Thoughts....

HoneyNutLoop

AnxiousMum wrote: »

hi all,

Last year, I moved out of the family home with the kids. I tried having discussions with the ex as to how to split the 'extra curricular' costs of things the children needed, and the ex would have no communication other than 'I'll do what I can when I can'. Well, when I have to make commitments months in advane for school trips (expensive ones that had we been together still, they would have been able to go on), I needed more of a commitment from the ex before I could commit to them going.

Given that the ex refuses to communicate with me on ANYTHING to do with the boys, let alone finances - I felt I had no choice but to involve the CSA. We then agreed that the boys would have 50/50 care, but this did not resolve the communication regarding finances for things needed outside of the day to day care. So I filed for Child support and was awarded 50% of the full amount due to the 50/50 care.

I was advised by CSA that the ex ignored any communication, would not respond to telephone calls, messages etc. and so in February, they started a deduction of earnings, taking current pyments as well as arrears until October, and then it will revert to bout half the amount which will just be current CSA payments.

At the time, I felt that this was the ex's fault for ignoring their correspondence and requests for communication.

The ex has now stopped seeing the boys claiming there is no money to feed them, nor money to put in petrol to take them to school on their days with the ex. This is really sad - and I have offered to pay back to the ex the amoutn of the arrears so that it's not as bad each month. This has been refused as in I have been told to give the money, but unless I cancel CSA altogether, the kids cannot stay overnight, cannot be driven to school etc., as the ex won't do that AND pay any CSA. The ex doesn't understand that the 50% reduction is because those costs are being (or supposed to) met when the kids are there.

Fast forward to today - I am told by the Ex that a complaint has been filed against CSA formally, and this will go to court. I;m told that CSA have admitted telling him in September that as it's 50/50 care that nothing would be payable, and that there was no further communicationf rom them. He found out about the deduction of earnings apparently when payroll dept. told him.

If that is true - then this is really unfair, but I've offered half the money back (arrears amount) but he refuses it. The cost is being paid by my children in terms of not being able to spend teh time with their dad, and by me too, in that I now have 100% of the costs which is hard to do each month. It has created (obviously) lots of animosity, verbal abuse etc. from him which I've had to endure, has created hostility from the kids towards me and I'm really not impressed.

Could this be the case from the CSA do you think? Do you think he's telling me the truth? They had told me they hadn't heard bck from him, that they had tried calling him, etc., and tehy said they checked everything had been done/attempted before sending for an attachment of earnings.

I know he never answers his landline at all - so if they were calling that, they would never get him. I did provide his mobile number too.

Ok, so you're unlikely to ever know if CMS are telling the truth about the calls, unless your ex is willing to request under the Data Protection Act copies of his electronic/clerical info held by CMS, and then show it to you. But CMS send a lot of letters at the beginning of the case, which in my opinion, make it difficult for him not to have known about the payments due - unless of course you didn't receive some key letters either.

When you made your application, shortly afterward you should have received a Welcome Pack containing a variety of info/leaflets. Did you receive this?

The date from which your ex is responsible for paying maintenance is set by the postage of the provisional calculation notice, plus two days. This letter uses income obtained from HMRC and the information you supplied to give an indication of the amount payable. If your ex didn't get in touch to provide any supplementary info (private pension contributions/children in his household/dispute the info you had given about the care arrangements) this would then become the amount due. This letter should also have contained his Welcome Pack, containing similar info to that found in yours.

Later on, after he had been given time to comment on the provisional calculation letter, he should have received his calculation notice, including his Payment Schedule. You should have received your version of this letter at the same time. It should have said how the weekly amount had been calculated, and the payments due from now until your annual review. Did you get this letter?

Within this process, there should have been a number of calls, or attempted calls, to both you and your ex.

When he didn't pay, this process (sourced from dad.info) should have been followed:
A firm approach to non-payment.

If a paying parent does not pay the right amount of child maintenance on time, then the Child Maintenance Service can, and will, take appropriate action to get the money owed. If a paying parent knows they’re going to be late making a payment or miss a payment, it’s important they tell the Child Maintenance Service straight away so that the situation can be discussed.

