Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

MataNui

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

Marisco wrote: »

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?

Your not closing a loophole. Think for a minute about how such a law would work. You have legal financial liability for your own children. Your ex has legal financial liability for your children. These liabilities are there regardless of time limit or who either of you may end up with next.

What you are suggesting is to ADD somebody else to have a legal financial liability for your children. How on this planet do you expect something like that to work in practice? What if she says i am not paying? Would you suggest she faces the same legal sanctions currently being discussed for NRPs?

Do you also not get the concept of 'no taxable income'? If he declares no income then how do you suggest he pay? Oh yes, force his new girlfriend to pay.

Look, I am not saying the situation is fair on you. Its clearly not. BUT when you start suggesting new partners of people who had children in the past should have a legal obligation to pay (perhaps for children they have never even met) then you have really crossed the line into something that is potentially really, really nasty.

Somerset

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

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


Irrelevant. It's the law. Common sense too.


What happened to my partner's rights not to pay for children who he has not fathered


He has that right. He doesn't have to support your son, he chooses to as part of the family unit.


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.


Your son has no right to anything other than CSA monies. Of course his father could provide way in excess of that but it's not a 'right'.

I don't believe that the ex's wife should be liable persay, only in the circumstances where the NRP chooses not to work.


So you do think the new wife should be liable ? But she's not.


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.


But he's not working so n/a


If he was unemployed and claiming benefit then he would have the flat rate of £5pw deducted from his benefit.


But he's not claiming benefits so n/a.


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.


Highlighted for you. Avenue's to enforce payment from the NRP only.


My ex chooses not to work......... 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.


You are suggesting he should be forced to work. I don't disagree - he's a deadbeat. But nobody (or the law) can force someone to work.


How he chooses to pay his child maintenance is his business


He has no income. Deliberately but nonetheless true.


but surely having a child should put some form of obligation on him to be responsible and accountable to that child?


Morally yes.

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?


Back to morals - he has none.


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.


I assume he's already done this, for the CSA - no individual income hence case closed.

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?


He's not diverting income away - there is no income. His comfortable lifestyle is at the largesse of his wife. She has no obligation to supply same to your son.

Your ex sounds like an !!!.

FBaby

MataNui wrote: »

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

But say that as a nrp, you don't want to contribute towards your step-children (for whatever reason the same way a nrpp doesn't want to) and it is agreed with your partner that they solely financially support her children. Then she loses her job. She wouldn't be able to claim additional child benefit if you earn a good salary and aren't entitled as a couple. She couldn't ask her ex to take on the full financial responsibility either. The law WOULD expect you to take on that support financially, whether you want to or not.

FBaby

Oh and to site another legal obligation, what about the pwcp partner who are taxed when earning over £50k if their partner claim CB for children who are not his?

Yes, she could stop claiming CB, but for one, that doesn't work in the income is less than £60k and again, what if she doesn't want to give up the CB (just like the nrp makes the decision not to contribute maintenance despite earning an income), it still is the nrpp who is penalised as a result of a child who is not his.

MataNui

FBaby wrote: »

But say that as a nrp, you don't want to contribute towards your step-children (for whatever reason the same way a nrpp doesn't want to) and it is agreed with your partner that they solely financially support her children. Then she loses her job. She wouldn't be able to claim additional child benefit if you earn a good salary and aren't entitled as a couple. She couldn't ask her ex to take on the full financial responsibility either. The law WOULD expect you to take on that support financially, whether you want to or not.

Not exactly. I am not compelled by the law to support either of them, ie there are no legal sanctions that would be imposed if i walked out etc.
BUT:
You do raise a very valuable point about how income/status is treated differently by different government bodies (Always to your disadvantage and their advantage).

For example: When i first moved out i went back to live at my mums. I wasnt on a particularly good wage. My mum was a pensioner and had income support and housing/CT benefit. When i moved back her housing and C/T benefit was cut as i was living there. As far as CSA was concerned though because she was my mother (regardless of my age) they said she was supporting me so used my entire income with no disregards as assessable. So the council screws me and CSA screw me both claiming the opposite.

Now i will also say that it didnt help that my ex was a total Bi*ch and told the CSA i was earning 3 times what i actually was. You wont believe how that turned out for me but it certainly had a negative impact on my opinion of the CSA system as a whole.

iammumtoone

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

My son used to spend every other weekend with his father but when he reached the age of 10 he decided he didn't want to go anymore. At 14 the lines of communication are open but it is my son who decides what level of contact he has. I had to defend myself in court against his father's accusations of parental alienation and in doing so spent a considerable sum on legal representation.

I am not defending your ex I think what he is doing is awful, I don't know what the answer is as I agree with the responses from others but it is very wrong that fathers can get away with doing this.

However I do have some sythampty for him that he no longer sees his son regularly. He must have wanted to as he went through the hassle of taking you to court regarding it. I am not saying that you used parent alienation that is completely different to your son saying I don't want to go and you replying ok then. Unless there was a reason why it was unsafe for him to continue to see his father then at 10 my belief is he should have been told to go. My son is seven he sometimes says he doesn't want to go to his dads he has to go he knows that I want them to have a relationship unless something bad happens with his dad then he will be going until he is 16 when he will be allowed to make his own decision regarding access.

