MNHQ here: Tell us what you think about the Child Maintenance Service

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has launched an inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and its effectiveness in ensuring regular payments for children and will consider recommendations to improve the service overall.

The Committee is inviting submissions addressing the following points:

• How well is the CMS performing for children and parents? How could it be improved?

• What problems do parents face – both for the parent with care and the non-resident parent?

• Are levels of child maintenance set correctly?

• What powers does the CMS have and how effectively are they used? How effective is enforcement action?

• What will happen to CSA arrears or unresolved cases when parents move to the new CMS?

• How might the CMS deal with any weaknesses or loopholes in the old CSA system?

• Are there any opportunities for Government departments to work together to ensure regular payment?

• Is there any international evidence on ways of ensuring parents regularly contribute to their children’s maintenance payments?

Please share your thoughts and experiences below, or if you prefer, you can respond directly to the Committee via this link.

Please note that the deadline for submissions is Monday 5 September 2016.

Thanks
MNHQ

So its man hating to expect a bloke to put existing children first before his own wants.

FFS!

Thegruffolo, you are mixing my post with evilstepmum. I didn't put figures down but we did wait ten years til the time was right.all is fine they are grownups now.
Throwingpebbles, you say you would love to have another child with him.are you currently childless or does ' another' mean you have a child already? Reason I ask is that I think it is ok to meet someone else and have a child if that is what they decide.to rob a couple of the chance to have a child is cruel. I do agree nrp needs to be contributing of course.Separations are always going to be painful in many ways but in my experience most people do move on.

Yes, I did mix the figures up, apologies for that. I've had a hectic day! But you did say that he reduced the payments to the figure he was given by the maintenance service, which is a legal minimum, and that the 'extras' stopped when you had children together. So the essence of the point remains. He paid only what he legally had to pay so that he could afford a second family.

to rob a couple of the chance to have a child is cruel.

People aren't entitled to have a child in each and every relationship, you know. You have a child if you can afford to provide for it, come what may. You don't decide a few years down the line to have another with someone else so your first child has to go without.

It's part of the responsibility of being a parent.

quite aye I would like to hear NRP talking more about their responsibiliites and less about their rights

I would like to see a system that made It far far tougher for dads to wriggle out of paying, and which also stopped there being an incentive to fight for more "nights" with children like they are pawns in a game.

I certainly think contributions should not go down just because an NRP has another child.

Why is it that a nrp can pretend to be a low paid self-employed worker and so only pay a few quid, if that, when their lifestyle shows they must be earning more

This. A thousand times this. How can it be ok that ex-H can pretend to be practically on the breadline yet drive a £30k car, shower the kids with massive presents and take them on extravagant holidays

So what if its the rp who had the affair. Broke up the family. Keeping the family home, meaning the nrp has to re build from scratch, Tell the nrp they can now only see their children alternate weekends and one night during the week, because "its best for the children" and they should be greatful for that. Are they still disgusting because they "only pay the minimum" because they have such a massive mortgage and dare to try and re build their lives in a new relationship.
The current system isnt fair because it does produce a pay for view mentality. Also a system that only considers the financial situation of one parent is equally unfair.

Why are you talking about affairs? This is about parents taking equal responsibility for their children, not parents being punished for sleeping around.

You're right that it's unfair to only take the financial circumstances of one parent into account though, especially when such a small percentage is calculated from that figure. So many resident parents have reduced earning potential due to being the one providing and/or paying for childcare. If the resident parent's income was taken into account, in many cases, a far higher percentage of the NRP's income would be ordered. It would lift many children out of poverty. That must be what you meant, yes?

Thegruffolo, I didn't say we reduced the payments to the minimum and stopped treats.I said we continued to pay but reduced the treats. That would have happened whether the kids lived with us or their mum.we tightened our belts. They didn't go without, they still got treats.
I agree that it is disgusting that some nrp's don't pay or lie about their earnings.it is hard to believe the tax office can't pass on info unless these nrp's are lying to the tax man? If they have fancy cars, holidays etc it is obviously completely out of order.but only some nrp's are corrupt. I don't know any that don't contribute and take responsibility for their kids and there are alot of parents that seperate which is sad in itself. I think rp's on this thread have had really shit ex's who are crap dads but they are not all like that.over and out.
I wont be responding to this post again.I think posting on mumsnet is not for me.

One last thing! I agree with you everytimeref.

