Child maintenance System has no regard for the fathers family

[Lsimms97]

I’m absolutely in shock at how many posts I am reading from women slating their children’s fathers who are refusing to pay maintenance through CMS. I am a woman and if I ever break up with my husband, I would never ever put in a CMS claim because I respect him. I understand that sometimes there are deadbeat fathers and CMS is the only option, but for loving fathers who actually see their children, please do not use CMS! My husband’s ex, who has a drug problem, is unemployed and takes up drug habits whilst my stepchild is at school all day, has decided that after years of a family based arrangement, that she would like to put in a CMS claim, in which she has lied about the existence of my children and the amount of nights we looks after my step child for. CMS are being extremely difficult about this and forcing us to go through tribunal courts to resolve the incorrect information whilst at the same time they are taking incorrect payments from us which is everything we have after paying rent. The result is that we are now left struggling to feed and clothe two toddlers. I love my stepchild and would never see them go without, we are a huge part in their life and have never refused to pay for school uniforms, lunch money, top ups, holidays etc, clothes, haircuts...anything which is needed! But the reality is my stepchild is walking around in a pair of £200 trainers, has all of the latest gadgets etc and we have nothing left for our children. His ex has even sent us a picture of a takeaway and said ‘cheers’ because she is getting so much money and it does not take that much money to raise one child. Do you not also think that as mothers, you should also contribute to the child’s upbringing? CMS payments mean that fathers pay for everything even though it takes two to tango. My poor husband has Had his life ruined by this woman constantly using the child as a weapon and now she’s found a new way to get to him. The sad reality is he is going to have to quit his job or we lose our home. I also work part time by the way, but we cannot cover the unrealistic payments and still support our children. CMS do not care about this, I have cried down the phone to them and they literally couldn’t care less.so please women, if you have any respect for your ex, please seek a family based arrangement. So many men have committed suicide over this, and been left in poverty. It isn’t fair. The CMS are awful!

My ex job hops. Lives at his Mums so no bills etc. Every 10-12 weeks, new job or back on the dole. System is too slow to update so in almost 3 years I’ve had zero. He also doesn’t see our child; his choice.

Many loopholes need to close. Fast.

MissedTheBoatAgain I can see how that wouldn’t be helpful. My XH has no assets, and he’s a workshy lazy shite too. He jumped from cash in hand job to proper work, back and forth to dodge it.

The irony was I’d only bloody claimed it to try and show him there’s more to being a parent than rocking up once a fortnight with a fucking happy meal

He’s never provided a single thing for DS1 bar one pair of too small trainers that looked like they’d been used to go through a marsh.

But thankfully we are ok financially, and don’t need it. The fact the system is so loaded against RPs who aren’t so lucky is absolutely shameful.

But thankfully we are ok financially, and don’t need it

Take refuge in that you can manage without help from Ex. Many others can't and spend their lives surviving as opposed to living.

Many loopholes need to close. Fast

The new 2012 CMS Scheme seems to have created more Loopholes than the previous CSA. Variations based on assets and lifestyle being inconsistent with earnings have been removed. Government set up CMS so that they can access HMRC records, but system seems slow to react.

If NRP is a Job hopper, self employed or works through Ltd Company or outside UK it seems to send CMS into chasing a constantly moving target and never gets resolved.

Wow! Where to start!

1 If he wasn't paying the MINIMUM maintenance such that she had no choice but to go through cms then if/when you split he'll treat you and your DC the same

2 you may respect him now, pretty bloody hard to respect a deadbeat ex!

3 contact and maintenance are SEPARATE issues - children are not bloody pay per view!

4 do you know for a fact she has drug issues? Is unemployed? Or is this just what your husband has told you? Cos honestly I've a lot of experience with addicts and their kids tend NOT to be wearing £200 because the money would be going on the addiction! IF all you're saying was true your husband (and yourself) would have for the child's sake applied for primary residency, but of course you haven't.

5 what EXACTLY was the 'family based arrangement'? I'm guessing you mean PRIVATE arrangement he had with his ex. Was it the same as or more than the cms MINIMUM?

6 it's not 'us' paying the maintenance it's him. He has a responsibility to HIS child from a previous relationship.

