Page 2 | What happens to child maintenance

SpinningFloppa · 2023-01-30T19:34:08+00:00

My ex doesn’t pay any child maintenance as he doesn’t work or claim benefits, he is unlikely to ever work, what happens to any arrears when the children grow up? Do they just write them off when they are no longer children? They don’t chase them up as they are not doing that anyway just wondered what happens when the children are no longer children the case would be closed surely? And arrears wiped?

Viviennemary · 30/01/2023 23:01

He must have an income from somewhere. He can't live on fresh air. unless he is entirely financially dependent on somebody else.

WeepingSomnambulist · 30/01/2023 23:20

taxpayer1 · 30/01/2023 22:51

What the family has to do with it? Ridiculous.

Show quote history

If someone has a child to support but chooses not to work because they can live off trust fund/inheritance/family money then that money should be subject to child maintenance.

The point of maintenance is the ensure the child has the financial contribution they would have had if the parents had not split.

So, if you're living off inheritance then your child would have benefited from that life had you not split. They should still benefit.

Men (and it is mostly men) should not be allowed to simply not work when they have a child to support whilst living off some other month and not being made to contribute to their child.

If he has remarried and is living off a woman then again, he made a choice to give up work but there is still a child to support so whatever money he is living off should be subject to child maintenance.

taxpayer1 · 30/01/2023 23:23

WeepingSomnambulist · 30/01/2023 23:20

If someone has a child to support but chooses not to work because they can live off trust fund/inheritance/family money then that money should be subject to child maintenance.

The point of maintenance is the ensure the child has the financial contribution they would have had if the parents had not split.

So, if you're living off inheritance then your child would have benefited from that life had you not split. They should still benefit.

Men (and it is mostly men) should not be allowed to simply not work when they have a child to support whilst living off some other month and not being made to contribute to their child.

If he has remarried and is living off a woman then again, he made a choice to give up work but there is still a child to support so whatever money he is living off should be subject to child maintenance.

Show quote history

So the future partner is responsible too! Ridiculous. Are you for real?

WeepingSomnambulist · 30/01/2023 23:28

taxpayer1 · 30/01/2023 23:23

So the future partner is responsible too! Ridiculous. Are you for real?

Show quote history

If you have a child to support, you should not legally be allowed to just opt out.

If you find ways around working, you should not be allowed to shrug and say "well I've not got an income" whilst living off other money. If you have money to live off then you have money to support your child.

If men choose not to work then the money they live off should be subject to child maintenance. They have a child to support, so however they are supporting themselves should be used to calculated child maintenance.

CoorieIn · 31/01/2023 10:21

I think if a future partner was at least partially liable it would stop so many woman being stuck with a scrounger that's dodging CM and sponging off them in the meantime.

Possibly with some caveats such as illness etc.

DrMarciaFieldstone · 31/01/2023 10:27

If he has remarried and is living off a woman then again, he made a choice to give up work but there is still a child to support so whatever money he is living off should be subject to child maintenance

Don’t be ridiculous. New partners are nothing to go with their partner’s children financially. Nobody should be able to opt out of paying for their own children, but it isn’t up to anyone else either.

Starlightstarbright1 · 31/01/2023 10:33

If he should be paying he has income probably benefits.

I would ask them to esculate it due to none payment

WeepingSomnambulist · 31/01/2023 10:56

DrMarciaFieldstone · 31/01/2023 10:27

If he has remarried and is living off a woman then again, he made a choice to give up work but there is still a child to support so whatever money he is living off should be subject to child maintenance

Don’t be ridiculous. New partners are nothing to go with their partner’s children financially. Nobody should be able to opt out of paying for their own children, but it isn’t up to anyone else either.

I worked for CMS for a very short time.

The number of men who remarried and then, as a new family, they jointly made a decision for him to be a SAHD is huge. One of the reasons was that if he worked and she stayed at home, they had to pay all bills plus child maintenance. But if she worked and he stayed at home then they didnt have to pay child maintenance. Those decisions are being made by taking into account how to avoid paying child maintenance and maximising the money available for he new family.

It should not he allowed. If you make a choice to stop work because you can live off someone else, then the amount you need to pay to your child should still apply. You should not be able to opt out or avoid it by having "family money" (one wage) supporting the family and ring fencing it from your previous child.

If they can afford to live, wherever the money comes from, then they can afford to support their children. All of their children.

Quitting work shouldn't be a choice for men who have children to support and try to get around it. You make a family decision for one of you to stay at home then your wage should cover all expenses, including any children who should be supported.

DrMarciaFieldstone · 31/01/2023 11:15

WeepingSomnambulist · 31/01/2023 10:56

I worked for CMS for a very short time.

The number of men who remarried and then, as a new family, they jointly made a decision for him to be a SAHD is huge. One of the reasons was that if he worked and she stayed at home, they had to pay all bills plus child maintenance. But if she worked and he stayed at home then they didnt have to pay child maintenance. Those decisions are being made by taking into account how to avoid paying child maintenance and maximising the money available for he new family.

It should not he allowed. If you make a choice to stop work because you can live off someone else, then the amount you need to pay to your child should still apply. You should not be able to opt out or avoid it by having "family money" (one wage) supporting the family and ring fencing it from your previous child.

If they can afford to live, wherever the money comes from, then they can afford to support their children. All of their children.

Quitting work shouldn't be a choice for men who have children to support and try to get around it. You make a family decision for one of you to stay at home then your wage should cover all expenses, including any children who should be supported.

Show quote history

Well this will never be the rule, so doesn’t matter what you think

CoorieIn · 31/01/2023 11:18

Don’t be ridiculous. New partners are nothing to go with their partner’s children financially. Nobody should be able to opt out of paying for their own children, but it isn’t up to anyone else either.

But their contribution can be reduced on this basis if other children are in the new household. So therefore a working adult would be expected to contribute to the children of the household.

Why is it not the same in reverse?

If someone is allowing their partner to dodge CM by propping them up financially why shouldn't the existing child be taken into account?

It would he financial abuse if someone witheld available money in order to not allow a SAHP money for their phone bill, new clothes, petrol etc. Why is the child from a previous relationship lower on the list?

CoorieIn · 31/01/2023 11:19

That SAHP can be used as parent or partner just for clarification.

Original poster

SpinningFloppa · 31/01/2023 11:25

Well just got off the phone to cms and they said whether the payments are taken or not is at the discretion of the benefits office and if he has other debts they won’t take the payments 🤷‍♀️ and cms “can’t force them to” well there you go, seems you can be on benefits and still not have to pay a penny! I don’t see the point in keeping it open he is never going to work, the arrears aren’t ever going to be paid because he will never work! (They did suggest he could be living off a partner…)

OP posts:

CoorieIn · 31/01/2023 11:55

I would keep it open and just ignore it. You'll get an annual letter. If nothing else you can use it as proof if ever needed that he hasn't ever paid anything.

Starlightstarbright1 · 31/01/2023 12:01

Yes don't close it. He will have a loan or debts that are been prioratising. Ince those are paid they will dribble through. Even if at uni will help in a small way.