rarely done.

CMS have a huge amount of powers - there is just no political will for them to be used.

A PP suggested the money should go into a pot from the NRP, but be paid by the government. Any shortfall is added to the NRP’s arrears and gathers interest.

If we can do it for tax free childcare, why not maintenance?

I would suggest that if the CMS was incompetent that would represent a major improvement.

I have had several cases against them upheld by the Independent Case Examiner one of which had a compensation payment of £300 which is very high by their standards.

The ICE Examiners found the CSA very difficult to deal with.

Then of course there is the self employed, nuff said

No they dont.
The nrp parents pay a % towards the cost of feeding clothing and housing their child/children when they are in the rp care what that % is depends on how many nights are spent with the rp vs the nrp.
The nrp has the ability to work extra and needs fewer clothes, has lower food and electricity costs. Also a nrp who only has 2 nights in 14 can hardly be classed as housing their child