Within 72 hours of a payment being missed, the Child Maintenance Service will contact a paying parent to seek continuing payments and so stop arrears building up.

If child maintenance continues not to be paid, there are three things the Child Maintenance Service can do to get unpaid child maintenance from a paying parent:

• take the money direct from their earnings;
• take the money from their bank or building society account;
• or take action through the courts.

He should also have received at least one letter about the missing payment, before a deduction from earning order was served.

As for the question about equal care, and CMS's response, it will have depended on what he told them about the situation. Under 2012 scheme, the law recognises equal shared care, which has been applied in your case, but also equal day to day care, which would result in no maintenance being due. This previous thread discusses it:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4902273

If your ex maintained at the beginning of the case that he felt he had equal day to day care, rather than equal shared care, it is possible CMS would say that in that situation he would have to pay nothing. Obviously they decided in your case in the end that your ex does not have equal day to day care, but equal shared care, resulting in a different outcome. The letters referred to above would have let your ex know that CMS had decided he did need to pay

As another poster has said, if the care arrangements have changed, you are within your rights to request CMS to recalculate your payments. However, if reinstating the care arrangements is more important, you could also work out the full amount that would be due in that case, and advise your ex that if he doesn't resume having care, he will end up having to pay the full amount. It might be enough motivation for him to resume care.

I think you're in a difficult spot. I suspect your ex held onto the idea that he might not have had to pay, and then buried his head in the sand when it didn't pan out that way. Trying to overcome the fallout from all this will be difficult, and you may have to accept that things will be strained between you for sometime yet.

AnxiousMum

Thank you

By the list of letters you say should have been sent that I should have received, you have it pretty spot on perfect. I received all of the above.

The other thing that I received was each month where a payment was due, I would receive a letter saying that unfortunately, no payment has been received, we will try to collect.......and so on.

When I did speak with them back in January they said they were just checking to ensure that all attempts that are supposed to be made, had been made before they could put into place the deduction from earnings. They called me back on the Friday to tell me that all of the proper attempts had been made, and so they would send letter out about the deduction from earnings being set up.

It was mid February when the kids were at his house on the Wednesday of half term, and they left his place, walked to mine and called my mobile when they found I wasn't home, asking me to come home as they had left dad's stating 'he won't be happy till we hate you', as he had been infuriated at some mail he received, and told the boys I was 'stealing all his money'. That was the last time that two of them have been there despite trying to encourage them to go see him. He does not try to contact them. (He teaches at the school two of them attend, and he lives at the end of our street), so two see him every day at school in passing, the other isn't in high school yet and so hadn't seen him since half way through February until this last weekend where I literally dropped him off for the day.

I can handle his attitude toward me, what I cannot abide by is the behaviour and treatment towards the kids.

Thank you for the link above about shared care/day to day care - I shall have a read of this.

couponqueen123

wow he likes control dosnt he ?

i would ring csa and tell them he aint seeing them so you want to claim full

untill you show him you wont be walked over then he will keep trying

do not give him money back thats for his kids ,

if he really would try screw you over then why not go for residency of the kids ?

AnxiousMum

If the kids were younger, I would. However, they are ages 11, 14 and 16 - so they are able to decide where they want to be - and it is in the best interests of the kids to see both parents. At the moment though, two have chosen not to go to his due to his behaviour - and that's their choice. I don't want to change it to 100% though - as ideally, he will grow up soon enough and the kids will again want to go spend more time with him, and he'll lose the chip on his shoulder and allow them to spend time with him.

13Kent

If things are going to court maybe he's refusing to take any money from you in case him doing that has an impact on the court case.

AngelPie78

Hiya,

I'm in a similar position. My daughter's dad is less than useless, tries to 'turn' her against me, slags me off in front of her (his wife does the same) and doesn't help with anything. They barely see her, take their son on holiday, not her etc...

I think the main thing for you to focus on is your children and your behaviour. Let him throw his toys out of the pram as much as he likes. Your boys sound like they've got good heads on their shoulders, so you've done a good job there Just let him be an a**e as it will come back to bite him on the backside!

