Maintainence

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Hi,

Not sure what to do. I doubt I can do anything so this is more of a rant than anything but any helpful advice would be great.

I have a DD (under the age of 10) with my ex. When we broke up he was seeing DD regularly, until he met his now wife when the access dwindled off (His wife gave reasons she didn’t want him seeing DD, He agreed not to see DD and in my opinion should have manned up but he didn’t so theres no point in blaming anyone other than him)

Anyway – He was paying me maintenance direct, then the wife said he was paying too much (or at least that is what he told me....) so the maintenance stopped. I took him through CSA (He ended up paying me more maintenance) and that was that for the past 4 years.

Now his job gives him guaranteed overtime in the summer, so usually, I will call in June for a review when he is having his OT, then drop is down again in Nov when his wages drop which I thought was a fair thing to do.

Through the years he’s gotten married, taken on his partners child, and they have had 2 more together (twins). All the while, he does not see our daughter (through his choice) and DD has never met her siblings (but is aware of them)

Anyway, I called CSA, as usual to have a review in June and after a while the CSA told me he couldn’t be contacted. They said they would try again before writing to his employer. Anyway, they managed to speak to him on Monday and he said he would hand the documents in that they were requesting.

He then called back on Tuesday and said he had lost his job. Now This I find suspicious, we work in the same sort of industry and I know that the company he works for has recently expended, and due to his skilled profession and what he does in that company I find it odd they have made him redundant but stranger things have happened right?

Then the CSA said that he doesn’t know when he is being made redundant, has no documentation from his employer to state redundancy etc which again, I think is odd.

The evil in me thinks that he is becoming a stay at home dad, his wife’s now returning to work as her mat. leave has ended, they can’t afford the childcare for the 2 extra children they have, they aren’t entitled to tax credits because of their income so one of them has decided to stay at home (him) and because of that they will be entitled to some form of tax credits, won’t have to pay maintenance because he isn’t earning. (CSA said if he isn’t working and he doesn’t qualify or sign on then DD isn’t entitled to anything, not even the £5 that job seekers have to pay)

Now – this doesn’t affect much directly – The maintenance money gets put into a bank account for DD (But he doesn’t know this) – This is something I cannot do for her now.

I realise that yes, the wife shouldn’t be liable for any previous children – but I think it’s wrong that he can stay at home and not provide for his existing child through choice (If that’s what it is)

Anyway – like i said, this is more of a rant. I shouldn’t have been surprised really.

I was wondering a while ago whether to move the case from the CSA to the CMS – if he decides to return to work is the CMS more fairer / more reliable? (Got to be better than me calling every 6 months to get it reviewed right?)


I cant possibly see him being out of work for years but he’s hardly likely to tell me / CSA. Doesn't the CMS go from P60’s?

Anyway – thanks for reading.

19lottie82

Hi, maybe you might get more of a response posting this on the maintenance section of the board?

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

19lottie82 wrote: »

Hi, maybe you might get more of a response posting this on the maintenance section of the board?

Hi Lottie,


I did post there initially but no one has replied Thought I would try my luck here but thanks anyway

TBagpuss

I think the problem is that the CSA, CMEC, whatever it is called this week is a very blunt instrument, and there are, sadly, a lot of situations where the results are unfair, or feel unfair.

If the claim is ended and you start a new one then it is based on gross income not net, which resolves issues due to people channelling money into a pension to recude their net pay, or taking a low salary plus dividends. For someone who is employed rather than self-employed it won' make much difference to the numbers, and you will have to pay admin fees.

Unfortunately, although his decision to be a stay at home dad may have been motivated in part at least by a wish to avoid paying child support, it could also be a legitimate choice, particularly if he was given the option of voluntary redundancy.

Your maintenance would of course fall significantly due to the new children in any event.

I would wait to see whether he does produce the documents which the CSA has requested, then decide whether to push for further reviews in a few months time, or to reapply.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

TBagpuss wrote: »

I think the problem is that the CSA, CMEC, whatever it is called this week is a very blunt instrument, and there are, sadly, a lot of situations where the results are unfair, or feel unfair.

