Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

Marisco

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

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...!

Of course they'll refuse, what she earns has got nothing to do with the CSA, and presumably the CSA have checked with HMRC and have come up blank with your ex. What else do you reasonably expect them to do? How much do you think it would cost the taxpayers if they started employing private investigators to delve into peoples' lives?

If you want the NRPP's income taken into account, then the PWCP's should be as well, and maintenance decided accordingly, neither would be right though, as neither are the parents, they just happen to be living/married to the parent. There are a lot of anomalies in the CSA, is it right that one childs' tax credits are counted as income, to pay for the other child? Or that a NRP can have maintenance lowered just because the NRPP has children? No, it's not, but that is just the way it is.

Comfortably_Numb_2

Marisco wrote: »

Of course they'll refuse, what she earns has got nothing to do with the CSA, and presumably the CSA have checked with HMRC and have come up blank with your ex. What else do you reasonably expect them to do? How much do you think it would cost the taxpayers if they started employing private investigators to delve into peoples' lives?

If you want the NRPP's income taken into account, then the PWCP's should be as well, and maintenance decided accordingly, neither would be right though, as neither are the parents, they just happen to be living/married to the parent. There are a lot of anomalies in the CSA, is it right that one childs' tax credits are counted as income, to pay for the other child? Or that a NRP can have maintenance lowered just because the NRPP has children? No, it's not, but that is just the way it is.

What exactly are you proposing the PWCP's income be taken into account for? My partner's income has already been taken into account when my relationship status changed and my tax credits were reviewed. At that point my partners personal finances including his bank statements and wage slips were requested by HMRC for scrutiny, and not because I had at any point sought to escape paying for my child!

If you follow through your argument then presumably you are advocating that in the instance where the PWC co-habits with someone who is a high earner then the natural parent's obligations would end?

For the sake of clarity (because clearly I'm touching a few nerves here) I am not for one minute saying that the NRPP's income should be taken into consideration as a matter of course. What I am advocating is that in instances such as mine where there is reason to suspect that the NRP has arranged his and his new partner's finances to deliberately avoid paying, there be some room for a more sophisticated approach. If they co-habit and the household is enriched by the NRP making himself ‘unavailable for work’ in order to avoid paying for his children then yes I don't think it is an unreasonable suggestion.

Comfortably_Numb_2

The truth is that any of us could find ourselves in a 'double-negative' household where one or two modest wages are supporting children from previous relationships as well as (and often at the expense of) children living in the current household. Surely the only sensible answer is for the birth parents ALONE to have financial responsibility for their children?

Marisco

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

The truth is that any of us could find ourselves in a 'double-negative' household where one or two modest wages are supporting children from previous relationships as well as (and often at the expense of) children living in the current household. Surely the only sensible answer is for the birth parents ALONE to have financial responsibility for their children?

Yes, absolutely. But what you are saying is, that in cases like your ex's, where he doesn't have any income, and his wife is quite happy to keep him, then her income should be counted, because there isn't any alternative is there, he's got no income! So the only money going into the house is hers. So it's either go after her or do without. In no way I am I saying what he's doing is right, of course it's not, but neither is going after her income.

FBaby

I'm quite confused how some posters don't see that pwcp income IS taken into consideration as CN has pointed out. Why this assumption that it isn't?

If a pwc stops working because say she has a new child (same reason nrps often stop working to be looked after their new wife), she can't start claiming more maintenance to make the difference so the pwc HAS to start supporting her children from her previous relationship. There is no alternative, can't get more maintenance, can't get single parent benefits. So why is it seen as outroar that when the same thing happens with the nrp, maybe it would be right that his partner takes over paying maintenance?

If the nrp has car finances and he stops working, he can't say to the company that he now won't pay any longer because he is not working, the wife will have to pay it, so why is maintenance seen differently?

Maybe if I give up my job, I will tell the kids school that I expect them to continue to have their lunch meal, and that I won't be paying for their uniform because I can't support them any longer and my partner has no obligations to support them on my behalf.

Comfortably_Numb_2

Marisco wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. But what you are saying is, that in cases like your ex's, where he doesn't have any income, and his wife is quite happy to keep him, then her income should be counted, because there isn't any alternative is there, he's got no income! So the only money going into the house is hers. So it's either go after her or do without. In no way I am I saying what he's doing is right, of course it's not, but neither is going after her income.

