Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

"Loopholes in the child maintenance system mean children are going without"

120 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 05/07/2017 12:46

Time and time again, Gingerbread hears from single parents who are fighting a failing system - the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) - to secure accurate maintenance payments for their child. Child maintenance can help to give a child a decent quality of life by providing vital assistance for everyday expenses – such food, clothing, travel, and school costs. Money isn't everything, but children don't come free.

Our Maintenance Matters campaign has recently exposed some of the loopholes in the CMS that allow paying parents to avoid paying maintenance based on their true income. One common issue is that paying parents with often considerable assets can end up paying a bare minimum, since several sources of income aren't taken into consideration by the CMS. In other cases, self-employed parents are able to get away with under-reporting their income in order to reduce their payments. Our latest report 'Children deserve more' highlights the struggles many single parents face in their fight to get true financial resources taken into account for child maintenance.

Although the CMS is trying to work with HMRC to understand paying parents' taxable data, the reality is that this isn't happening for some families. Parents who have questioned their calculations with the CMS are told to contact HMRC. But often little support or resource is given to find a solution.

It's clear that some of the changes to child maintenance system have been designed for administrative ease, rather than to work in the best interests of children. For example, safeguards that were in place against maintenance avoidance and evasion have been dropped. Although receiving parents can query payments by applying for a 'variation' on specific grounds, they still have to prove their ex has hidden financial resources. As a result, parents have to turn into private investigators in order to push the CMS to take action. To add insult to injury, parents are often kept in the dark about the options they have to challenge maintenance payments.

Lee, a mother whose story is similar to others we hear at Gingerbread said: "It's made me an ace private investigator against my nature. I've turned up all the evidence – jobs, company directorships, director's loans, payslips, spending, assets – everything you can think of. I turned the spotlight on the loopholes he used to claim he had no earnings despite having a job, and built up a stack of evidence as thick as your arm."

The government says that it is catering for all circumstances, and is working closely with HMRC to identify and prevent maintenance evasion. But in the vein of simplifying their service and saving on administrative costs, children are losing out.

Gingerbread is calling for the Department for Work and Pensions to have a comprehensive strategy to combat evasion and avoidance to ensure children do not go without.

Gingerbread has lots of helpful advice and information about this issue. So if you think your child maintenance calculation is wrong or you don't think the full circumstances are being taken into account, please take a look at advice for cases still under the Child Support Agency (CSA) as well as cases now under the new CMS.

You can help Gingerbread spread the word about this failing CMS by sharing the campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

Since the launch Maintenance Matters last year, we've made amazing progress. We've galvanised support across the political divide and continue to work with single parents to share their stories. Now with a newly elected government, we want to support more single parents to engage with their MP and campaign on the issues that matter to them.

Check out Gingerbread's new campaign toolkit for more tips and advice on how to campaign.

OP posts:
AssassinatedBeauty · 05/07/2017 22:10

Changedname, it's not about you. Great that you pay what you should for your own children. The discussion is about those who don't pay and the hardship that causes, not about other issues that are not relevant.

Changedname3456 · 05/07/2017 22:36

"The discussion is about those who don't pay and the hardship that causes, not about other issues that are not relevant."

Not relevant to you, perhaps. Not even relevant enough to Gingerbread or Mumsnet to make a featured article of the issue.

Bloody relevant for some of us though.

AssassinatedBeauty · 05/07/2017 22:46

So start a campaign or join one to do something similar. Why do you need to derail someone else's campaign?

Carolinesbeanies · 06/07/2017 05:06

"The discussion is about those who don't pay and the hardship that causes, not about other issues that are not relevant."
"Why do you need to derail someone else's campaign?"

Think youll find the 2nd post had already turned into an ex slapping exercise. As they do on here. Or is that ok because yet again, mothers' views are relevant, fathers' are utterly irrelevant?

Theres a very loud, noisy army of extremely vocal single parents who refuse to even acknowledge fathers positions. They trot out, 'I have no figures but its a huge number', they trot out, 'Ive never known any parent refuse access that didnt deserve it', etc etc etc all to keep the fallacy alive.

If you bother reading my original post, the CMS has the most extensive powers today, than theyve ever had before. They are collecting from the highest numbers of absent fathers than theyve ever collected before. No ifs no buts they go straight to HMRC and its decided and enforceable within a ouple of weeks.

