Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

PlayingHardball

My question to Maria Miller:

If the Coalition Government are looking to improve the current system for supporting children, why have they not mentioned the following loopholes in the current system;

1.) NRP who avoid responsibility by moving abroad, foreign income. Why, at this crucial time of change and reform, are the CSA not addressing this loophole in order to improve outcomes for children? Foreign income is classed as assessible income in other countries, in light of changes being proposed, please confirm what the government will do to address this problem.

2.) NRP who are self employed. What proposals are being put forward to address this huge issue and loophole. Will these NRP be charged a non-compliance fee?

If children really are at the forefront of this change and reform, why are the above points not addressed in the green paper?

Further, I am horrified that PWC would have deducted from a maintenance assessment between 7-12% of total monies due to their children where a NRP is non-compliant and they are forced to go through the new CSA. So, on the average annual CSA payable if a PWC received £1800 (figure taken from green paper), the PWC will actually only receive £1584!! Did I read this right? (Point 31-33 of green paper??)

In my case, the NRP refuses to support their child, I would be forced to go down this route. I believe it should only be the non-compliant NRP who should be penalised. End of story! I do not agree that even one penny of the full maintenance due to a PWC should be deducted.

This is ludicrous and will only promote child poverty, it would seem to me the whole purpose of this reform is to save money (and possibly even make money!). It certainly doesn't seem to have considered most of those PWC such as myself who have no way of receiving support from the NRP due to non-compliance. Penalise them, not their kids!!

sarflee

Do we know if there is going to be any change to the dates when CSA stops, ie currently stops at 19th birthday but was talk of bringing it in line with when child benefit stops so up to the age of 20 possibly?

Light_Speed_Cruiser

DX2 wrote: »

Seems some people could do with going to Specsavers.

He isnt the one needing to go to specsavers, see point 21.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

I speak from first hand experience.

PlayingHardball wrote: »

1.) NRP who avoid responsibility by moving abroad, foreign income. Why, at this crucial time of change and reform, are the CSA not addressing this loophole in order to improve outcomes for children? Foreign income is classed as assessible income in other countries, in light of changes being proposed, please confirm what the government will do to address this problem.

NRPs are entitled to move abroad even if it to seek a better qualify of life.

The UK cannot coerce any foreign government to change its child support laws. There has been recent changes in that child maintenance in the EU is leaning toward awarding amounts that are linked to the actual costs of bringing up children and REMO is already in place to do that. But its only as good as the country of NRPs jurisdition. e.g. Bahrain and Dubai and other muslim states have already banned Child Maintenance because it goes againt Sharia Law and public morals.

Cyprus only awards mainetnance against NRP if he is not refused contact by the claimant parent.

Canada is considering intruduicing 100% of actual costs, but if the NRP did not choose to be absent then only 50% actual cost can be claimed. Its NIL if the PWC falsely accuses NRP of abusing the children to exclude NRP and get custody of the children.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

PlayingHardball wrote: »

2.) NRP who are self employed. What proposals are being put forward to address this huge issue and loophole. Will these NRP be charged a non-compliance fee?

The CSA can adopt rules already in place with HRMC for late payment of tax.

But remeber we are not dealing with 6-figure earners here, they are NRPs, many of whom are on a low income and have already lost their homes in a divorce leaving nothing else to lose by exiting the economy and signing on.

I have a feeling that adding penalties will worsen an already bad situation.

DX2

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

He isnt the one needing to go to specsavers, see point 21.

However the responses were about point 9 not 21.

9) Can you introduce a rule that childrens tax credits are payable to all working parents?Its Currently unavailable to parents not living with their children and the NRPs income is taxed twice.

So let me get this correct you want say for example my situation a NRP who has had not one itoa of contact with the child since the day he was born (15 years) be able to collect child tax credits, just because he is a father?

But you want them to be split between the NRP and the PWC even though the NRP wants nothing to do with their children? I certainly don't agree with this idea.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

The green paper consulation is not about dealing with individual cases.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

LovesDennys wrote: »

I think the intention is the applicant pays the fee and NRPs arent known for applying for child maintenance. Otherwise there may be a conflict with Section 1 of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971.

You'd be surprised at the number of NRP applications - generally when they have had a court order telling them how much maintenance they should pay, they find out that it is double the amount they'd be paying through the CSA, so then put in a claim of their own to pay maintenance. CSA involvement cancels the court order.

mrsspendalot

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Further, I am horrified that PWC would have deducted from a maintenance assessment between 7-12% of total monies due to their children where a NRP is non-compliant and they are forced to go through the new CSA. So, on the average annual CSA payable if a PWC received £1800 (figure taken from green paper), the PWC will actually only receive £1584!! Did I read this right? (Point 31-33 of green paper??)

In my case, the NRP refuses to support their child, I would be forced to go down this route. I believe it should only be the non-compliant NRP who should be penalised. End of story! I do not agree that even one penny of the full maintenance due to a PWC should be deducted.

This is ludicrous and will only promote child poverty, it would seem to me the whole purpose of this reform is to save money (and possibly even make money!). It certainly doesn't seem to have considered most of those PWC such as myself who have no way of receiving support from the NRP due to non-compliance. Penalise them, not their kids!!

This is the exact point I have used in my response to the consultation document. I too am one of the many PWC who have had to use the CSA as a last resort already due to a non-compliant ex. I see it as punishment for his behaviour that I would now a) have to pay a fee to ask for money from him my children are legally entitled to, and b) that my children will then lose money they are legally entitled to by way of this unfair fee - all because their father has no interest in meeting his responsibilities :mad:

mrsspendalot

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

The green paper consulation is not about dealing with individual cases.

Of course not, but unless they listen to the worries and realities of the individual cases, they will have no idea on what the changes they are proposing will actually mean to the children the system is supposed to be for.

The green paper paints a very idealised view of 2 people who, despite hating each other's guts at the point of divorcing, will happily sit down together with all their financial history, have a nice cup of coffee, and come to an arrangement without one bad word to each other, all in the interests of little Johnny's best needs. Yeah right! If it was that easy, the CSA would never have needed to exist in the first place.

There is a statistic in the consultation about the % of NRPs who make regular payments to PWCs. It is quite low. Whilst that % who can and do, would continue to do so under these new proposals, what about the far larger % who do not and still will not? They are now being giving the power to cause more misery on their exes by sitting back, grinning, and saying 'I'm not paying, if you want money then you have to pay £100 to try it'. It's not really fair on the PWC is it?

Yes, it may well stop the PWCs who use the CSA as a stick to threaten and beat their exes with (we have one of them), and in that sense - good! But it leaves a lot of PWCs as well in a very difficult and vulnerable position, as they are going to be put in a position possibly where they accept an agreement which is much much lower than they should be entitled to, or worse still they get nothing, because they cannot afford to pay an upfront fee to get the true amount they should be getting. It's the children who will miss out - and this is supposed to be about them! It's creating a two-tier child support system. For those who can afford it, they will get it. For those who cannot afford it, tough!

I am both a PWC and an NRPP, and I find the proposals worrying. I don't think anyone should be punished financially for having a non-compliant ex. I really hope that the Minister takes another look at the impact this will have on the innocent parties in these proposals and asks whether it really is fair!