Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

gingergee

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

Do you actually know anyone who receives child maintenance?


Yep, me. I get £895 a month from my ex via deo. He did offer to pay me £80 a week once he had his new job. But my hubby suggested that he was earning more than before and didn't want csa knowing how much. He was right. Ex should pay me 695 but has arrears.
Csa did suggest the other day that maybe we can come to an agreement between ourselves...... I told him it's a domestic violence case and he put a note on the system for me so they won't ask again.
Doesn't op I know but......
If you can keep things civil it may help things long term xx

clearingout

justontime wrote: »

Even self employed people submit tax returns so they can be assessed in the same way that everyone else is assessed. Not all self employed people are scamming the system, most pay their taxes and are honest just like everyone else. Most people will have enough sense to pay up and avoid charges.

not sure why I haven't responded to this....you have obviously never met my ex. He starts up companies and shuts them down at the point where the tax return is due. He's done this at least 4 times in the last 6 years. He runs several other business on an 'off the record basis' and just shuts down websites and starts again with a ever so slightly different name when he gets 'caught'. I have no idea how many business he may actually have - I only get the ones I do by googling his phone number - there could be others using different phone numbers! It is a mystery to me that the HMRC aren't on his back constantly - but maybe they are, who knows?!

I wouldn't suggest that all self employed people are the same, of course not. But the system has an awful lot of slack for someone who is determined they shouldn't have to support their children. Some people will take it a lot further than others, granted, but I see no scope for the system being 'swift' or at least 'more swift' than it has been previously in these cases. And whilst I have no access to stats on the situation, I suspect it is these cases that clog the system and cause the most work for the least return.

Dante1814

Hi there , I won't go into huge detail as complicated but I am so horrified to what the csa has come up with , in regards to my ex husband paying for his 3 children it has left me shell shocked ! It has ruined my new year and feel sick with what he has got away with . I am fighting it all the way and I want to get together people with also terrible outcomes to fight together to change it .. Please let me know if interested . Thanks

Comfortably_Numb_2

Dante1814 wrote: »

Hi there , I won't go into huge detail as complicated but I am so horrified to what the csa has come up with , in regards to my ex husband paying for his 3 children it has left me shell shocked ! It has ruined my new year and feel sick with what he has got away with . I am fighting it all the way and I want to get together people with also terrible outcomes to fight together to change it .. Please let me know if interested . Thanks

Hi there. Sorry ...I've been away from forums and just seen this. The self-employed loophole is very commonly used to avoid paying maintenance. There are forums and facebook pages where you will find support from others in your predicament (check out Netmums). Not only that but as was remarked earlier, NRP's intent on paying will use self employment just to make themselves appear penniless and divert income. The only bit of good news I can give you is that with self employment you can make (or at least you could on the old system) a lifestyle inconsistent appeal where you use examples which might suggest your ex-partner is enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle inconsistent with the income he claims to be bringing home. It will be refused at first but you must appeal against the first outcome and they will have to delve deeper and address your concerns. My criticism of this route is that puts the pwc in the role of sleuth which carries it's own risks, particularly if there has been a history of domestic abuse. Worse than that it often means that things the children witness may be used as evidence which puts them in the spotlight ...something which most pwc's are not prepared to do. I would urge you to try this route and instigate a claim because even if it doesn't make him more accountable, it will at least mean that he cant be so complacent when displaying the lifestyle which he is denying his children. You are welcome to contact me for advice if you want to know more. I'm really sorry you've had such bad news but you're not on your own. I think this is far more widespread than anyone realises...

Comfortably_Numb_2

justontime wrote: »

"We now have a system which is much clearer and hopefully much fairer...

In theory yes ...but many of the loopholes still remain and can be exploited by those intent on non-compliance. Therefore the system is flawed and surely we should be looking at ways of tightening it up. This is generally done by discussion and information sharing...

Comfortably_Numb_2

justontime wrote: »

Rather than getting all bitter and twisted about past or present unfairness, shouldn't we be helping people to learn from our experience.

If this wasn't affecting people here and now then it wouldn't be under discussion here. Personally I think it he morally reprehensible for a parent to evade paying for his or her children and I EXPECT the system to close the loopholes which allow this. This is a financial forum so I would say that is a very valid observation to be putting up for scrutiny!

Comfortably_Numb_2

justontime wrote: »

I think we all know from our various experiences that it has to be better for the children if there can be some degree of communication and cooperation between the parents. Everyone loses out when it all gets bitter and angry and the biggest losers are the children.

Obviously communication and co-operation would be the best way forward for everyone once a co-habiting relationship has broken down and I appreciate your point that we should be emphasising that to all parents. However we are all reminded of this with the 'one brush-stroke fits all' approach presented to us by the government. These forums allow us the opportunity to discuss and share our experiences when the system fails us, or in this case, our children.

The "bitter and angry" bit has already happened in many of these cases. A pwc is not being bitter and twisted when they make an application for maintenance. They are exercising their right to ask for that which their children have every right to expect. The twisted bit comes when someone who enjoys a comfortable lifestyle, lies to avoid sharing this with his or her own children. By clamping down on loopholes which make this possible the government would be taking the pressure off the co-parents relationship and reducing the opportunity for lengthy disputes causing bitterness and anger. This i feel certain, would be better for the children and enable many more parents to move on and concentrate on the communication and co-operation bit.

Comfortably_Numb_2

It's important to give some consideration to the part coercive control and financial abuse plays in this area. Both are forms of domestic abuse and it is common knowledge that where DA has been present in a relationship then it does not end when the relationship ends. I help run a support group for DA survivors and it is all too common a story that depriving the children of maintenance is to some a way of maintaining some control over the ex-partners lifestyle. When this happens there is absolutely no concern for the effect this will have on the children. In fact I would argue that this is part of the plan as it is very often coupled with persistent applications for custody of the children and, where financial hardship has caused problems with the children then the nrp often sites this as reason to repatriate the children with him. I wish this was not the case but my experience tells me that these are not isolated cases and in these instances penalising the pwc because he or she cannot come to a reasonable agreement with the nrp is not the answer if you are trying to create a happy harmonious and ultimately safe environment for the children.

HoneyNutLoop

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

The only bit of good news I can give you is that with self employment you can make (or at least you could on the old system) a lifestyle inconsistent appeal where you use examples which might suggest your ex-partner is enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle inconsistent with the income he claims to be bringing home.

This ground does not exist under the 2012 scheme, where the intent is that maintenance should be based on declared taxable income. Diversion of income still exists as a ground, where an applicant can demonstrate the paying parent can control the amount of income they pay themselves, and have diverted some or all of their potential taxable income to another person or left it within the company, if they are a company director rather than sole trader.

Isabelle22

Hello there.

Reading your post I can relate.

My ex-partner and father to my only child, gave up his high paying job, and now works self-employed. And his new partner works.

She has a child (not his), who is financially supported by them both. They too, enjoy living the high life, while I struggle to get food on the table, despite working a full time job.

He owes me other monies that there is currently a court order out for, but I don't expect to see any of this.

I have made hundreds of calls to the CSA and it has also been taken to investigation (a separate body) with regards to this, and keep getting the same answers. The main one being that unless he declares his income there's nothing that they can do. That they are unable to obtain any form of information from HMRC.

Ironically despite the fact that her salary can not be used when working out the (non-existent!) maintenance - Her child is taken into consideration and the money is split between her child and his (he has another 9 year old and one on the way with her)!

It's so sad when a father will go to extreme lengths to avoid putting food in his child's mouth...

Sorry I can't be of any help... The CSA are entirely useless, and it would seem rather pointless if the non-resident parent is without any form of a conscience...