CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

I called CMS recently. Requested the pay and collect service which will soon attract the charges. Im happy to pay 4% to have no contact with the man who is abusive to me and my kids. They set it up, but said when the charges start he can opt to go to direct pay, where we have to arrange payments between us. So ill have to have contact. Then he will be saying hes short this month, and expect me to be fine with that, and if i report him missing payments or sending payments short of what they should be they can force him to use the service with charges but ill get a whole load of abuse for it. All this while the police and domestic violence services i use are urging zero contact, and possibly seeking non molestation orders and persuing a prosecution for the harrasment he has subjected me to.

Im a victim of abuse ffs, i cannot reach any sort of arrangement with the man who still seeks to use any opportunity to cause me stress and fear.

Secondly in my situation we weren't offered a disability reduction, I wonder why

I expect that's because you did not read all the paperwork they sent you or look on the gov website because if you had then you would have known to apply for it

This thread confirms for me that females hate females (in the name of men) more than men could ever. I care not if a residential parent is working or not. They have the main responsibility for the child anyway. Why do the superior in this thread choose to slag them off and not the male shit house (who probably has an understanding enabler in the wings such as some I won't personally call out here) who ties himself in knots so as not to pay a red cent towards any children that he has created?

Nobody has children planning on what they can afford if a partnership breaks down. Bloody hell, talk about taking all the wonderment and joy out of life!
New girlfriends of men who do not pay towards their children welfare.... why in the hell are you with a regressed adult who has no impetus or zeal? What joy are you lacking in your souls that you want to yoke yourself to somebody who can't get shit done and complains when simple action and empathy will do? Why are your lives so dry that you get a high chest by battling for wutless men? Why do you feel that these men shouldn't contribute ('cos that's what you are really saying, if you cut through the "he's a victim" bullshit)? Why do you have children for men who are in "mix up" with an ex with children who he can't financially contribute to, yet you expect YOUR kids ('cos he lives with you) to not suffer?
I really fell like cussing some bad words after your kind.

To the poster who said the CM went up because of her DSD moving in with her, this simply cannot be true. It most definitely went up for another reason - they reduce calculations by a certain percentage for a Relevant Other Child in the household.
The only way this will have increased is if your DP is the primary earner in the household and you receive Child Tax Credit as a couple for her, and told them this. Yes they can use this as income.

As for those with NRPs who are self employed - the CSA use information provided to them from HMRC. Unfortunately if HMRC have been idiotic enough to accept that the NRP earns and lives on lets say the £4 a week he/she is declaring, then the CSA cannot dispute this. In which case it should be HMRC you are angry at. They should be exorcising their powers against tax evasion but are equally incompetent.

Has anyone here reported their ex partner for tax evasion and had a result?

I'm not convinced new partners always know....my ex was (is) a con man. He was bloody good at it. He fooled me for many years and I'm not daft (you obviously only have my word for that, but I'm sure you know what I mean!). I am pretty sure that his current relationship is a house of cards but that he risks it because there's plenty more women where she came from if she works it all out (several have already). I would be pretty sure my ex never tells anyone at all that he doesn't pay maintenance. I am equally sure that he tells people he's superdad and pays way over the odds....why would anyone have reason to think otherwise? it's hardly good dating etiquette to demand to see the bank transfers/receipts, is it?!

I shout a lot on here when I hear stories that for me don't quite add up but I know that when you're in the thick of a relationship, you can't necessarily see the obvious (or the not so obvious) because you don't want to. One of the reasons I steer clear of new relationships is knowing there are 'victims' like my ex out there..I just don't know how I'd trust what was said was true.

flame I reported to hmrc using evidence legally obtained using a accountant and private detective both specialists in tax/benefit fraud (both also employed by hmrc ) proving without a doubt how and how much. They smiled at me and were perfectly polite but nothing came of it,it did not even instigate their own investigation.

happybeard the courts have pretty much always had the power to order CM for step children because the courts treat them as children of the family during divorce

It's extremely difficult as a nrp to get a variation on the basis a disabled child lives with you.

Quite wrong there Amber but dont let it stop you . We should have a welfare state to protect our elderly, sick and disabled if they cannot do any form of work. Its what it was set up to do. I dont think it should pay as somebody wont work or wants to work few hours. Thats wrong and I am quite entitled to my opinion as you are yours

What on earth has your attitude towards benefits got to do with CM?

Are you saying that only benefit free lone parent households are entitled to expect any financial contribution from the NRP?

Or ones who obtain no practical or financial support from family?

Or that households where the children are having their needs met are guilty of neglect if any income comes from benefits?

Sock, I'm being really thick. So, if my DH and I divorced, he could be ordered to pay me CM for my dd, his step daughter?

The culture surrounding this idea is all wrong. Why should the person already doing the lion's share also be expected on top of everything else to pay to have the NRP meet his/her financial obligations? I mean this is really fucked up thinking.

If there is a need to involve an agency to collect child maintainance then the responsibility to pay for it should lay with the person who has to meet their contribution via the agency.

This is another strike against women/children though isn't it and that is the point. What should be happening is enforcement should be given more teeth and penalties for non-compliance made steeper.

