Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
AyeAmarok · 08/07/2017 13:45

It's 16% a month, phoenix, not a month.

And regarding mortgage, when you have DC you typically need a family home in as nice an are as you can afford, near good schools etc. If you don't have DC then you can live in a flat or smaller property where it's cheaper and there is a bit of life about the place.

The difference in my mortgage alone from where I used to live and where I live now is more than 16% of my salary.

SWD75 · 08/07/2017 13:52

My ex-partner owns his own business, to avoid paying cm he has resigned as the company MD, leaves his dividends in the company dividend account, by not drawing them down at this time the dividends are not visible to HMRC, his latest antic is to say he is only part time, my payments change so frequently it's a joke, although as yet I've received only 4 payments in 18 months, he owes £7000 in arrears. I contacted my MP, who has been brilliant, he has now got the CMS to investigate my ex for fraud.
My ex made three payments into a frozen joint bank account knowing I couldn't withdraw the money, he froze the account and cancelled all of the direct debits etc. My DD is the one who suffers, our finances are so tight it is a joke.
I think that non-payment of child maintenance is not only socially unacceptable but is tantamount to abuse, non payment is a way for a controlling man to maintain his control over his ex through financial means. It is a form of domestic violence, albeit by an absent parent which should be punishable in the same way as other forms of domestic abuse.
My DD's father has had nothing to do with his now 18 year old daughter since he left, midlife crisis another woman, he's just turned his back on her.

LowGravity · 08/07/2017 14:03

If I didn't have him I'd still be paying mortgage gas and electric so i wouldn't really count that.

Just goes to show everyone's circumstances are different. I can't get a mortgage on a single income. The difference between a 1 bed and 2 bed where I live is about £250 p/month so half of that alone should be paid by the nrp, then there's food/clothes/childcare/activities/birthdays/Christmas/school uniforms and trips etc etc, which is why I think maintenance should be based on the costs of raising a child and not on a percentage of nrp's income. If they can't pay it the government does and they pay their debt to the government at an affordable rate, this would prevent children going without.

AyeAmarok · 08/07/2017 14:12

A month, not a week, I mean.

user1499421397 · 08/07/2017 14:49

I agree SWD and low gravity. My daughter's dad is violent, I chose not to have any maintenance from him just to get him out of our lives though, while he was paying he was controlling and abusive. I had to 'earn' that money by dealing with his constant harassment, 24/7 calls, texts and emails that had nothing to do with my daughter. It wasn't worth it, peace is priceless!

phoenixtherabbit · 08/07/2017 22:02

Just goes to show everyone's circumstances are different. I can't get a mortgage on a single income. The difference between a 1 bed and 2 bed where I live is about £250 p/month so half of that alone should be paid by the nrp, then there's food/clothes/childcare/activities/birthdays/Christmas/school uniforms and trips etc etc, which is why I think maintenance should be based on the costs of raising a child and not on a percentage of nrp's income. If they can't pay it the government does and they pay their debt to the government at an affordable rate, this would prevent children going without

Why on earth should the nrp contribute to your accommodation? It's not their responsibility ENTIRELY that you need an extra bedroom. Presumably they need an extra bedroom too, for when the child stays with them but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to contribute for that?

There is no standard cost of bringing up a child. One persons standards are different to others. It would never work.

The child has two parents and I think a lot of RPS expect almost 100% of child related costs to be met by the NRP which is entirely unreasonable.

LowGravity · 09/07/2017 09:54

The child has two parents and I think a lot of RPS expect almost 100% of child related costs to be met by the NRP which is entirely unreasonable.

No just 50%, like I already said

Presumably they need an extra bedroom too, for when the child stays with them but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to contribute for that?

Not necessarily, my child hasn't seen his dad in 9 years

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 10:04

The child has two parents and I think a lot of RPS expect almost 100% of child related costs to be met by the NRP which is entirely unreasonable

Short of ridiculous cases in the media involving millionaires I have never come across this attitude in RL, in fact it's almost invariably the opposite, the NRP doesn't see why they should contribute anything, bitching about the bare minimum expected.

donners312 · 09/07/2017 10:27

i think the point is also that the RP is often the one who has sacrificed their career and is at a financial disadvantage so yes the NRP who is usually the one with the higher income should supplement the RP.

After not working for years the RP can hardly go out and start an amazing and lucrative career (not to mention the fact they have to finish by 2;30 to collect the kids and need all the school holidays off)

With hindsight i am sure all RP wish they had never given up their job and gone 50/50 with the other parent from the get go. isn't hindsight a wonderful thing (i'm sure we all wish we hadn't had kids with these twats either).

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 11:29

think the point is also that the RP is often the one who has sacrificed their career and is at a financial disadvantage so yes the NRP who is usually the one with the higher income should supplement the RP.