I think the point of the comment

Comments on here is not that there are shit dads (we all know there are) but that the current system enables/encourages that kind of behaviour

And yes, my ex undoubtedly is lying to taxman (his industry is awash with "cash in hand" work, a

It's quite irritating when people try to put some spin on their own wording after realising that it's not as reasonable as they'd made it out in their heads. Not sure how I've misinterpreted your DP paying 'what the CSA said'.

I assure you, I don't believe all NRPs try to avoid payment. Many are adult enough to volunteer up a respectable amount of money towards their children's upbringing without having to be ordered to. But there are huge swathes who pay only the inadequate legal minimum and still more who avoid working or fail to declare self employed income. And sadly, those who pay as little as they can get away with are not a small minority.

OQuite gruffalo and I bet none of ex-H friends and family have any idea how he cheats the system

Yep, not something people boast about in general for fear of being caught

I used to know a couple who actively decided when they had children together that the DH would quit work and stay home specifically so that he couldn't be made to pay a significant amount to his 3 children from his previous marriage. Scummy as fuck. But he gets the gushing that society throws at stay at home dads as though he's something to be worshipped. Neither he nor his DW get why his ex is hostile. But then, they wouldn't, would they? Because in their heads, doing what's best for their current family is completely justifiable, regardless of preexisting children.

Its the "minimum maintanace" comments that really annoy me. Tax is 22%, does anyone suggest thats a minimum amount and society should be disgusted that people only pay that amount when its obvious it cost more to keep NHS, education going?.
The biggest issue usually with lack of payment is due to "tax avoidance" The self employed have always used these to avoid paying tax, they just use the same rules to avoid paying child maintenance. Sort out tax avoidance and probably most of the issues with avoiding child maintenance would also be solved.

Haha biggest pile of dog turd to come out of the government, taking top line wages in to account before tax is paid ?its not even Money you receive so how can that be deducted ? Set up for women who don't want to work or provide for the child in there care. If you can't afford to feed, clothe and keep a roof over there head then you should not have that child in your care.. A single dad of 5 my kids my responsibly I have them I pay for them... Grow up and stop bumming get a job because cms like CSA should be closed down

Goddess, daverave, in the 24h since you joined MN, you've been quite the unpleasant busy bee, haven't you?

Everytimeref, I'm not quite sure I understand the comparison between maintenance and tax, not to the extent you ever compared them anyway? The CMS figures are a minimum, not an absolute amount. The money goes directly towards a person's own child. It isn't a tax.

I'd respond to you too dave but it's impossible to debate a person out of being sexist and ignorant. Clippity clop, off you pop.

*you've
Not 'you ever'

The new cma uses the nrp P60 to work out how much you have to pay, if your self employed you pay little tax because you can off lay expenses against tax liability. If you have a nrp who is self employed they only declare income that they have paid tax on and that's what cma use.
if you have some who is self employed or owns their own company they can "legally"declare a reduced income. If you are use to "legally" avoiding tax you probably dont feel quilty avoiding cm.

I agree cm isnt a tax but paying 16% of your income is a large amount and to keep labelling it the "minimum amount" is unfair on nrp who struggle to maintain a home for their children when they have contact.
NRP often have higher living costs because of the financial split from a divorce.
RP and NRP both have to home the children whether its 5 days a week or 2 days a week. It costs the same maintain a home whether the children are there or not.
Child maintenance is designed to cover additional costs, not all costs.

Except that the main difference between having your DC 5days a week versus the 2 days a week is CHILDCARE. Or the loss of a salary if the woman has to SAH because she can't afford to work.

It's almost as if the CMS hasn't caught up with the fact that the cost of childcare has risen 40% in the last 5-10 years, and how is any RP meant to pay that for multiple children out of a typical woman's salary of 24k? Plus rent/mortgage, bills, food etc when the NRP contributes a pittance?

We currently have a system whereby students get to go to university and repay loans based on their ability to pay. Given that the system already exists, surely it wouldn't take too much modification to alter it so as to solve this problem.

I'd suggest that whenever parents of children split, the government (taxpayer) should step in with benefits (perhaps more generous than we currently have) which are paid to the resident parent. The amount payable would depend on the age and number of the children. Any money received by the RP would then become repayable by the by the parents on a 70:30 basis. If a parent was unable to work, or earned a low wage, the payments would continue to be made to the RP and the debt would accrue. Of course a parent could just pay the required amount each month (to the State) and not get into any debt.

This would solve a number of problems:

It ensures that children are adequately provided for and not at the mercy of missed or late payments;

It would mean that there would not need to be any contact between former partners (useful in terms of DV etc.); and

It would mean that the children of low-earning parents would not be disadvantaged. Their parents would just take longer to repay the debt.