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:
Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 15:50

I do agree that in some situations money isn't the issue, but in many, many cases the RP is left penniless while the NRP lives the life of Riley while exploiting every loophole going in order to avoid financial responsibility. It goes without saying that they're not fulfilling other responsibilities if they're prepared to do that too.
I wasn't in a position to work (DS1 has ASD and no childcare provider would take him), and now I have 3 kids, all with ASD although thankfully DP works like a Trojan to support the kids meaning that I don't have to work and worry about finding childcare.

Sadly there is no "one size fits all" policy that would help everyone, there will always be exceptions and loopholes. The biggest thing imo is that we need to make it socially unacceptable to not fulfil your responsibilities to your kids, whether that's as a RP or NRP. The fact that people can play games when it comes to their children is sickening.

phoenixtherabbit · 09/07/2017 15:59

Yes I agree in that nobody should be using loopholes or avoiding paying. It absolutely should be socially unacceptable to not support your children. It should also be socially unacceptable to exploit the other parent (rare but unfortunately I do know some people who do it).

I agree entirely that it's repulsive when people play games with their children and honestly I cannot understand how they can do it. I cannot imagine using my child yo my own advantage or to get what I want.

Notreallyarsed · 09/07/2017 16:09

I couldn't agree with you more. Any parent, RP or NRP who uses their child to point score or for their own agenda is an absolute scumbag.

Traveller123 · 12/07/2017 12:36

If RP denies NRP access to children why do RP complain when NRP attempts to reduce and evade CM?

Oblomov17 · 12/07/2017 13:20

Just posted on another thread. About similar. Having worked in accounts for many years, I've seen all sorts of 'creative accounting'. Hmm

Savvy parents, and clever accountants using all sorts of techniques to reduce income.

The system doesn't work. And many people will utilise it, willescape, till it is clamped down. The system isn't 'fit for purpose'.

So what exactly is the OP suggesting happens? I put to you that their attempts are pointless. And really it needs something totally different.

Here's a semi-silly-example:

Builder to Accountant:
So, you've earnt £100,000? Well, once you use this and that, use up your use-of-home allowance for £250. But I don't work from home. You do now!!! no-one at HMRC will take a blind bit of notice, if its under the threshold. Bought workwear? Nope. I am an IT designer. You have now. Find me a receipt for some jeans etc you bought recently. That's £100 odd off the total.... continues. Oh look you've now made a profit of £1000. Tax on that is.... estimate £66......

Does that help get your soon-to-be-ex-wife off your back?

Hmm
Graphista · 12/07/2017 14:05

I've been in touch with csa/cms this week. I've now been passed over from old agency to new one. Arrears were recovered... Then taken by dwp for supposed arrears I owed on income support from over 10 years ago (I don't owe any I know that). Cms can recover but not holding my breath. Been doing my household budget projection as tryin to find money for various things dd needs.

I don't even count the maintenance until it's actually in my account. It shouldn't be like that.

It should be clear. Even the woman at cms agreed it's a shit system. I said I'm on mn and that the idea of deducting via tax code on wages is often suggested. She said she used to work in that dept and that her and other colleagues that also worked there say the same it would be MUCH easier and more efficient and cheaper for the govt.

Notreallyarsed · 12/07/2017 15:19

If RP denies NRP access to children why do RP complain when NRP attempts to reduce and evade CM?

Legally contact and maintenance are not linked. Question being why the fuck would a NRP punish the child (by not providing for them) for the actions of the RP?

Traveller123 · 12/07/2017 17:24

To Notreallyarsed. If RP blocks access to NRP is that not punishment of the child too🤔

Graphista · 12/07/2017 19:53

I've rarely heard of an RP actually withholding a child from seeing nrp without a damn good reason regarding the health and safety of the child concerned.

However, lots of NRP CLAIM to have been prevented from seeing their children for no good reason (including several members of f4j).

My ex tells everyone I've stopped him seeing dd. I haven't at all I've done all I practically can to ensure he sees her. I can't request his annual leave for him, I can't book his travel for him (or at least it would be a waste of the little money I do have given chances are he STILL wouldn't turn up), I've shelled out for hotel rooms and house hire to facilitate him seeing our daughter. In addition to transport and doing the travelling (which legally I don't have to).