Ok, well lets look at this another way. I'm not bothered where my ex-partner gets the money from to support his son, only that he pays it. If you agree that it's not right for either of the non-parents to have to bear the brunt of the childcare costs, and my wages alone are not sufficient to do this, then who picks up the shortfall? Presumably the tax payer in the form of child tax credits. My child's father may be choosing not to claim any benefit for himself but as the co-parent of a dependent child, who chooses not to work, then he is expecting someone to pick up his childcare costs for him.

Suppose that instead of defaulting responsibility to my partner to make up the shortfall, my ex had to claim that money from the government himself? Even if this was just making a claim for JSA and passing on the nominal £5 a week (which claimants currently have deducted from their benefit) to his child. At least it would be £20 a month my son doesn't get at the moment.

Presumably the DWP would also be able to offer him help and 'encouragement' to find employment as is every other fit and healthy benefit claimant in this country. If he didn't like it he could always ask his wife to bail him out or ...ummm get a job!

I wonder how long it would take the tax-payers to start vilifying the scrounging 'deadbeat dads' in the same way that single mums get it in the neck at the moment!

Comfortably_Numb_2

I think I might write a self-help guide... 101 Ways to Avoid Paying for Your Kids; Fair Ways and Foul

(PS ...I just copyrighted that title. I need the money and I suspect there's a market!)

System

My child's father may be choosing not to claim any benefit for himself

He may not be entitled to benefits. So if he did make a claim for benefits and found not to be entitled then ther would be a nil assessment.

who chooses not to work, then he is expecting someone to pick up his childcare costs for him.

TBH that appears to be a national pastime whether you are the PWC or NRP.

MataNui

FBaby wrote: »

I'm quite confused how some posters don't see that pwcp income IS taken into consideration as CN has pointed out. Why this assumption that it isn't?

I assume pwcp is 'parent with cares partner'. As far as i know its not taken into account for CSA (current rules) and i know for a fact its not taken into account in CSA1. AND neither is the PWCs income. In CSA1 they do ask about the income of the NRPs partner (there is a totally separate and rather intrusive section on the form for it) but there is no legal obligation to give this. I was so angry that they even asked i just wrote 'none of your fu**ing business' across the whole page.

It is though taken into account for other things like tax credits etc. The rest of your post makes no sense. As far as CSA is concerned they dont care what your income as PWC is. The assessment is based on NRPs income. If you follow your logic to its conclusion then it would be to the benefit of the PWC to give up work and expect the NRP to pay more (even though they may be supporting another family).

Comfortably_Numb_2

MataNui wrote: »

I assume pwcp is 'parent with cares partner'. As far as i know its not taken into account for CSA (current rules) and i know for a fact its not taken into account in CSA1. AND neither is the PWCs income. In CSA1 they do ask about the income of the NRPs partner (there is a totally separate and rather intrusive section on the form for it) but there is no legal obligation to give this. I was so angry that they even asked i just wrote 'none of your fu**ing business' across the whole page.

It is though taken into account for other things like tax credits etc. The rest of your post makes no sense. As far as CSA is concerned they dont care what your income as PWC is. The assessment is based on NRPs income. If you follow your logic to its conclusion then it would be to the benefit of the PWC to give up work and expect the NRP to pay more (even though they may be supporting another family).

Neither the PWC or the PWCP's income is taken into account when the CSA make an assessment of the NRP's liability, so if the NRP is paying making a fair contribution then this is not an issue. The problems arise when the NRP has a nil assessment and the PWC household apply for help. The single parent's wages are topped up by Tax Credits, but where the PWC is cohabiting the PWC has to submit joint income details to HMRC. If the new partner is waged then it is likely that tax credits will be at best drastically reduced and are usually withdrawn altogether.

There is no legal obligation for the PWCP to give income details to HMRC but If you refuse to submit joint income details then you will surrender your rights to any help. My partner was equally indignant about such intrusive questions but had to accept that with no child maintenance coming in, we had no option than to try and claim anything we could and so he swallowed his pride. He has never been in debt, never claimed benefit and chose not to have kids of his own until he felt he was in a position to provide for them. The financial burden of supporting someone else's child is now causing him to question whether he will ever be in a position to take that step.

As regards the last point on your post, maybe I'm being thick but I'm not sure I understand how you get to that conclusion from what FBaby is saying. I don't think anyone is advocating that the NRP's liability should increase as a result of any changes in the PWC's household...?