MSE News: Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees

BigAunty

moneysaymoneydo wrote: »

If the non residing parent went for 50% parental rights ie sharing kids half then do they still have to pay? Just curious how that situation works!

Under the last CSA rules, there were deductions to the amount the Non-Resident Parent had to pay if the children stayed with them overnight. That was one of the few things that led to reduced child maintenance.

turtlemoose

clearingout wrote: »

Both parents have a responsibility to support their children and that responsibility is not diminished just because one earns more than the other...... why on earth should that mean he gets away from the financial responsibility of having children scott free?

I agree with you, BOTH parents have a responsibility to support the child they chose to create together. But often it is never as black and white as that. My partner has his son minimum one weeknight and every weekend from Friday pm until late Sunday night. I see no reason why he should be contributing towards half the PWC's electricity/mortgage/food etc when the PWC does not contribute half of our living costs for the time he is with us - to me this balances out overall and neither should be paying the other for this.

That leaves the other things - clothes, school trips, that sort of thing.

She has had no restraint nor hesitation in gloating to us that *her* maintenance money is just that - hers.

Let's use some (made up) examples. Parents are EQUALLY financially responsible for a child in this scenario.

PWC child-related income is:
£80 cb
£50 tax credits
£100 maintenance

In a truly equal situation, the PWC should add £100 in to this child-centred budget. The PWC I have to deal with thinks that this is outrageous, and that the NRP should be paying for 100% of all child related costs, spouting "he's your kid, you have to pay for him" at any given opportunity, while not realising that in fact he's HER kid too and she has to pay for him TOO.

There has been many an occasion my OH has received a text message that says something along the lines of "I want £50 so (child) can do football after school", to which the response is an offer to pay half. The next message will read "i've told (child) he cant do football because you wont pay. U obviously dont care so ur not having him tomorrow." and she'll start playing silly beggars with access.

And don't even get me started on the several thousands of pounds that OH's family had gifted to SS over his life, that she recently used to bump up the deposit on the flat she bought, and lied that she didn't take the money. Reasonable, you might say - it's going to be SS's inheritance after all, however I can only imagine the consequences if OH had got there first and taken that money and used it as a deposit towards the house we bought last year. Hmm.

So yes, I AM bitter, and from my personal experience the system is heavily biased towards the PWC, and my whole experience of the whole thing has been that it is unfair.

I'll stop feeling bitter about it when we have a system that doesn't reward PWC's with more money for denying NRP's access.

turtlemoose

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The article doesn't really make clear that the receiving parent can't force the paying parent into CMS collection. They can avoid the fees by paying the receiving parent directly. The receiving parent doesn't get a choice about whether to accept these payments or whether to push for CMS collection, it's either accept these payments or accept nothing.

That's good to know, if true. Do you have a source for this? As you have said, the article does not make this clear.

turtlemoose

Found it:

http://www.fnf.org.uk/law-and-information/child-maintenance

"You can avoid the collection charges by choosing Direct Pay. Where there is no reason for the Child Maintenance Service to think the paying parent is unlikely to pay, the receiving parent cannot insist on the case being put into the Collect & Pay Service and incur the collection fees (the system that will charge for collecting and delivering money between the parents)."

j4n3tt3

The real issues that need challenging are the non-resident parents who refuse to pay child maintenance. It is disgraceful to surrender financial responsibilities for a child. Im not sure that adding 20% to their bill will make that much difference. I think serial non payers will continue not to pay. I also dont think that services should necessarilly be free. 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, how many children these days are from a broken home? Who picks up the cost? I personally think the drain on public money is far too much. Its not upto the government to pick up the tab. Its down to both parents who bring children into the world to do that. What we do need is a enforceable system to ensure that non resident parents pay maintenance for their children and that there are hard consequencs for those that do not.

