Husband left work to avoid paying maintenance

Soubrette

Edinburghlass wrote: »

Great post all the same.

Thanks that makes me feel a bit better

Worse I spent about half an hour trying to find something I read a few days ago about how you don't have to prove intent that something was done deliberately to avoid paying child maintenance any more with regards to deprivation of income - couldn't find but if Loopy Girl hadn't pointed out the zombie nature of the first post I might have been looking on and off all day

Sou

Zara33

Edinburghlass wrote: »

Great post all the same.

Totally agree a lot of points worth bearing in mind...

pd001

Soubrette wrote: »

This is a genuine question but why have you not posted any condemning remarks on posters asking how they can reduce their maintenance to a minimum?
Because I can understand how they feel and remember csa assessments are not always correct.
All nrp's should pay what is due....but the figure should be correct.
In my own case I had though about leaving work but decided that I couldn't sit around all day doing nothing.
My penalty for making this decision? I am paying twice.
Paid cash the first time around...that is why I am so dead against nrp's paying cash or even paying a pwc direct without being able to prove that payments have been made or indeed what they are for.

Or the constant claims mostly from NRP partners that no maintenance money is every spent on the children (the legendary pedigree chum and stained vest argument) and yet they don't do anything about it.
Sometimes it is spent on the child / ren in question and sometimes it aint. That is a fact and it depends on the pwc how the money is spent

Or even this in this thread (thanks overthehills :mad:) someone packs in their job and chooses to pay nothing for their child - not one peep of outrage.
Been there thought about that so I can see how and what they are thinking

You said once that not withholding contact from my ex meant I was a good person
It does

- in my mind paying a fair share (as deemed by the government not the PWC or NRP)
of your income towards your children also makes you a good person (and parent).
Sure does

Withholding income or not paying when you are able to makes you a poor person and a rubbish parent in my opinion - it puzzles me why so many people only seem to think one side of that coin is wrong.
We are all different and we all have differing points of view. And we live in a so called free society which also means that we can express our views freely.
I do...and so do you.

have another one on me :beer:

Soubrette

pd001 wrote: »

Because I can understand how they feel and remember csa assessments are not always correct.
All nrp's should pay what is due....but the figure should be correct.
In my own case I had though about leaving work but decided that I couldn't sit around all day doing nothing.
My penalty for making this decision? I am paying twice.
Paid cash the first time around...that is why I am so dead against nrp's paying cash or even paying a pwc direct without being able to prove that payments have been made or indeed what they are for.

This is true - but sometimes the CSA underassess what a person should be paying, usually because the NRP had decided not to declare income or had an assessment 10 years ago and had not bothered updating the CSA on pay rises etc.

My point is not that NRPs are money hiding stingy non parents but that there are poor PWCs and poor NRPs - both should be condemned because in the end, they are poor parents.

pd001 wrote: »

[Sometimes it is spent on the child / ren in question and sometimes it aint. That is a fact and it depends on the pwc how the money is spent

Sometimes it aint????? You do realise that the implication of that is that the PWC is not spending one single penny on the children - is that even possible?

pd001 wrote: »

[
Been there thought about that so I can see how and what they are thinking

So you have no sympathy with the other side of the coin? Does that mean you are not a good person (based on your comments on the type of person I am for not even considering withholding contact)?

pd001 wrote: »

It does

Awww thanks I actually appreciate that more than you can imagine - it's very hard sometimes to separate my anger (because I believe that my NRP is in effect stealing money from our children to spend on himself) from what is the right thing to do - it is good to have the feeling of rightness reinforced.

pd001 wrote: »

[We are all different and we all have differing points of view. And we live in a so called free society which also means that we can express our views freely.
I do...and so do you.

have another one on me :beer:

I'm not asking you to not express your views - I'm asking you to justify why you are expressing them

That is the nub of a free society - not only do we have to listen to views that are different to our own but if we are lucky and people take the time and trouble to explain those views - then at the least we might learn something and at the most we get to see something from anothers point of view.

:beer:

Sou

Soubrette

I just want to focus more fully on the idea that a PWC puts none of the maintenance money towards the upkeep of the children.

So, to keep things simple. A PWC receives a household income of £10,000 plus £5000 from the NRP

The PWC spends £5000 on own expenditure, £5000 on the child and £5000 on rent/council tax and other fixed living costs etc.

(I know the amounts are rubbish - its the proportions I'm interested in)

So PWC and the child are having the same lifestyle so have equal amounts spent on them and the fixed costs take up the rest of the income.

Do people just see that PWC spends £5000 on her/himself and assume that all comes from the NRP income, with a total disregard to the PWC own income and fixed expenditure?

Sou

Loopy_Girl

Soubrette wrote: »

Thanks that makes me feel a bit better

Worse I spent about half an hour trying to find something I read a few days ago about how you don't have to prove intent that something was done deliberately to avoid paying child maintenance any more with regards to deprivation of income - couldn't find but if Loopy Girl hadn't pointed out the zombie nature of the first post I might have been looking on and off all day

Sou

Yes but going on who originally resurrected this thread, I'm not surprised that they went so far back in order to partake in a bit of PWC bashing;)

But I agree, as usual Sou, great posts:D

Blob

Havent read it all as will get on soap box!

In event that you try to stop contact it makes a bad situation worse. There is no pay to play in this country and the Courts will hamer anyone that tries it!

The only people that really get hurt if contact is stoped are the kids! Is that what is wanted, if so do you care about your kids?

Soubrette

Blob wrote: »

Havent read it all as will get on soap box!

In event that you try to stop contact it makes a bad situation worse. There is no pay to play in this country and the Courts will hamer anyone that tries it!

The only people that really get hurt if contact is stoped are the kids! Is that what is wanted, if so do you care about your kids?

You should have read the rest of the thread Blob

Some other poster wanted an anti PWC rant so resurrected a two year old thread to do it :rolleyes:

Sou

Soubrette

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Yes but going on who originally resurrected this thread, I'm not surprised that they went so far back in order to partake in a bit of PWC bashing;)

But I agree, as usual Sou, great posts:D

actually it's quite the compliment that they had to go back 2 years to find one of these threads

I wonder how far back I'd have to go to find some thread from an NRP or NRPP asking how they can reduce their child maintenance or admitting that they have arrears or not wanting a reassessment because they haven't actuallly got round to telling the CSA about their salary increases over the last 10 years :rolleyes:

Oh, at least one of those would have probably been posted in any given 24 hour duration

Sou

Zara33

Soubrette wrote: »

You should have read the rest of the thread Blob

Some other poster wanted an anti PWC rant so resurrected a two year old thread to do it :rolleyes:

Sou

:doh: i would have been happy to oblige