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?

Sp long sd she's not asking the dad of her first kids to pay for them sure. Do you honestly think that a resident parent says to their kid 'oh im having a baby so you need to stop football/ ballet/swimming? No, cos they are THERE. They see the impact, they would have to have those conversations. So they dont. If they have a second family they do it, with inevitably some exceptions, with an eye to what's affordable.

If it would mean she could no linger afford to feed ams cloth the children she already has, then no she shouldn't (or at least I'd judge heavily if she did, as would social services if it tipped over into neglect).

However, your comparing applies with oranges. The mother (resident parent) having another child dose not effect her ex's finances, so is not comparable to the NRP reducing maintenance amd requiring RP to make up the shortfall, when they have more children.

Everyone’s interpretation of what it’s for differs. I’m a higher than average earner my ex partner earns significantly more than me. I don’t “need” his money but I take it because he should be providing as children are ultimately a joint decision in life. Don’t want kids put a knot in it or don’t have sex. I’m fortunate enough to pay my own mortgage, save and have a nice life of my own accord no way on this earth am I going to be dictated to what I spend any surplus income on whether it be for my children or not. We split almost 15 years ago his money will “run out” shortly but it won’t stop me being a parent when they’re 18. I’ll spend that money on what I see fit and when it stops it won’t inconvenience me. RP need to get themselves into the mindset that it’s not an endless pot.

CMS can already access HMRC data - they just need to do it as standard more regularly with SE claims.

it would be very easy for HMRC and CMS to work together better in fraud cases

The crazy thing about CMS is that they have a good number of the powers that people have posted that they should have.

There is just no political will for them to use them.

It tells you all when you think that previously RPs on benefits were only allowed to have £20 a week in maintenance to keep. The rest was owed to the sec of state to go toward the benefits bill.

The number of non-payers meant the amount owed to the SOS grew and grew until it was decided that something must be done.

the decision, by politicians then and never changed since, was that RPs on benefits could just keep all of the money that they knew swathes of wasn’t getting paid

That says it all about the political attitude toward non payment of child maintenance imo.

But they often don't. They'll stay at home with their mom who'll subsidise them at her own cost so they can focus on studying

I know this because it happened to me. Until I pointed out that I wouldn't be able to afford to keep my daughter due to finances so she would have to move in with his family. He soon helped subsidise her then

She was not able to work and study at that time as she's autistic and her mental health was rock bottom

I would make it so when the NRP moves in with someone with kids they aren't financially responsible for them.

My ex moved in with someone with 2 kids and pays less towards our kids due to this. So they have 3 adults contributing towards them, and my kids have me, and less from their dad.

Pisses me off no end.

Agree, I think that’s inexcusable. I’m guessing the logic is that when a new partner moves in with a resident single parent, they might lose benefits, but that’s in no way universal, and doesn’t negate the fact that the parents should remain responsible.

So how I think it should work is that each first child from a family gets the same entitlement. Remember I'm building a debt element into the system. So I'd set a maximum % that can be removed from NRP wages and after that it builds up as a lifetime debt.

I also would add a assets/lifestyle assessment request. So the calculation isn't just based on wages. NRP would first have to confirm all assets and how they fund their own lifestyle. RP would be given an overview of this and can request investigation if they think it's untrue. If someone has a large amount of assets it would up the payments just like a high wage does. Again government pays it to the RP like UC and they collects however they can from NRP.

I think the assets / lifestyle request thing already exists as a variation with CMS?

I think all children should get the same amount. It’s not their fault if they’re born first or sixth, they still exist and need to be paid for. If the NRP can’t provide it, the government should pay and debt should accrue.

I'd set the minimum at at least £150pm per child rather than £7 often split between multiple. If it wasn't paid it would come straight out of benefits and then, like any other debt, a CCJ and bailiffs.

I'd be putting a lot more energy into finding and prosecuting tax evading self-employed.

I wouldn't cap the % after 3 children. If you can't afford to pay more, wrap it up.

I would reduce by 1/3 for each overnight rather than 1/7, making it 0 at 3 nights per week.

There's also an argument about household income but that would need thinking through.

I agree with all of this!

@Tableforjoan worked out a figure a few pages back, I think it was about £200 a month per child. I’d set it as that, per child, per parent, for every month until they’re 18 and out of education. If you don’t want to pay that, don’t have a child.