Most complaints Ive read above, would be resolved if RPs (and conversly NRPs) had access directly to the courts where the CMS fails. As I said in my original post, Id urge Gingerbread to support a campaign for that, for the restoration of affordable access to our legal system, rather than supporting this tax payers funded government service, thats designed to circumvent legal process, and then clearly fails in the process.

If your good for nothing exes dont work, theres very little any process or legal body can do about that. But then, the same accusation can be made of mothers who 'cant' work too.

Oh and changedname, there are thousands like you out there, I met one guy the other week (Im in related work) who after a brief relationship, had a child with a lady who already had an older child. He not only has his own child every week for 3 days, he has the half sister too. He does it, because he feels for the half sister being offloaded and refered to as a constant burden by the socially housed mother.
He receives no maintenance in return, no contribution from the mother (whether shes receiving CM from the 1st childs father, who knows, shes not obliged to disclose) and indeed he gets slated constantly by her and her ignorant friends on social media for his efforts etc etc. Thats the way of the world.
He still does it. Every week. Quietly, with dignity, and absolutely puts the children first.

A bit of respect would be nice wouldnt it. You have mine, as you absolutely get no government funded support whatsoever and theres certainly no government department, circumventing legal process, to ensuring access is enforced in a couple of weeks. Thats the 'value' the state put on children having relationships with their fathers. Nil.

abbsisspartacus · 06/07/2017 05:49

I don't resent paying for my own children I do resent her other parent skipping out of paying and blaming me for it she is 17 fucking years old and they didn't even send an email wishing her happy birthday but apparently I've poisoned her against him personally I think he does a good enough job by himself

Lottie991 · 06/07/2017 07:08

Caroline'sbeanies you quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the cms, They don't have lots of powers and they clearly do not use them, When my ex did work they did nothing to get the money off of him even after my constant phonecalls. There are many in the same boat with this incompetent "service"

Its the children going without at the end of the day and in this day and age it shouldn't be happening.

You are derailing this thread to make it about contact, Which are two different things in law, For example if you don't pay maintenance the courts won't look down on you (even though they should for not taking up the responsibility of that part of raising your child.)

See children cost money to bring up, If you don't understand that responsibility don't have children.

Being a parent isn't just about emotionally supporting a child its about financially supporting them its about the whole package, You shouldn't be able to choose what responsibility you want to partake in as the RP doesn't get that choice.

Njordsgrrrl · 06/07/2017 07:54

As I said on the AIBU thread, the CMS can't even take money directly from XH's benefits, the clowns, and I paid them £20 for that a few years ago!

CrazedZombie · 06/07/2017 08:05

Carilinesbeanies

There are mums and dads who are RP. The majority are mums but this campaign is for all RP. Protecting RP will benefit the children as well as RP.

I think that there needs to be more splitting of benefits when care is 50/50. Some parents do it by having one parent claim
for one child and the other claim for the other. The parent who claims child benefit is seen as the resident parent which needs to
Change for 50/50 care. Child benefit seems to be the deciding factor when there is disagreement about schools etc and it is unfair that 50/50 parents aren't both recognized.

JourneyToThePlacentaOfTheEarth · 06/07/2017 10:13

I really don't understand this new system. Although the old system was bad enough.

HMRC said exh earned £30k up to end of March 2017.

Yet CMS have recently calculated maintenance based on less than half that amount £14k pa having received a few payslips from him.

Didn't even query why there is such a big difference between the two figures. Ridiculous.

IfNot · 06/07/2017 11:16

Access and maintenence are 2 different issues.
Thwe MAJORITY of single parents receive no maintenence from the nrp at all. Thats a fact. So somehow many fathers consider it OK to not support their children.
Part of the reason they do is clearly down to the popular narrative of the lazy grasping conniving money grabbing slag trying to bleed a man dry. When in the real world more often than not the man has fucked off and the woman is trying to fit work round caring and paying for the kids.
My friend recently split with her partner. She works full time in low paid work.