7 the cms MINIMUM is a small percentage of HIS income. If things are so tight with him paying that then you maybe should have been more sensible in planning your own family.

8 did the money you provided for the 'extras' you claim REGULARLY meet the cms minimum? It's impossible for her to plan a budget based on money your husband MIGHT deign to provide.

9 the mother IS ensuring her side of providing for their child - with 2 DC of your own how much do you KNOW it costs to raise a child? Is your husband contributing 50% of that? I think it highly unlikely seeing as you're railing against the cms MINIMUM he's having to pay.

10 it's despicable that he's considering quitting working to avoid paying - total abdication of his responsibility YOU should be ashamed he's even considering that!

On one thing I agree, cms payments ARE unrealistic - they are woefully LOW and rarely come close to 50% of the cost of raising a child, even just basics.

Men who go on to new relationships in which they consider having more DC SHOULD first consider if they can afford to WITHOUT reducing maintenance to their older children - not to their ex's THEIR CHILDREN!

As pps I very much suspect the REALITY is he's been taking the piss for years, underpaying and now it's caught up to him! Tough! He shouldn't be an irresponsible father then (and I include your DC in this). You seem under the mistaken impression your husband isn't a deadbeat dad - news for you

He is!

If you split from him (increased likelihood in subsequent relationships) he'll be a deadbeat to your kids too!

Maintenance isn't used for "treats" it's for basic costs - do you REALLY spend less on your children than her for rent/mortgage difference for more bedrooms, children's furniture and soft furnishings, heat, light, hot water, food/groceries, clothes, shoes, uniform, school supplies, non-prescription meds/first aid items... ? Extremely unlikely!

Arrears - so he WAS underpaying!

Well said Graphista

MissedTheBoatAgain I don’t get any joy from that, it wasn’t always that way. We did struggle, for many years, which is why now I don’t want anything from him because if he didn’t do anything when it was needed what’s the point now?

The system is broken, both maintenance and courts. The interests of the child/ren should be paramount, but they’re not .

Graphista well bloody said!

My arsehole exh did leave his job one month after he paid his first maintenance back in the early 90's, as he couldn't bear the thought of paying me for his daughter. In those days, it was much easier to leave a job, and 'sign on sick' I was on Income support bringing her up and the system then took the minimum from his benefits - a fiver I think and gave it to me, taking it off my IS. It was an awful lot harder then I reckon, at least now maintenance seems to be on top of any benefit. It was awful to be honest. He managed to get DLA for years and never paid me a penny, even when he managed to earn loads. I estimate he owes me thousands now she's an adult, but there's no way I'll ever get it.

On one thing I agree, cms payments ARE unrealistic - they are woefully LOW and rarely come close to 50% of the cost of raising a child, even just basics.
See my earlier post. It really does come close to 50% of the cost of raising a child, even for someone on minimum wage.

Men who go on to new relationships in which they consider having more DC SHOULD first consider if they can afford to WITHOUT reducing maintenance to their older children - not to their ex's THEIR CHILDREN!

Parents are responsible for all their children even if they were born to different partners. The Child Maintenance Calculator takes this into account. Don't think there is anything in Law which states children born to first partner take priority over those born to a later partner?

And how many single mothers have live in partners who contribute to household costs, but don't tell their Ex Husbands as they fear CM maybe reduced?

“And how many single mothers have live in partners who contribute to household costs, but don't tell their Ex Husbands as they fear CM maybe reduced?”

None of the ones with basic understanding or reading comprehension, as the RP’s household income has no bearing in law on the NRP’s CMS liability :)

To MadameButterface

Suggest you look at the following link:

www.stowefamilylaw.co.uk/blog/2010/02/19/maintenance-payments-and-a-new-partner-bad-news-for-cohabitees-part-2/

Punchline is:

As both Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall have made very clear, the question is not what the new partner is contributing but what he ought to be contributing – and if he can afford to pay, he will be expected to do so. It is a matter for each court to make its own assessment based on all the facts. If they judge that no further maintenance should be paid, then no further maintenance will be paid.

There is clearly a greater risk now for those women who wish to cohabit, as they stand to lose their valuable, tax-free maintenance payments. If they do not want to be grilled in court about the nature of their new relationship they should be certain not to cross the line and live with their partner until they are completely and utterly sure.