Instead we have the creation of a situation where the very poorest are even further away from getting what their children are entitled to. They are being asked to contribute to an ineffective system of collection with very poor outcomes.

I actually think that childcare and costs should be split 50/50 between both parents. If one party is unable to meet their 50% of their responsibilities then the other party should be paid and compensated accordingly -pension loss, extra housing costs, loss of earnings and basic child maintainance all factored in etc

Until that is the norm we will never have equality.

No it is not owl its one of the easiest variations to get,pretty much all you have to do is show that any disability related income is being used correctly that the child does have a disability and they incur further costs as a result of that.

My estranged husband was able to do it despite me writing and informing them he not only had no financial liability towards my children nor did he have any practical lability towards them and that I had not given him consent to read/take/use any of their medical information for any reason.

He obtained it by stealing copies of diagnostic reports and sending them off and it took him less than 8 weeks after applying to get the letter.when I found out and made him leave they did not even make him pay it back to his ex. I felt so guilty I paid her until the CSA got around to resolving it

I wish MNHQ would do a campaign on this.

It is a direct attack on women and children.

3/5 of lone parents don't receive any maintenance at all. The majority. Because financial abuse of their own children by men, is acceptable.

All you arseholes who spout misogynistic crap about feckless hooers popping out sprogs and living off men, just hope your DH doesn't have an affair and leave you because you're one affair away from being stigmatised the way you stigmatise other women.

Is that why you do it? Fear? Or just general asshattery?

Stooshe what about the men who are left by women who 'run away' with the child and won't let them "make them adults to support". You can't assume every man who had kids with someone he slags off is in the wrong! She may well deserve to be slagged off out of the kids ear shot!

Sock, I'm being really thick. So, if my DH and I divorced, he could be ordered to pay me CM for my dd, his step daughter?

In theory yes but only if you asked for it, exactly as he could request and obtain a contact order

Sorry, but it is not that straightforward if you are just a normal person paying your way and not clued up on the legalities of it. You might know how the system works, most people trust the people who work in their jobs to advise properly on what is actually happening.

I don't really think justifying the costs of your disabled child, having it dragged out for months and then having yo go to court twice to get a variation is straightforward either. Especially after 3 months the whole thing starts again.

I also think though variations should work both ways and nrp should pay MORE for their children who are disabled. Than again I think men should be made financially responsible if a severely disabled 'child's whilst they still earn anyway, no matter that child's age

It really was that straight forward for him no court hearing no tribunal no nothing,and IMO he's not switched on about the system, perhaps it was easier as my children are considered to be significantly disabled so no need to prove additional cost (just a guess)

I totally agree with you AskBasil except I would add that women AND children are being financially abused.

I want a campaign too. Mumsnet should be all about championing the rights of women as parents and their children.

Sorry, have just found this thread...
There was a post further up (am sorry I can't recall the username of the person posting..) who said that the fees would be taken out of the child's maintenance payments.. Is this true? I was of the understanding that the fees would be on top, or otherwise isn't the child being 'taxed' for receiving maintenance??! In my book that's utterly disgusting. Why introduce fees if they are so concerned about people being able to afford them..??

Needasock, the resident child with the nrp was very disabled child (and a biological one) and it was extremely difficult, mp got involved in the end

Which I suppose shows the csa wasn't/isn't fair :(

Tbh I haven't heard of many cases of the csa being fair. The whole system needs a reform. Circumstances should be more closely looked at too.

owl then yes a example of inconsistency

I'm sure there are many NRP out there who do not pay have no intention of paying but there are equally many who wish to pay and do. Why are all fathers feckless in the same way all single mothers are benefit hungry scroungers! The CSA did not work for those mothers who never received payment or for those easy target fathers who were hounded when they had fully declared their income. There are countless posts above that prove the CSA doesn't work. My DH pays CM and has for 14 years his EW has made it difficult every step of the way. She has denied contact, been to court three times costing us thousands yet it's quite happy to collect the money every month. She insisted going through the CSA even when DH said he would pay her more privately and he hadn't defaulted before. She has made every effort to harm my DH even at the expense of her own child so whilst I feel greatly for women who receive no support from father don't tar everyone with same brush. Some fathers will do anything to support their children we still pay now even though my DH son is 19 so has left education and my DH hasn't seen him in 5 years we couldn't afford to go back to court again as we now have a child so we only have one income. The courts are as useless with contact as the CSA are with payment. If a father is consistently maintaining payment why should he have to pay 20% extra just because RP wants to play games. I'm sure by the way my case is in the minority before everyone starts trolling me I understand some fathers don't pay but some do.

It is obvious that this government hates women and children. Things will get much worse if they stay in power (think massive cuts to benefits, tax credits, employment chances etc). All we can do is vote them out, vote tactically - vote Labour.

I think if the nrp is refusing to pay/ found to be paying too little they should pay the fees.
If the rp goes to csa when they are already being paid, on time and when agreed and the nrp has been found to be paying pretty much the right amount then the rp should pay the fees.
Not sure what to do if you're ex is tax evading though.