Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

Comfortably_Numb_2

iammumtoone wrote: »

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.

I gave up any hope of getting maintenance a long time ago. He’s evaded it this long and as far as I’m concerned he’s made his decision and he will have to live with the consequences. However, I do think the law is wrong in this instance and I think people should be aware of the possible financial consequences of co-habiting. I think the whole thing needs an overhaul ….hmmm isn’t that what they just did?

It seems a shame that you feel you have to stay single rather than burden another person with responsibility for your children. It’s a decision which has clearly been influenced by the impact of the unfathomable logic of the child support system. Children should be lifelong commitment to BOTH parents and any loopholes which allow someone to shed this responsibility should be reviewed as a matter of urgency for the sake of the children who deserve better.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

MataNui wrote: »

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.

This isn't true - the 2012 system does show this, as long as the paying parent declares these sources of additional income to HMRC, and this is the data that is used for variations now.

FBaby

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.

Well obviously you could walk out, as could the nrpp, that's not the point. My argument is that whilst the pwcp is under the same roof than your step-child, you are still liable legally to look after them if the pwc isn't, but this doesn't apply to the nrpp.

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

So ludicrous for nrpps but not for pwcps?

Comfortably_Numb_2

FBaby wrote: »

Well obviously you could walk out, as could the nrpp, that's not the point. My argument is that whilst the pwcp is under the same roof than your step-child, you are still liable legally to look after them if the pwc isn't, but this doesn't apply to the nrpp.



So ludicrous for nrpps but not for pwcps?

Exactly! I wouldn't even have to lose my job to be honest. I live in a remote rural area and work 30 hours week on minimum wage. When I was a single parent that was topped up by Tax Credits to a level which presumably the government thought was necessary for me and my son to live on. When my partner moved in the Tax Credits stopped. My partner and I now split all the house expenses, council tax, utility bills and food for the 3 of us 50/50. I need to run a car and my journey to work every day uses £40 of petrol a week. All that leaves me with very little to spend on me and my sons clothes, school uniform, school dinners, mobile phone, toiletries, vets bills, after-school activities etc etc. I am also paying off debts inevitably accumulated from 14 years of no maintenance. I am unable to put anything by for birthdays or christmas let alone holidays or unforseen events such as car repairs. In truth, my partner already contributes considerably more than 50% of the overall living costs of a family of three.

Before he moved in he enjoyed a bachelor life with only himself to consider. He had money left at the end of the month to spend on luxuries such as eating out and belonging to a gym. He ran a nice car and took regular holidays. He now works his a*** off to support a disgruntled teenager who's own father CHOOSES not to work. In what universe is that fair...? What kind of pressure is that likely to put on relationships already struggling to adjust to the demands of resentful step-children. No wonder many PWC's choose like iammumtoone to stay single. It's hard enough to steer your children through the challenge of introcuding a new relationship, without the constant pressure of expecting your new partner to support the whole household ...especially when the non-paying father pulls up in a Porsche!

In truth yes he could just walk out and turn his back on the responsibility of paying for someone else's child. It's to his credit that he hasn't yet done that. My argument is that if he chooses to stay then he is EXPECTED to bail us out and make up the shortfall whilst my son's father and his partner are able to CHOOSE not to. The fact that they choose to turn their backs on my son's needs is a measure of the kind of people they are. that isn't going to change but the system DOESN'T have to endorse that by letting them walk away with no kind of penalty or deterrant.

MataNui

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

This isn't true - the 2012 system does show this, as long as the paying parent declares these sources of additional income to HMRC, and this is the data that is used for variations now.

If that is the case then judging by some of the threads moaning about NRPs dodging paying because they are self employed or have a limited company then there are a lot of very bitter people out there just trying to make trouble. It is absolutely 100% impossible to take money out of a limited company without it appearing on a self assessment tax return.

Which means anyone moaning how their ex is earning lots but dodging paying is basically talking crap since its not actually possible to do that under the new scheme. I am assessed under CSA1 and i guess things have changed a lot since then

shoe*diva79

MataNui wrote: »

If that is the case then judging by some of the threads moaning about NRPs dodging paying because they are self employed or have a limited company then there are a lot of very bitter people out there just trying to make trouble. It is absolutely 100% impossible to take money out of a limited company without it appearing on a self assessment tax return.

Which means anyone moaning how their ex is earning lots but dodging paying is basically talking crap since its not actually possible to do that under the new scheme. I am assessed under CSA1 and i guess things have changed a lot since then

Most of those people moaning are pre 2012 cases so have every entitlement to moan! I have seen very very few threads criticising the 2012 scheme. Which to me shows its working?

MataNui

Comfortably_Numb: Dont think he is getting away totally free. There will be consequences if he has decided not to work. His current relationship might end or when CSA no longer care he may want to earn again.

He will have a pretty tough time explaining that sort of gap in his CV. Its going to happen sooner or later. How long would you live with someone not working and sponging off you?

FBaby

Before he moved in he enjoyed a bachelor life with only himself to consider. He had money left at the end of the month to spend on luxuries such as eating out and belonging to a gym.

That is exactly the same situation with my husband. When we moved in together, we agreed that it would be fair for both of us to have the same disposable income at the end of day. Our income are similar, but I have so much more outgoings because of the kids, so ultimately, by making it 50/50, he IS paying towards my children.

Of course he had the choice not to get with a women with children, but again, that same argument would apply to a nrpp.

In my case, it is made worse because my kids are very close to their dad. I am delighted this is the case for the benefit of my children, but it means that my ex gets the positive of being parent without the negative. They are also close to their step-mother (and I am grateful that she is nice to them for their benefit) but again, the law doesn't consider that this justifies her having any duty towards them.

To make it clear, I don't think step-parents finances should ever be taken into account when it comes to non biological children, but that should go both ways and at the moment, it isn't and THAT is ludicrous.

FBaby

He will have a pretty tough time explaining that sort of gap in his CV. Its going to happen sooner or later. How long would you live with someone not working and sponging off you?

ha ha, many stay at home mums do every day yet remain in very happy marriages.

Comfortably_Numb_2

MataNui wrote: »

Comfortably_Numb: Dont think he is getting away totally free. There will be consequences if he has decided not to work. His current relationship might end or when CSA no longer care he may want to earn again.

He will have a pretty tough time explaining that sort of gap in his CV. Its going to happen sooner or later. How long would you live with someone not working and sponging off you?

I hope you're right but this is not an isolated offence. He was self employed (old rules) before he got married and used the loopholes there to get a £5pw and then a nil assesment before I opened a 'lifestyle inconsistent' appeal. Then he got married and closed the case!

In there's every chance he does have an income. They're both intelligent people and operate in influential circles. If you're intent on (or have a lot to gain from) deception then there are many ways of diverting income to keep it away from prying eyes. The CSA refuse to get involved in any investigation which would involve scrutinising their joint finances so it would be up to me to prove he is not only working but also profiting personally from his toil. As far as they're concerned the case is now closed and there is no further liability.

In answer to the last bit ...it was less than 18 months! When my son's father moved in with me 17 years ago I had my own flat and a well paid job in television. He was unwaged and refusing to claim benefit. Evidently his new partner has a more generous spirit than me...!