He has told her that he can't pay anything as she is going to be so much better off financially than him. He also threatened to try and take the kids off her if she goes through the cms. Even though she knows logically he can't ( and has facilitated access all the way) she is too scared to pursue him for money.
I know someone else whose ex has had 2 more children with a new woman and so pays fuck all. Her current partner helps support another man's kids. It's fucked up.
There needs to be a change in the law to ensure that men are held responsible for ALL their children.

AyeAmarok · 06/07/2017 11:27

Typical.

This is a really serious issue that's been raised.

Yet a few people need to completely me-rail the thread about a totally different matter.

Go start your own thread and campaign about that if you think it's such a massive issue. This is akin to hijacking a thread about childhood meningitis and complaining that there is not enough funding for prostate cancer.

Micah · 06/07/2017 11:39

The MAJORITY of single parents receive no maintenence from the nrp at all. Thats a fact. So somehow many fathers consider it OK to not support their children.

I know it's usually fathers, but that's because default RP is usually the mother.

My DH is rp (childs choice, nearer school and friends, we regularly attend a hobby he is interested in which his mum doesn't). His ex refuses to pay, despite DH paying for many years.

Flip the sexes and there is very little support for resident fathers. DH regularly gets told he is a terrible person for "taking her kids off her and making her pay as well". Friends and family support that because it's such a horrible thing to not live with your kids, if you're female, that paying for it is adding insult to injury.

Also because he's a bloke and has a job, he "doesn't need the money". Whereas his ex, a woman with a job, does, apparently. It's also always assumed that we are basically where the kids sleep at night in the week, their "real" home is with mum, when in reality they go to their mums about three nights a month, even school holidays.

Carolinesbeanies · 06/07/2017 12:17

"Thwe MAJORITY of single parents receive no maintenence from the nrp at all"

This is quite simply incorrect. The CMS collect successfully in over 90% of cases they deal with.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/615298/csa-quarterly-summary-statistics-march-2017.pdf

What concerns me is the narrative. If separated women in general take the 'all exes are non-paying bastards' then children believe it too. That is absolutely not the case.

Some complaints here are , 'non collection from exes benefits', 'ex not working but his new wife does' etc Ex pays f all as hes a stay at home dad. There may be an argument that a proportion of exes are unemployed, but thats an entirely separate issue, and one I can guarantee means they cant rush out and get huge mortgages, drive top of the range Landrovers and have holidays in barbados, despite the high feelings of RPs. (They may be drug dealers of course, really cant do anything about that)

The self employed problem is indeed an issue. But Id like gingerbread to tell us, exactly how many claims that status applies too? How many?

Are gingerbread proposing to water down even further, the rights of RPs to the legal process (as I understand you can currently apply to the courts over the heads of the CMS in the situation of self-employment/hiding assets), by demanding the CMS are given those rights to act instead?

If the CMS collection process is failing in areas now, how on earth will that help, apart from guaranteeing all the complainants here have no other routes of action?

prettywhiteguitar · 06/07/2017 12:30

It's a culture problem, it starts from the belief that women should care for the children and men are providers.

When women choose the wrong partner or things go wrong and it's them to blame. The men are able to walk away Scott free and do it again. The punishment for women is to carry on looking after the children and that often facilitates a relationship with the non paying non resident parent. But they have to suck it up for the sake of their child. What the government need to do is back single parents and treat maintenance payments like council tax, enforced by law. Only then will men be forced to take responsibility on equal terms as the women.

LowGravity · 06/07/2017 12:49

What the government need to do is back single parents and treat maintenance payments like council tax, enforced by law. Only then will men be forced to take responsibility on equal terms as the women.

Exactly. The CMS isn't just full of loopholes, it's unfit for purpose, same as CSA was. Child maintenance needs to be treated the same as income tax or council tax. And if more nrp's want to step up and spend more time with their kids whilst reducing CM great, that will free up time for RP's to work more hours and increase their income.

Njordsgrrrl · 06/07/2017 13:35

Caroline I mentioned non-collection from benefits because it is supposed to be the most simplistic form of enforcing payment. Not because I expect a great deal from them, but because it shows how broken the system really is.

As it happens, XH is no longer entitled to to JSA as he recently inherited six figures. None of which can be used to help support his child despite dodging payment for eighteen years and having considerable arrears.