Ring the CSA, tell them what he's doing and that you have full custody. Let them sort it out with him. Follow it up in writing to both the CSA and him.

Remember that he SHOULD be supporting HIS children, financially and in contact. You can't make him do this, so don't bother wasting your time trying. It's taken me ten years to get to the same point and I feel stupid for not listening to the advice all those years ago. My ex and his 'new' family have been living the life of Riley while my daughter and I have struggled in every way. It's seriously not worth it...

HTH x

FBaby

I'm confused as to why you felt that he should contribute 50% of child maintenance. Surely the basis should be that neither of you pays each other anything, but that CB and tax credits pay for those extra you refer to? I don't see how it is fair that you work less hours so lower income potential, claim all the benefits, and then think your ex should pay extra in addition.

Sorry but I'm with your ex on this one and understand that he would revert to claiming CB for one child, even if it means lower tax credits for you. He could have done that from the start, didn't, but I guess he now feels agrieved that you feel you should get more money from him despite them spending half their time with their dad.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

I'm confused as to why you felt that he should contribute 50% of child maintenance. Surely the basis should be that neither of you pays each other anything, but that CB and tax credits pay for those extra you refer to? I don't see how it is fair that you work less hours so lower income potential, claim all the benefits, and then think your ex should pay extra in addition.

Sorry but I'm with your ex on this one and understand that he would revert to claiming CB for one child, even if it means lower tax credits for you. He could have done that from the start, didn't, but I guess he now feels agrieved that you feel you should get more money from him despite them spending half their time with their dad.

Sharing care 50/50 doesn't necessarily mean that the costs of bringing up the child are shared on an equal basis. When I went through a period of shared care with my ex, he refused to pay for anything at all - I paid all the childcare (which I had to pay for 5 days a week because he would pick and choose when to pick up on time), school dinners, school uniform, other activities, shoes, haircuts etc etc. etc. Don't make the mistake of assuming 50/50 means a parenting relationship is amicable or that either (or both) parent is capable of putting the needs of the children first.

FBaby

I agree that there are extra costs that needs meeting but that should come from the additional benefits OP gets to claim fully as if she had the children full time rather than 50% of the time so getting these AND expecting additional maintenance is to me having her cake and eating it. The fact that he earns more doesn't mean he had to agree to pay for the big chunk of school trips. Our household earns well but when DD asked is she could go on an expensive school trip I said no (because I rather spend the money on a family holiday).

Regardless of the right and wrong of it OP had angered her ex and he is now doing the same thing she decided to do and that is to try to get the most of what he can of the system which ultimately will mean losing out.

AnxiousMum

Interesting - but.....my hours of work are as they are because when with 'him', this was what we agreed so that I was always available for the kids, and was able to take them to and from school etc., and while still contributing financially to the household, was as available as a stay at home mum to the kids. This meant a total change in career for me, starting at the bottom, and limiting my earning potential now. So my 'lower income' is certainly not to do with me scrounging from others, it was a decision we as a couple made, and will take me a couple of years to get back to where I was when we met. He however, has progressed through his career because I have enabled him to do so.
So, on one third of his income, and benefits to top it up - you feel that those benefits should cover the 'shortfall' of the 'extra' items - school trips, winter coats, winter boots, sports registrations, sports kits (one of my kids right now - American football registration - £100, American football helmet - £140 (club ones are not good for protecting against concussions), gloves - £38, boots, £30, leggings £30, and about £20 per week in petrol because 'dad' refuses to do any kid transport, to training and games. You don't feel that Dad should be in any way responsible for helping with any of those costs (and this is just for one thing) when both he and I agreed the kid could play and participate in this sport? Sorry - but benefits are to bring you up to a standard of living whereby you can feed, clothe and house your children. I would not be able to afford to have this child play this sport if he didn't contribute any child support - as he doesn't buy him clothes, he doesn't buy him anything he needs for school etc. However, the other child who he is claiming CB for - when he needs clothes, shoes, school stuff, trip money, pocket money for days out with friends etc., he gets it all here from me, not from his dad.
I'm sorry - but I do feel that responsibiity for the 'extras' belongs to the parents - both mum and dad, and both need to contribute to them.