How do you think CMS should be calculated?

[cantstandmenow]

Just that.

I receive CMS through personal arrangement, and while I'm not over the moon with it and not sure I'd receive more or less through the CMS service, I can see the system is pretty awful for others.

Just wondering how others think the system should work? Should NRP's pay a higher percentage of earnings? Should their lifestyle be taken into account? What should be put in place for those who aren't earning at all? (I think they should be made to do voluntary work and in return the RP receives additional payment, albeit with health taken into consideration).

I also don't agree with NRP's being able to reduce their payment if they move in with someone who already has children.

Just a general debate really!

Yes to a higher percentage. Any additional children shouldn't reduce the amount. Should be before pension contributions

The most important things they can do is get rid of the loopholes that the self employed use.

I think that the income reported to CMS should be tied to credit checks. If a parent tells CMS that they earn £150 a week then that figure should be used for mortgages, loans etc

If a NRP moves in with a new partner who has children with another person, it should not reduce CM.

If NRP has another child, CM should only reduce if NRP breaks up with the partner of that child.

I agree with closing loopholes, also greater powers to enforce the payment, once the amount is agreed then if the NRP stops paying the state should pay and get it back off the NRP the same way they would get tax off of someone who owed it.

Agree with all of that @rainingcatsanddog. Great suggestion about the credit checks/mortgages!

Timely thread. I am involved in the Gingerbread campaign that is making good inroads on this subject. Please go and take a look at it if you can. They need all the support they can get.

I have just had a meeting with my MP about this subject and I was surprised at how little he knew and indeed took some time explaining the ineffectiveness of the service to him. He was interested and supportive and has promised to help.

I'd like to see a bigger percentage. My ex-h pays a pittance but runs a business with his partner so takes a tiny salary. Their lifestyle, however, does not reflect this! More funding for the Financial Investigation Unit. Better input from HMRC. Tough sanctions. Closure of loopholes used by self employed (ex-h again). The first family not hit by reductions just because somebody chooses to go and have more children. Step children not being taken into account, particularly if they are already in receipt of maintenance from their own parent. Partner's income (whether married or not and that works both ways). My ex has been with OW for five years. They live together, run a business together that they jointly own, yet her financial circumstances can't be considered because they are unmarried. Yet my ex claims he's paid £2 an hour for a 70 hour week. Righto. The whole system stinks. As I said previously, PLEASE go and sign up for the Gingerbread Maintenance Matters campaign if you are affected. There is also a lot of information on the site as to how you can effectively pursue maintenance under difficult circumstances.

My ex has dodged it for 2.5 years because he Job hops. Works for 8 weeks, dole for a few weeks, rinse and repeat. HMRC don’t update fast enough to do a deduction from earnings. Whilst he’s on the dole they can’t persue criminal proceedings - the liability order and bailiffs got fuck all from him. CMS have said that whilst his debt will keep continue to mount, the odds of me getting a penny are extremely low due to the cycle of work/dole.

I just wish the people you spoke too had a clue what they were on about!

For persistent non-payers I think the government should pay the RP and get the money back from the NRP. Bet they hunt down non-payers more effectively since they must have a process for benefit cheats, tax evaders etc

@PipeTheFuckDown I really feel for you. What sort of shit does that to his own kids? In situations like that, we need much tougher sanctions ie : stay in the bloody job as benefits will not be claimable. I am really fed up with this sort of crap, they have to come down hard. It's not OK to cheat your children out of financial support.

@Cupoteap It really is hit and miss. I've had some very helpful people, some not so much. One guy was so unhelpful I asked to speak to his manager....who was great.

The percentage rate is based on the assumption that children spend a third of their time with nrp and not just some random amount.

The main issues seem to be self employed. Difficult to close loopholes because it's based on the tax system so that's what would need changing. There would be a lots of resistance to the self employed having to pay more tax looked what happened when the government tried to change NI for self employed.

@rainingcatsanddog I agree with you. This is a point that I am also going to make to MP during correspondence. The resources are quickly available if somebody doesn't pay council tax or VAT to give two examples, this should be no different.

There are people on here owes 5 figure sums 😵😡 so I hope that you are able to convince your MP that this is scandalous and totally unacceptable.

I think child maintenance should be collected like PAYE tax and NI contributions from all parents who are working, and from benefits/tax credits etc if not working. I think the government should calculate a national minimum rate that it costs to raise a child (like they calculate NMW etc) and divide it between both parents with an Option for one parent to “take on” their partner’s contribution in families where one parent doesn’t earn. The same way you can transfer your tax free allowance to your spouse. So all parents paying a national minimum rate. (Let’s call it the child support tax), at a certain level of income the contribution increases gradually. Contributions are then paid back in the form of child benefit (on top of the governments original child benefit amount) to whichever parent claims the child benefit, whether parents are separated or not. If parents split care after separation then two separate payments can be made. Important point is that the government pays the child benefit regardless of whether both parents pay their child support tax. Government are responsible for reclaiming overdue payments themselves and it is deductable from future benefits, including state pension if not repaid by that time.