The risk of starting a new, post-divorce relationship is no longer restricted to emotions. Now an ex-wife must also take into account the possible financial impact of cohabiting with a new partner.

Socially, morally and legally this all sounds sensible.

I’d be interested to see how the numbers add up when there is more than one child Collaborate. Especially if the cost figures you use are the average across all children not just those of only children.

I’d be interested to see how the numbers add up when there is more than one child Collaborate. Especially if the cost figures you use are the average across all children not just those of only children

The % NRP must pay is increased of there is more than one child.

12% for one child
16% for two children
19% for three children or more

Reason for not multiplying the rate for one child by the number of children is that they will almost certainly be living in the same house. So overheads like; Mortgage, Rent, Council Tax will be same regardless of the number of persons in the house. Might be some increase in energy consumption, but will not be proportional to number of persons in house. Buying food in bulk likely works out cheaper per head too?

RP's seem to forget that CM is based on Gross Income. So NRP will have to find the CM after they have paid Tax and NI. So what NRP pays as a % of net income may well be higher than the 15% of net income under the old CM calculation?

RP's will also be entitled to Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. If working part time may even qualify for Working Tax Credit too?

Yes but if you look at the sources for Collaborates figures those aren’t the biggest costs they are including (money supermarket figures don’t include things like housing/utilities at all). That’s why it would be interesting to see him repeat his calculation because I think the difference would open up massively.

CEBR

money supermarket

My ex pays nothing. I pay everything so I suppose at least it's simple.

I don't agree with the first post. Why did the father have more children or help with his new partner's children if he cannot afford the first child? Why does the new wife/partner not work full time - then she might not be losing her home.

@MissedTheBoatAgain
Surely that is spousal maintenence as it suggests maintenence stops if the lady remarries. This isn't the case with child maintenence?

Nope! Don't agree that cms minimum regularly comes close to the actual 50% costs of raising a child.

Missedtheboatagain YES parents are responsible to ALL their children - so maintenance to older children SHOULDN'T be reduced due to the arrival of further children. They don't suddenly need less food, shelter, clothing just because they have a half sibling. If a couple stays together they don't have more children if that means older children missing out on things they NEED.

"And how many single mothers have live in partners who contribute to household costs, but don't tell their Ex Husbands as they fear CM maybe reduced?" Given this makes no difference to cm I think that highly unlikely. And even a cursory look on relationships board on here (plus my real life experience) it's more likely it's because the ex is a jealous controlling twat who will react badly to their ex being in a new relationship - INCLUDING stopping or reducing cm payments even though their exs new partner is NOT responsible for THEIR children!

"Socially, morally and legally this all sounds sensible" HOW? The only people responsible for children are their ACTUAL parents not step parents.

ArfArfBarf - in other words myself and those challenging collaborates figs live in the real world! Not one run by think tanks.

Why should housing figures be included in the calculation when both parents will have the same housing needs? What an absolute nonsense. An NRP who has a child at weekends still needs a bedroom for that child.

You can't bleat about the fathers not paying 50% of the cost without also advocating for all child related benefits to be stopped. If a child costs £10k a year to keep (they don't), and the state is paying £5k a year towards that, why should the father's contribution be £5k a year and the mother's nil? The answer is it shouldn't.

Aye because all women are just money grabbers going after the poor hard done by men eh? Fucks sake, this thread is depressingly predictable.

Aye because all women are just money grabbers going after the poor hard done by men eh? Please point out where I've even come close to saying that. Short answer is I haven't ever.

Fucks sake, this thread is depressingly predictable. Sorry to disturb you with some well researched facts. Feel free to respond with some of your own.

No-one's 'bleating', Collaborate. That's suspiciously close to misogynistic vocabulary, some might hazard to venture.

Structural inequalities exist in work, policy and language.

An NRP who has a child at weekends still needs a bedroom for that child.

Which some posters choose to remember and forget depending on the situation.

"You need the house/bulk of the equity as you have the kids, he can rent a one bed flat, not your problem"

vs

"Your step kids who stay there 4 nights a month DON'T have a room of their own?! You heartless bitch. I bet they hate you and hope they stop visiting their Dad asap".