After not working for years the RP can hardly go out and start an amazing and lucrative career (not to mention the fact they have to finish by 2;30 to collect the kids and need all the school holidays off)

I think this is a massive generalisation. Plus nobody makes you work part time or give up completely. That's a choice. When ss lived with his mum she worked full time. Now he lives with us his dad works full time. I can't bare all the woe is me you e left me with the children (and usually a house, child benefit and tax credits) and so I cannot do anything for myself anymore

A lot of nrps are expected to start again with nothing and be able to afford to house their child in two different places because the rp doesn't feel that it's their responsibility

And just because a pp hasn't met these people in real life doesn't mean they don't exist.

Dps ex insisted we pay for everything. Whole school trips, school uniform, football training, contribute to her childcare even though her tax credits paid for it. On top of maintenance obviously. Now the shoe is on the other foot we don't see anything more than the minimum payment and we had yo right to get that.

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 11:40

phoenixtherabbit to use your own words back at you, just because your situation doesn't reflect other people's experiences doesn't mean they didn't happen.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 11:53

Yes I understand that but what I'm saying is that you cannot expect the riles to be changed on one person's experience. We've had the short straw but I don't expect the cms to change it's whole operation to suit me.

LowGravity · 09/07/2017 12:05

Ah phoenix is a step parent, that explains a lot. Well your dp isn't a single parent if he lives with you is he? 2 salaries make childcare affordable, 1 does not, unless you're a high earner. Tax credits do not pay for childcare, only some of it.

Plus nobody makes you work part time or give up completely. That's a choice.

Not always a choice, many single parents, like non single parents have children with disabilities or are disabled theirselves. You do seem incapable of imagining any other scenario than your own.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 12:13

owGravity

Ah phoenix is a step parent, that explains a lot. Well your dp isn't a single parent if he lives with you is he? 2 salaries make childcare affordable, 1 does not, unless you're a high earner. Tax credits do not pay for childcare, only some of it.

Yes a step parent and a parent thanks. Me and dp have already had the conversation of what would happen with ds if we split up as I don't ever need a repeat of the utter shit show him and his ex went through.

I don't understand wtf me being a step parent has got to do with it when I am (dp is) the rp? And dp was the one paying for everything even when he wasn't the rp!

Tax credits pay up to 75% of childcare. I know what she earned then, I know how many hours we went to childcare so I know that she was getting help towards it and yet still wanted us to fund it.

I don't ask ex for anything more than she's paying (bare minimum) because I know she'll say no. But because she is his parent and I'm not, I'm clearly the bad one.

Obviously situations where you have a disabled child are different so yes you may have to leave work but then presumably that happens before you split up doesn't it?

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 12:32

But your DPs ex should be liable for the rules of the CMS???? She should be providing for her child, which is all anyone is expecting as an RP?

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 12:33

A RP, not an. Fucks sake brain fart day today.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 13:28

She is. Paying the bare minimum. Mention a man doing that and that's not at all acceptable is it? Maybe not this thread but in general on here it's seen as really shitty to pay the legal minimum.

donners312 · 09/07/2017 13:43

It is really shitty to pay the bare minimum and the fact the NRP in this case is the mum doesn't make it acceptable.

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 15:04

Whether the NRP is male or female it is shitty to only pay the bare minimum and refuse to ever contribute anything else ever on the grounds they're paying the bare minimum so "doing their duty". The fact that in your case the NRP is female is nowt to do with anything, a shitty NRP is a shitty NRP.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 15:16

Apparently not though. Dp got stopped from seeing his son and apparently that was his own fault for leaving. Paid maintenance and a lot else on top (fair enough) fought for access, fought for more access. Got called a bully. His family sided with the ex.

Ex kicked ss out never paid maintenance for months and now pays bare minimum but everyone feels for her because they believe (ie she has told them) that we forced her into making ss live with us because we want more cash Hmm

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 15:23

It sounds like you've had a shit time Phoenix and nobody here says you haven't, but you must admit that your situation isn't the norm. At all.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 15:33

No it's not, but just because it is not the norm barely anyone seems to sympathise and most people jump to the conclusion that the dad is in the wrong no matter what.

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 15:34

With all due respect Phoenix nobody on here did that, and your combative approach probably doesn't help. You're in a really shit situation, I can see that, and the NRP is clearly a complete and utter arsehole. What I can't understand is why that doesn't make you empathise with women in the same position as you and your DP, surely you're in the same boat?

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 15:35

And I say that as a RP who has had no kind of support from XH, in any sense, financial, medical, emotional, educational, he's never around for anything.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 15:46

I never said it was anyone on here who didn't believe me. It's people in real life I have the problem with.

I do have empathy for women in the same situation, of course I do. But I can't support wanting to change the system because of it. I don't always think more money actually helps either.

As much as we would appreciate the odd money towards uniform etc, I would much rather ss mum spent time with him over her paying me anything. I find the attitude of some rps is good riddance and they don't encourage contact. Of course lots do and nrps aren't interested which is equally as shitty.

It's a shit situation all round and wherever possible I would want 50/50 care and no money paid to anyone but obviously that isn't possible a lot of the time. It would be for us but ss mum not interested in seeing him more.