If I had six figures in the bank and owed HMRC or council tax you bet they would consider that money theirs.

prettywhiteguitar · 06/07/2017 14:55

It's one rule for mothers and one rule for fathers, if we treated our children like they do we would be prosecuted for neglect

prettywhiteguitar · 06/07/2017 14:59

The fact that the resident parent has to put all the living costs, childcare costs and emotional cost of dealing with a child without their other parent seems like it means nothing to anyone.

I think psychologically the nrp sees the mother looking after the child and sees their contribution as extra money which is optional and not necessarily essential

reallyanotherone · 06/07/2017 16:15

. Only then will men be forced to take responsibility on equal terms as the women

This is the crux of the issue i think.

Until men and women are seen as equally responsible for children. But in reality how does that work?

More men giving up work, or going part time to parent. This is nearly always the mother.

More men becoming rp on relationship split. Even if child responsibilities are equal before, or even the father has more, residency goes to the mother.

Financial responsibility- a lot of times men lose out when moving out of the family home. Many nrp can't afford to house themselves and afford spare rooms for children to visit, so the burden again falls to the rp.

If we're honest though, how many of us would want the "mother stays with the kids" thinking to change? And who would decide who the kids stayed with, court every time?

CrazedZombie · 06/07/2017 17:29

If a woman works part time, people assume that she has caring responsibilities. If men work part time, people assume that they are lazy or have a second part-time job. Perhaps one of the things that need to change is that once babies are born, both parents should be requesting flexible working /part-time rather than just the mum. Assuming that the number of mums and dads are pretty equal, perhaps the ideal is that more parents of both sexes work flexible part-time jobs.

Faithless12 · 06/07/2017 17:30

@reallyanotherone I wouldn't want that thinking to change as in my case I did all of the care. I woke in the middle of the night, I was the one who looked after DS when he was ill. I took the time off work etc because DH wouldn't. Why should DH take DS when he has no real 'bond' with DS? That was his choice.
It was his choice to chase away his family so I'd be insane to leave DS with him. Even now he'll change his plans to have DS at the drop of the hat and won't take him to a doctor if he is ill with him. Doesn't respond to his needs and tbh if I was as bad as he says I am I wouldn't let him see him as I spend the entirety of his contact time sitting by my phone.

kittensinmydinner1 · 06/07/2017 18:45

I work for DWP. We have two huge fraud departments. Criminal (organised crime attacks) and Local. (Individuals scamming the system) if we can investigate and prosecute lone parents who claim and work (mostly improving their lot by a pittance) . Why can't DWP fraud investigate absent parents who lie about their income and don't pay the correct rate. We have all the processes and equipment to run the surveillance. Saving the poor RP from having to do it herself/himself

Changedname3456 · 06/07/2017 19:27

"I work for DWP. We have two huge fraud departments. Criminal (organised crime attacks) and Local. (Individuals scamming the system)"

Well that's this shitty Government to a "T". Plenty of time to chase after small-fry benefit "cheats" but no time to actually make the genuine fraudsters in big business pay their way. Benefits fraud, certainly by individuals, is tiny. So small it would be cheaper to ignore it, and yet it always grabs the headlines in the Tory rags.

I've yet to see any figures which back up the idea that the "majority of single parents get no maintenance from the nrp" - that sounds a lot like the bullshit the papers put out there about the size of the benefit-fiddling problem.

"If we treated our children like THEY do we'd be prosecuted for neglect"?!

Did I actually read that? And no one else thought to challenge it? Who the fuck are "they" if not also the committed parents like me, and like all the fathers I know.

And who are "we" if not also the mothers that neglect and beat and starve and murder and practice fgm on their children?

Mothers, as some homogenous group, are not saints by dint of giving birth, and fathers are not collectively a bunch of shitheads who just exist to "neglect" their kids!

FML. This needs to be said?

LowGravity · 06/07/2017 20:10

"If we treated our children like THEY do we'd be prosecuted for neglect"?!

Pretty sure this poster was referring to non paying nrp's, you know the people this thread is about.

prettywhiteguitar · 06/07/2017 20:25

Typical, you are talking about non paying absent parents and they talk about themselves and their agenda

My ex fucked off travelling for a year and after having every other week contact and offered more decided to move 3hrs away. My ds was devastated, who has to pick up the pieces...me

Swipe left for the next trending thread