Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

MataNui

Plus one for Marisco. While It may seem unfair that he isnt paying what he should, to suggest his wife should be responsible for your children is ludicrous. Also you need to see it the other way. You could have married a billionaire while he may be paying to support his new wifes children AND pay you.

I suggest the above scenario because its not too far from what i have been doing for the past 15 years. I pay maintenance AND support my step daughter. The system is an !!!, but it is the system we have.

shoe*diva79

MataNui wrote: »

I suggest the above scenario because its not too far from what i have been doing for the past 15 years. I pay maintenance AND support my step daughter. The system is an !!!, but it is the system we have.

Are you suggesting you shouldn't have to support your natural daughter because you support your step daughter?!

justontime

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Are you suggesting you shouldn't have to support your natural daughter because you support your step daughter?!

Of course he wasn't! He was simply pointing out that a lot of NRPs are forced to support two families because we have some very odd rules. For example my husband is a NRP (he pays everything he should and more), however his full income is taken into account when assessing my children for student finance (no account is taken of the payments he makes to his natural children). This means that my children have struggled financially and without financial help from my husband they could not have gone to uni.

shoe*diva79

justontime wrote: »

Of course he wasn't! He was simply pointing out that a lot of NRPs are forced to support two families because we have some very odd rules. For example my husband is a NRP (he pays everything he should and more), however his full income is taken into account when assessing my children for student finance (no account is taken of the payments he makes to his natural children). This means that my children have struggled financially and without financial help from my husband they could not have gone to uni.

He called the system a a*** because he has to support his natural child and his step daughter.

Does your daughters natural father not support her through uni?

MataNui

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Are you suggesting you shouldn't have to support your natural daughter because you support your step daughter?!

Not at all. I am saying I do both and in a way i am much happier that way. It has meant i have 2 daughters who i spend a lot of time with, rather than the people who because of money and avoiding responsibility would have none.

The thing is you are suggesting that something like that become a one sided law. I am calling the system an a** because it is full of holes. For example even now the CSA (or whatever they are called these days) have access to HMRC records for finding an NRPs income they dont have FULL access so things like dividends, rental income etc dont show. The point is you have to have a system otherwise NOTHING would be fair. At least with a system (even as imperfect as this one) it is fair for the majority.

justontime

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Does your daughters natural father not support her through uni?

No, I was widowed, their father is dead. But all step parents face this problem if their step child (living in their household) applies for student finance. The step parents income is taken into account but the income of the non resident natural parent is not taken into account at all.

FBaby

While It may seem unfair that he isnt paying what he should, to suggest his wife should be responsible for your children is ludicrous

I'm surprised you would call this suggestion ludicrous when yourself you are expected to support a child who isn't biologically yours. Maybe it is because the dynamics of your family are such that you consider your step-daughter like your daughter too, but would you see it the same if she was a disgruntle teenager who wanted nothing to do with you? Yet as a step-father, if your wife decided not to work and her biological dad got out of paying anything, the responsibility would fall solely on you. So how is that any different to expecting the nrpp to pick up ALL of the nrp financial liabilities?

MataNui

FBaby wrote: »

I'm surprised you would call this suggestion ludicrous when yourself you are expected to support a child who isn't biologically yours. Maybe it is because the dynamics of your family are such that you consider your step-daughter like your daughter too, but would you see it the same if she was a disgruntle teenager who wanted nothing to do with you? Yet as a step-father, if your wife decided not to work and her biological dad got out of paying anything, the responsibility would fall solely on you. So how is that any different to expecting the nrpp to pick up ALL of the nrp financial liabilities?

The difference is i am not expected or forced by law to do so. What i do is because i choose to do so. Been through the teen stuff and she wasnt much fun to live with. It didnt really change anything though and things are much better now

Comfortably_Numb_2

MataNui wrote: »

Plus one for Marisco. While It may seem unfair that he isnt paying what he should, to suggest his wife should be responsible for your children is ludicrous. Also you need to see it the other way. You could have married a billionaire while he may be paying to support his new wifes children AND pay you.

I suggest the above scenario because its not too far from what i have been doing for the past 15 years. I pay maintenance AND support my step daughter. The system is an !!!, but it is the system we have.

Actually I have seen it the other way. I was in a relationship with someone a few years ago who had to work a 60-hour week to support his 3 children in spite of the fact that they lived with his ex-wife who was married to a wealthy businessman with no children of his own to support. We were considering moving in together but when we looked at the finances, having both me and my unsupported son living in the same household would have been an untenable drain on his already limited resources.

I know it's tough but having a child is a lifelong commitment between you and your daughter and as such should not be affected by the status of whom your ex-partner chooses to share her life with. It shouldn't matter as the money is not for your ex but for your daughter. I agree it would be nice if your ex could cut you some slack if you're struggling to maintain payments but I don't believe it is the job of the system to make adjustments.

I guess this comes back to the argument that we would all be a lot better off if we could make amicable agreements with our co-parents and cut out CMEC and their ridiculously inadequate system.

Comfortably_Numb_2

Marisco wrote: »

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

Whilst I have sympathy with your situation, the bits I've bolded means that your ex's wife would be liable and that is not right. I agree he should work and pay maintenance, but if his wife is willing to keep him and he claims no benefits, then there is nothing really that can be done. You cannot force someone to work if they have another source of income, in this case, wife's earnings, and you cannot force your ex's wife to not keep him either. If she is happy to keep him, then that's that I'm afraid.

If I'm honest, I'm a bit weary of hearing the shock/horror argument that the NRP's new spouse should not have to pay for someone else's children. What happened to my partner's rights not to pay for children who he has not fathered and, more to the point, where is my son's rights to enjoy some of the benefits which his father makes no secret of being in a position to provide if he so wished. In the current circumstances, promises of expensive holidays and state of the art gizmo's etc can be used as levers and tools with which to currie favour and manipulate loyalty, all of which could be damaging to a confused and conflicted child, particularly in the hands of an abusive personality.

I don't believe that the ex's wife should be liable persay, only in the circumstances where the NRP chooses not to work. If my son's father was a PAYE employee and refusing to pay maintenance then the CSA/CMEC would make an application to his employer to have payments deducted at source. If he was unemployed and claiming benefit then he would have the flat rate of £5pw deducted from his benefit. The fact that these rules exist acknowledge that the NRP is expected to pay a proportion of his or her household income towards their dependent children. My ex chooses not to work. My ex's wife chooses to support him. They have both enjoyed a fulfilling relationship with his son, and his wife was fully aware of his financial responsibilities when she married him. I'm certainly not suggesting that he should be forced to work, only that he should not be allowed to evade paying by chosing not to work. How he chooses to pay his child maintenance is his business but surely having a child should put some form of obligation on him to be responsible and accountable to that child?

I don't think it would be unreasonable in circumstances such as this, particularly where there are no dependent children in the NRP household, for the NRP to make at least a nominal (perhaps fixed) contribution? If he objects then he could opt to submit (confidentially) a joint financial statement to illustrate why he believes it to be an unreasonable request.

Surely closing a loophole which involves diverting money away from your own children and watching them go without whilst you enjoy a comfortable lifestyle is something the system ought to be working harder at achieving?