Household income is an interesting one. I’m inclined to say it shouldn’t be included over the set minimum but if parents want their child to have a better lifestyle, it’s their choice.

I knew two sets of parents, NRP and stepmum.

Let's call them Kate and Mark and Chloe and Tom, both married for many years.

Kate had a decent job until she had an accident and became severely disabled. Mark was still earning an Ok wage but now had to support Kate. CM remained the same. It was really tight for them financially and their joint children suffered as well as Mark's older children when they visited.

Tom owned his own business and decided to stop paying himself a wage and instead pay Chloe. They were millionaires, but Tom earned nothing on paper and paid no CM.

That seemed really unfair.

I agree, both are unfair.

In a system where a set amount is due, debts would accrue (and assets seized) if a parent didn’t or wouldn’t pay. So Tom wouldn’t have been able to weasel out of paying, and Mark would still have had to tighten his belt and cut extras, but would likely have been less impacted.

I agree with this. My ex has refused to work since 2014 as he doesn't want to pay maintenance for children he "isn't allowed to see".
Him not being allowed to see our children is due to a court order and his decision not to participate in any of the court ordered programmes, which would have enabled him to at least have contact in a centre.
Obviously, this is all my fault 🙄 and so, he has refused to work since.
He claims benefits and we receive the grand total of £7 a week, deducted straight from his Universal Credit. Because he refused to pay it voluntarily.
I am charged a 4% admin fee on that £7 a week.
The CM is paid monthly at around £29 ish.
£29 a month for 14 year old twins. It's an absolute joke.
Oh, and we don't always receive a payment because he has other debts being deducted from his UC that take priority over child maintenance. So we can go months
/years on end with no payment at all.

At the minute he is in over 2k of arrears for non/missed payments.

Why is there no political will to make this happen? A set minimum would save the government money and make parents pay for their children.

This is what I don't understand either! Maybe it's the number of politicians with multiple extra-marital children that they can currently easily hide from the wife.

Because there’s no societal will for it to happen.

Society still sees single parents as feckless and responsible for their own downfall. They use the story of my friend’s ex wife gets thousands and uses it on nights out and haircuts to justify why they don’t think it’s right. They ignore the fact that the vast majority of non-paying NRPs are men because their husband/brother/friend does pay and pays “a lot”.

Politicians care about things that are vote winners. Thats why their treatment of people on benefits sways so much between - slash them because then hard liners vote, but then roll back because they remembered lots of people on UC/PIP are actually reliable voters.

It would have been incredibly simple for the CMS to set up a proper enforcement set up when RPs on benefits were only allowed to keep £20 a week and the rest went to the sec of state. It could have been done through tax returns very very easily.
it wouldn’t have been a vote winner therefore it didn’t happen.

When your children age out of the collections programme they’ll likely write you. The letter will imply that they are writing off the debt - implying you have no say - but you do. If you tell them you want the debt to remain on record they must do that.

That will keep that debt hanging over him forever and I strongly encourage you to do that because then when he dies (if not sooner depending on the debt recovery team) he’ll have to pay up.

from working briefly at CMS I can tell you that the debt remaining on file after the kids are adults will annoy the shit out of him. It can’t be scrubbed in a bankruptcy either.

I definitely think in the world of real time PAYE, it should just be deducted as tax. Yes you would have arseholes who stop working but the vast majority of people would just pay on time
Instead it's optional and no consequence to having a tight month and choosing not to pay.

But the NRPs who are currently paying thousands would actually pay less under a set scheme. Anyone paying more than half of the amount the government deems necessary per child (PP calculated that’d be £200-250 a month) would pay less.

I think it should be minimum and then sliding scale ontop to give comparable life for the child in both homes.

So in this oh I earn nothing case his company and lifestyle should be investigated so his child is provided with the same lifestyle.

Not primark at mums and prada at dads.

In this case the minimum amount also helps because that would be the minimum if he worked or not.

Then topped up from his stashed millions.

I don’t think children need a comparable life in both homes.

If I became a single mother, I wouldn’t see it as my place to subsidise my ex’s household. I’d pay my share of the basics, then anything on top like expensive clothes and hobbies would be a choice. Just like it is in a nuclear family.

Patriarchy. It's mainly men in power and it's mainly men who aren't paying.

I think sending people to prison for non payment would cost the state more than them stepping in to cover deadbeat dad's contributions.