That way child gets child support at a fixed minimum rate every month regardless of whether NRP pays or not. RP can budget properly because the money is guaranteed. Government can pursue non payers for unpaid child support. Non payers can quit work if they like to avoid paying but their entitlement to benefits is affected by whether they already owe child support or not.

FWIW I don’t expect the government ever to address this issue. There is no profit in it for them.

I agree with the loopholes needing to be closed and the reductions for more DC/step DC.

As an example my ex used to pay maintenance at the CSA rate. He moved in with his now wife and her 2 dc and this money got reduced which he was delighted about. They then had another dc and it was reduced further.
Since then he's quit his job and claims carers allowance for one of her dc. CMS can't assess this as income so he's assessed as having to make a nil payment. Even his family have told me they switched the carers allowance into his name precisely to avoid paying CM.

I also think there needs to be some way thay they can look at the NRPs lifestyle if it doesn't match their declared income (for eg ex and his wife have 2 cars, one an 18 plate and 2 motorbikes, yet apparently have no income other than the benefits they get for their dc )

Controversial but I think it is fair at the moment. I know it is calculated using gross income but we have worked out that Dh pays his ex 25% of his net income. He then spends a further 10-15% of his net income on the kids when he has them. Meaning he only has 60-65% of his net salary to live on. He still has to be able to afford mortgage payments, bills, food and essentials. Not all of his money can go to his ex and kids. Bear in mind that often it is the ex who gets to keep the house & most of the equity in it, it is often the bloke who has to start from scratch.

I agree with a higher percentage and tying to actual income and not salary.

I don't agree that the NRP's partner's income should be taken into account.

I am a higher earner than my DH. His maintenance for DSD is based on his income not our joint income. His income and his ex-P's income provide for their daughter, just like it would if they were still together.

I do agree that DH's choices after the end of
His relationship with ex-P should not affect his maintenance and indeed despite having 3 DC together, his maintenance is still the same percentage of his income that he and his ex-P agreed before I was on the scene.

I'm on both sides of the fence as a paying parent for one child & a receiving parent for another and in all honesty it's not really a fair system for either parent what I receive for DD isn't enough to cover her costs but what I pay for DS is enough that it would severely limit my ability to provide adequate housing to enable overnight contact & to actually be able to do anything with him during the time I have him.

As it is just now DD's maintenance covers DS's so I'm breaking even.

What would help would be if the CMS allocated a case worker to deal with your case & that's who you spoke to rather than the current call centre system where the person picking up the phone hasn't got a clue about your case & you have to explain the entire situation every time you call & with the amount of issues I've had there's a lot to explain & from what I can gather the case notes aren't comprehensive so you end up getting a different answer each time.

I just want to clarify my point regarding partner's income being taken into account as it is pertinent to my own circumstances. My ex-h has joint finances with OW. They own and run a business together. He takes a pittance out of that business in order to pay a pittance in CM. They live the life of riley, have expensive cars, holidays etc. Her child, for whom that business provides a lifestyle is hugely privileged in comparison to our DS. It is very clear what they are doing. This sort of division of finances are part of the changes that Gingerbread are campaigning for.

I agree @raining - and so do my Grandparents. Ex doesn’t see our child either, totally his decision. The very fucking least he can do is provide financial support. It’s only £26 a week as well ffs, he lives with his sister rent and bill free on top. His mother funds his holidays abroad twice a year, all his clothes etc.

Meanwhile I’m a skint as fuck student (microbiology) juggling being a parent, studying and working whilst he lounges around.

Loopholes need closing, new partners income should not be taken into account neither should any existing children not biologically related to the nrp
More needs to be done when it comes to job hopping, non payment etc
Payments for existing children should not be reduced if nrp has more children
Think payment percentage should be higher- I currently get £50 a week for 2 children who spend zero time with their father. The government pays more towards their upkeep via tax credits than he does

As a ball park. Having a child increased our house hold expenditure 6% so for me I guess 3% would be acceptable

I think it needs to be taken into account most people who use cms are the people who aren’t getting regular payments or any.

Self employed is a real issue .

The problem seems to be the lack of effort to enforce difficult cases. Use the powers they have.

Actually make the nine payer pay . Use the fact that someone’s income can’t be so low to investigate.

RedneckStumpy 6%? What about childcare? Either you had a larger house than you needed before you had a child or you feel it okay to share a bedroom with a child until they leave home. Other than childcare they cost a lot more as they get bigger too.