If the claim is ended and you start a new one then it is based on gross income not net, which resolves issues due to people channelling money into a pension to recude their net pay, or taking a low salary plus dividends. For someone who is employed rather than self-employed it won' make much difference to the numbers, and you will have to pay admin fees.

Unfortunately, although his decision to be a stay at home dad may have been motivated in part at least by a wish to avoid paying child support, it coutld also be a legitimate choice, particularly if he was given the option of voluntary redundancy.

Your maintenance would of course fall significantly due to the new children in any event.

I would wait to see whether he does produce the documents which the CSA has requested, then decide whether to push for further reviews in a few months time, or to reapply.

Oh my maintenance dropped over a year ago now, that isn't an issue - obviously the new children also need financial and emotional support from him too. And yes, it might be for another reason that he chooses to stay at home, although financially I can see why, but I don't see how it can be 'fair' to our child esp as he doesnt see her. If he was having access and treated her the same as the other children when he had her then fair enough, but at the moment he isn't interested in her (she's his 'past' - his new family are his 'future' kind of thing) and now he isn't going to support her financially, possibly through his own choice (by becoming a stay at home dad)

Obviously I wouldn't expect him to pay the same as what he has previously paid - but even unemployed people on job seekers contribute for God's sake. That's what's narked me - just that our daughters been pushed out and treated differently from the others - again

I won't bad mouth him to pur daughter (although sometimes it's difficult not to) I just hope she realises what an idiot he has been because he's really missing out, not the other way round I guess

Person_one

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel wrote: »

I realise that yes, the wife shouldn’t be liable for any previous children – but I think it’s wrong that he can stay at home and not provide for his existing child through choice (If that’s what it is)

Actually, I disagree with you. She married a man who had a child, she knew he had a lifelong responsibility to her and that should have become a family responsibility when they became a family.

I don't understand how some women can bear to live with a man who treats their exes and their 'past' children so badly, do they think they'd deserve better treatment if things went wrong and they separated?

Alchemilla

If he has given up work then I am not sure there is much you can do. I think there is something called intentionally depriving oneself of income but the bods on child support board will explain that. Depending on which CSA system you are on they include CTCs in the calc.

It is a standard strategy used by non compliant NRPs to claim they are unemployed while they change jobs. It takes CSA a while to catch up with them.

Alchemilla

Person_one wrote: »

Actually, I disagree with you. She married a man who had a child, she knew he had a lifelong responsibility to her and that should have become a family responsibility when they became a family.

I don't understand how some women can bear to live with a man who treats their exes and their 'past' children so badly, do they think they'd deserve better treatment if things went wrong and they separated?

These women are living with a man who has been horribly treated by the ex, financially ruined by the ex and her money grabbing ways and who were forced to have affairs just to escape the terrible maltreatment they suffered. Also the poor love is heartbroken not to see the children when it suits him, instead having to stick to some frankly inconvenient routine...in other words they re write history.

FBaby

The problem is that CSA is based on a old fashioned one fitting all situations. It assumes that children see the nrp every other week-end with the nrpp having no relationship with the children, therefore no commitment towards them, whilst assuming that the pwcp because he lives with the parent takes on a parental role towards them and therefore should be considered financially responsible too.

This is why a system when such decision goes in front of a judge who makes a decision on maintenance based in circumstances is a much fairer system, but the above mental thinking is quite engrossed in the British system.

In France, a nrp who gives up his job to look after new children would be ordered to continue to pay maintenance, most likely at the same level than he used to. If he and new wife decide that she is the one going to work because it is more economical for them to do so, it would be expected that they would have considered the cost of the maintenance in their new budget.

I think nrpps are very protected in the British system whilst pwcps are penalised in every way. I think it is an insult to them to expect them to be financially responsible for such children yet given them no parental rights towards these children.

System

She married a man who had a child, she knew he had a lifelong responsibility to her and that should have become a family responsibility when they became a family.

I'll agree with that when there is a reciprocal process whereby the maintenance drops because the PWC takes a new husband/live in boyfriend.

Alias_Omega

No work = No maintenance.


Nothing much more than you can do.