turtlemoose

And j4n3tt3, how about hard consequences for PWC that not only deny access, but deliberately, maliciously sabotage the relationship between child and NRP? How about PWC's who are allowed to refuse overnight access, because that will reduce the amount of maintenance money they receive?

j4n3tt3

Turtlemoose I totally agree with you, this is extremely unfair and its the child that suffers the most and carries the scars throughout their life. Furtheremore this too seems difficult to enforce unless you have the financial resources to go through a legal process which is both costly and can take years.

clearingout

turtlemoose wrote: »

I see no reason why he should be contributing towards half the PWC's electricity/mortgage/food etc when the PWC does not contribute half of our living costs for the time he is with us - to me this balances out overall and neither should be paying the other for this.

if you are going through the CSA/CMS, then a reduction is made in child maintenance for the number of nights a child is with their NRP.

In a truly equal situation, the PWC should add £100 in to this child-centred budget. The PWC I have to deal with thinks that this is outrageous, and that the NRP should be paying for 100% of all child related costs

why do you have to deal with the PWC if you are a new partner? Why don't you just detach? It would be better for your mental health, that's for sure!

There has been many an occasion my OH has received a text message that says something along the lines of "I want £50 so (child) can do football after school", to which the response is an offer to pay half. The next message will read "i've told (child) he cant do football because you wont pay. U obviously dont care so ur not having him tomorrow." and she'll start playing silly beggars with access.


So yes, I AM bitter, and from my personal experience the system is heavily biased towards the PWC, and my whole experience of the whole thing has been that it is unfair.

No, the system is biased towards those who choose to play it. Spend some time on the child support board and see just how many PWC are doing their best to bring up their children with no support whatsoever from an ex living the high life. Please don't tell us that the system is biased towards us because quite clearly, from our perspective, it isn't.

I'll stop feeling bitter about it when we have a system that doesn't reward PWC's with more money for denying NRP's access.

Please don't get me wrong, I totally understand the frustration and the upset and I don't think it's right to use children in this way. Unfortunately, that's what happens sometimes. But just because it happens sometimes, doesn't mean every PWC behaves in that way or that every PWC doesn't take responsibility for their children or that the system favours us at all times. It really, really doesn't. Children suffer either way, don't they?

Frustrated82

Having been following this news story, and having plenty of experience of this situation myself, I find it quite distressing that the government are looking to make money out of an extremely emotive and difficult situation. And that's what it is, a money making ploy from the Conservatives. This idea that it will "encourage" parents to make private arrangements is rubbish. It may force some PWC to accept false calculations and unreliable payments because they cannot afford to pay the arrangement fees in seeking help, but it will not encourage NRP who refuse to pay any more than the current threats of court orders, losing driving licences and prison sentences do.

I appreciate the argument that the service should not be free, but as it stands the CSA are so unreliable and inefficient that I would hesitate to call it a "service". I am currently in the process of having to cancel my CSA "case" (which consisted only of a calculation, the payments are made directly at the moment) and wait 13 weeks just to get the CMS to do a true calculation because the NRP is working multiple jobs but only sent the CSA wage slips for one. The CSA accepted this, whereas the CMS check with HMRC which I am hoping will be a much quicker, more accurate and more effective process that will help to avoid further disagreements between parents.

There is clearly no simple answer to who should pay, but provided the NRP is given the option of paying directly then theoretically the charges as they stand at the moment would mean that the NRP will always have a choice over whether or not they have to pay fees as they will only be charged if they've chosen to attempt to avoid paying the correct amount and it is chased up for collection, in which case the charges are deserved. However, the PWC is denied this same choice as should the NRP not be honest or refuse to pay it is the PWC (and their children) that have to pay an application fee for help and possibly lose out on some of the maintenance if it has to be collected. This is not fair on the PWC or the children and is morally wrong.