I wish you well in your fight there are so many things wrong with the system my ex is self employed he does give me something so I am better off than lots but he gives me no where near what he would have to pay if I could go through the CSA if he was employed by a company.

Comfortably_Numb_2

MataNui wrote: »

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

Your not closing a loophole. Think for a minute about how such a law would work. You have legal financial liability for your own children. Your ex has legal financial liability for your children. These liabilities are there regardless of time limit or who either of you may end up with next.

What you are suggesting is to ADD somebody else to have a legal financial liability for your children. How on this planet do you expect something like that to work in practice? What if she says i am not paying? Would you suggest she faces the same legal sanctions currently being discussed for NRPs?

Do you also not get the concept of 'no taxable income'? If he declares no income then how do you suggest he pay? Oh yes, force his new girlfriend to pay.

Look, I am not saying the situation is fair on you. Its clearly not. BUT when you start suggesting new partners of people who had children in the past should have a legal obligation to pay (perhaps for children they have never even met) then you have really crossed the line into something that is potentially really, really nasty.

My children…? My ex has financial responsibility for HIS child …sorry children. He has at least one other child with a different mother. He pays for neither. I’d say things were already fairly “nasty”, certainly from my son’s position! The lack of financial support has inevitably had a massive negative impact on his life, and I imagine the same will also be true for his other child.


Secondly somebody else HAS been added who now has a legal financial liability for my children; my partner. As soon as he moved in any remaining Tax Credits I was entitled to, were withdrawn altogether. I bear the brunt of the cost of my son. I can do this only because I have downsized my life massively to accommodate the fact that I am unlikely to ever receive child support. As FBaby points out, should I lose my job it will become my partner’s LEGAL obligation to support all of us. I don’t remember either of us being given any choice in that so you’ll forgive me for struggling to understand why we should be being so protective of my ex’s partner’s obligations. It’s seems a shame that under current rules a step-parent who moves in with an unsupported PWC will be forced to 'walk out' if he prefers not to be burdened with sole financial responsibility for someone else’s children.

If you read my previous post, I am not expecting anyone to ‘force’ the new partner to pay. I am suggesting that there ought to be harsher penalties for those who refuse to pay for their own children with such spurious excuses, and that in cases such as mine those sanctions should extend to taking the new partners wages into account, if only to act as a deterrent. If he wants to exercise his right not to work (and remember this is not UNABLE to work but a matter of choice) wouldn’t it be a bit more reasonable to first ascertain between themselves, whether this decision might have a negative impact on his dependent child?

iammumtoone

I do have sympathy for you I can see your point of view but there is nothing you can do to change it you will have to learn to live with it otherwise it will eat you up.

I live a very frugal life to support my son whilst his father continues to accumulate more and more. however i feel I am the lucky one as I have my son the majority of the time I would not give that up for all the money in the world.

I will stay single as I also agree that it is not fair to make another man financially responsible for my child, whilst my ex is free to go out with who ever he pleases. But again this is my choice I will accept it I would much rather be single than still with my sons father.

Comfortably_Numb_2

iammumtoone wrote: »

I am not defending your ex I think what he is doing is awful, I don't know what the answer is as I agree with the responses from others but it is very wrong that fathers can get away with doing this.

However I do have some sythampty for him that he no longer sees his son regularly. He must have wanted to as he went through the hassle of taking you to court regarding it. I am not saying that you used parent alienation that is completely different to your son saying I don't want to go and you replying ok then. Unless there was a reason why it was unsafe for him to continue to see his father then at 10 my belief is he should have been told to go. My son is seven he sometimes says he doesn't want to go to his dads he has to go he knows that I want them to have a relationship unless something bad happens with his dad then he will be going until he is 16 when he will be allowed to make his own decision regarding access.

I wish you well in your fight there are so many things wrong with the system my ex is self employed he does give me something so I am better off than lots but he gives me no where near what he would have to pay if I could go through the CSA if he was employed by a company.

Thank you for good wishes. Without going into too much detail there were a number of allegations made by my son about his father’s behaviour which were cause for concern. I agree with you that young children often object to contact visits and I have lost count of the number of times I had to cajole my son into going even when he was tearful and distressed. However things came to a head when he approached staff at the school and said if he was made to go then he would run away. As a result of this the matter was taken out of my hands, and yet subsequently in the family courts the obligation was down me to prove that I was not guilty of ‘alienating’ rather than on his father to prove there was no abuse or bullying taking place. The process took nearly 3 years to run it’s course during which time contact did take place, both positive and negative contact but, ultimately my son would only agree to contact taking place if he was allowed to be in control. At nearly 15 the courts were able to deliver this and now he’s older he feels better equipped to express his feelings. He has now been asked to act as a youth ‘ambassador’ helping the courts to shape their policies to better understand other children going through similar experiences.


I have myself since mentored a number of women facing similar allegations through the court system and I have been appalled at how familiar this story is. I am well aware of how serious parental alienation is. I have seen it in action amongst my own friends and it is always to the detriment of the children. However, financial abuse is equally damaging to the wellbing of the children and the family courts can be used as a way of controlling the PWC who has escaped an abusive relationship.

But that’s a whole other subject….!

Comfortably_Numb_2

Somerset wrote: »

Your ex sounds like an !!!.

You're defo right about that bit though...!