Long and short of it is these wasters just don't give a shit about their own kids!

Notreallyarsed · 12/07/2017 20:23

It all depends Traveller123 I tried to block access for my XH because he nearly killed me in front of my son, threatened to burn my house down after slitting my throat and making sure my son never remembered who I was. In my case I was trying to protect my child and was overruled by XH "rights". In the case of a RP who stops contact out of sheer spite they are indeed punishing their children and are cunts.

Graphista · 13/07/2017 00:01

Well said notreallyarsed

Traveller123 · 13/07/2017 03:15

To Notreallyarsed. I pay CM of £750 for one child and £400 per month SM. Add benefits ex wife receives and she has £2250 in hand every month.

Access is blocked on basis that UK is racist according to ex wife as courts did not agree with her application for SM of £4500 per month for life. Strangely enough she has not squealed racism when she was awarded £700 in benefits from UK government even though she has never paid Tax in UK 🤔 For comparison my father worked in NHS for the maximum 40 years and his pension does not match ex wife's benefits 😩

Notreallyarsed · 13/07/2017 08:25

Traveller are you wilfully misunderstanding me? RP who stop access out of spite are cunts is pretty clear, or I thought it was. Also, they make it harder for those of us who actually have genuine fears about the welfare of our children to stop access for legitimate reasons. But please, don't think that all RP who stop access do so out of spite, those parents are (thankfully) massively in the minority. However the amount of RP forced to hand their children to their X-whatever despite considerable abuse and fear is massive.
I don't know what SM is, is it spousal maintenance? I've never understood the point in that tbh.

Notreallyarsed · 13/07/2017 08:25

Thank you Graphista

Traveller123 · 13/07/2017 09:41

To Notreallyarsed. SM is Spousal Maintenance. Son has never been in danger when with myself or his grandparents. So safety is not an issue. If anything it is other way round as there is evidence of son (aged 8 at time) being left alone in house at weekends when his mother is at work. Even his sister reported his mother to social services about the language he was hearing from his mother before I filed for divorce. I was overseas at time so only have Stepdaughter's word against her mother's.

Guess my ex is one of the small minority. Certainly the legal people and the courts considered her behaviour to be irrational.

Notreallyarsed · 13/07/2017 09:48

Spousal maintenance is a ridiculous concept, it's not up to an ex to provide for you after a split, just the kids. I didn't even realise it was a "thing" until I came on here!
I'm sorry your son has been put at risk. It's the hardest thing to know your child is at risk and actually be blocked by the law from protecting them.

Graphista · 13/07/2017 09:54

Sorry no I disagree. Spousal maintenance is fair in some cases. There are RP's who've agreed to give up promising careers of their own to be supportive spouses and parents of people who have more promising careers. The contract is that they will both benefit from both their efforts.

To leave an RP who hasn't worked for perhaps 20 years, or not consistently, without means of support is not ok.

Think of spouses of military, govt workers (eg ambassadors, diplomats and those working in support roles of same) and similar for whom it would be pretty much impossible to build a career of their own.

Notreallyarsed · 13/07/2017 10:28

I'd never thought of it like that Graphista, that does make sense.

Traveller123 · 13/07/2017 11:46

There is no formula for SM and is not a guaranteed entitlement. If one partner gave up a lucrative career, or marriage has been long or if one partner has disability then SM more likely to be awarded. However, it based solely on needs. Wants, wishes, greed or revenge are not taken into account.

If SM is awarded it is becoming the norm to be for a fixed period of maybe 2 to 4 years. Logic is allow financially weaker partner time to become independent. However, paying partner's needs and their ability to pay is also taken into account. Even if one partner was Stay At Home, Long Marriage, disabled, etc., SM will not be awarded if it were to result in paying partner living in hardship.

DidHeFalse1996 · 21/07/2017 07:03

Ex is Self Employed and CMS have assessed a maintenance figure much lower than he pays. Ex agrees that CMS is way too low and should arrange ourselves.

His suggestion it to use net profit after tax as that is apparently maximum director can pay themselves.

I am not an account so I don't really understand how self employed works.

Ex has never been a bad person, but I would to be sure I receive correct amount.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page