I know this sounds quite anti-NRP (and to an extent, having been on the receiving end of refusals to both be honest over income and pay I guess I am a little biased) but I am trying to remain balanced. My partner is a NRP who has NEVER missed a payment (it is arranged directly with the PWC because she knows the CSA would calculate it as less) even when he was made redundant and was actively seeking work (I covered the costs from my wages rather than us stop them), he still pays half of all uniform and trip money in addition, we have not deducted a penny in reflection of the other children in our household (one of which is his) yet he continually has his access threatened over how we choose to budget the rest of our money.

So I can see it from both sides, though as I say I do feel that the way it is due to be set up is biased against the PWC ultimately. As I say, providing the NRP is given the option of paying direct then he will always have the choice of avoiding charges. The PWC does not have this same choice, they are continually being backed into a corner.

Unless the PWC is lucky enough to be dealing with an honest and reliable NRP (which happens, though is not the norm), the PWC only has the choice of either accepting this or seeking help where help costs. In this case, even if the payments are ultimately made directly, the PWC is still charged an application fee to get an accurate assessment and a formal agreement that provides something to fall back on should the NRP choose to stop paying (in which case the PWC will have to pay again when the payments are collected). A choice, perhaps, but surely the PWC has the right to know the calculation is correct and to actually receive this without it being a question of affordability?

In addition, and I wonder if anyone is able to answer this, I cannot find any information on the issue of arrears. I have read that current cases will be closed pending the PWC accepting the charges for them to continue, but as neither the CSA nor the CMS are due to be trained on the matter until a year after it is introduced, no one can tell me how arrears will be managed. Specifically, where there is a court order against the NRP (made in the CSA's name, something I queried at the time) what will happen? My ex technically owes the CSA thousands (which he currently pays back at £5 a month on top of the normal, under calculated, maintenance) which leaves me where? That money is not the CSA's, it's my childrens, yet will it be forgotten about or will I be forced to pay charges to the CSA whilst they continue to collect it over god knows how many years?! Or if it's just left for us to arrange ourselves, who will monitor it and will the court order be transferred over to me? I cannot be the only one in this position, yet no-one seems to know the answers to my questions.

Or on second thoughts, maybe all those PWC on low incomes that are not being paid the correct amount and would struggle to afford the new charges should seek Legal Aid and take the issue to court instead. Can you imagine the backlog in the Family Courts over that?! Mind you, it would have to be one hell of a back log to make it slower than the CSA process, let's be honest....

BigAunty

Frustrated82 wrote: »

Having been following this news story, and having plenty of experience of this situation myself, I find it quite distressing that the government are looking to make money out of an extremely emotive and difficult situation. ....

I don't see the move as a money making enterprise per se but one that is seeking to cut down on the public expense associated with running what is essentially a large, failing state department (CSA). It's money saving,rather than money making - I can't see any profit motive there.

I see it as part of a shift in culture to the realism that the state has largely been ineffective at sorting out quite personal financial arrangements at the micro family level, the huge case load, and injecting back a sense of realism about outcomes (which unfortunately are poor for many PWCs and NRPs).

I see it as an inevitable step back from family interventions, trying to re-invigorate a culture of direct negotiations between the 2 parties instead of offloading it onto a faceless bureaucracy.

The CSA only masked and papered over the embedded culture of non-payment by the NRP (and the culture where access by the PWC was dependent on if they were happy with the financial settlement).

When the parents decided to have children, the decisions made about household expenses and income, family budget, and decided to separate, the state was not involved with it, everything was negotiated between the two parents. When it comes to another personal, family matter around finance when they are not in the same household, suddenly the state machine is supposed to mediate.

Separations are full of bad feeling, hurt, unfairness and require lots of decisions and discussions. Quite how the state was supposed to influence the outcome of one element of it to the satisfaction of both in millions of cases, I never understood. It seems it has accepted that its interventions to date have been at enormous public cost and limited satisfaction by the clients who used this free service to date. The CSA has never been fit for purpose despite considerable changes and investment in the organisation, never been quite the salve it aspired to be.