Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

FBaby

But then we are back to forcing a non parent to pay for someone elses' child,

No we're not. We are back to the nrp and nrpp agreeing that the nrpp takes over supporting the nrp, and that includes supporting his children in the same way that it would include paying for his clothes, transportation, food etc....

So no, the nrpp is not forced, but as shoediva suggested, then it would become a debt that would accumulate with the same right to be recovered the debt as any other.

justontime

Many, perhaps most NRPPs are parents themselves with their own children to support. It would be absolutely wrong to make step parents legaly liable to pay child support for their step children - and it would just lead to many more fragmented families.

I understand the unfairness of the OPs situation, but there are many children who for various reasons are only supported by one parent (eg bereavement, improsonment, illness, etc). It's unfair, in an ideal world all children would be adequately supported by both natural parents, but it isn't an ideal world and we can only do the best we can to ensure that children are supported. It sounds as if this man has gone to extreme lengths to avoid paying support, it is wrong, but the responsibility rests with him not his partner. It seems he has taken a huge risk, if he is as much of a 'prize' as the OP suggests the new partner will wise up sooner or later and he will be left high and dry with very limited prospects.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

No we're not. We are back to the nrp and nrpp agreeing that the nrpp takes over supporting the nrp, and that includes supporting his children in the same way that it would include paying for his clothes, transportation, food etc....

So no, the nrpp is not forced, but as shoediva suggested, then it would become a debt that would accumulate with the same right to be recovered the debt as any other.

Yes, but that can only happen with the agreement of the NRPP, and if she doesn't agree, then there is nothing that can be done, which is what I've been saying all along. You (general) can rant and rave all day long, but if she says no, and he's not bothered, then I'm afraid that's it.

Which generally means a debt collection agency will chase you, but again we are back to the NRP having no income, you cannot get blood out of a stone. And if everything is in her name sending in baliffs is useless as well. And I can't help thinking is it really worth all this hassle? Personally I'd just say to hell with him and get on with my life, it's not worth getting wound up over, especially as the "child" is 15, and will probably be ineligible for CSA in 3 years anyway.

System

But there is no debt legal or otherwise apart from in the mind of the PWC. I don't think DCAs are allowed to chase moral debts.

If the NRP has been assessed as unable to pay anything then there is no debt.

double_mummy

i think this needs to be simplified loads

personally i would charge every nrp 15% of full time minimum wage (for one child 20% for 2 etc) then anyone who earns over min wage pays 15% 20% etc of their wages

if a nrp decides to work part time or not work at all or are self employed then they would still be charged the min wage rate - they if they dont pay they can be chased for this debt via normal methods including CCJs

if an nrp is on benefits then the nominal fee will be paid if off for illness/disability. if on JSA then the bill will continue to rise as normal

no statute barring occurs on the debts and they can be taken from an estate and is paid to the pwc no matter when it is received the debt increases in line with inflation

liability is calculated the normal way - from birth until full time education is finished

the CSA facilitate payments and chase the people who dont pay

people cant get out of paying a credit card debt because they choose not to work why should they be able to get out of paying for their kids??

FBaby

Yes, but that can only happen with the agreement of the NRPP, and if she doesn't agree, then there is nothing that can be done, which is what I've been saying all along. You (general) can rant and rave all day long, but if she says no, and he's not bothered, then I'm afraid that's it.

Your citing the obvious! What I am doing is showing the unfairness in the system with one step parent expected to support his step-children (he may also himself have children from a previous relationship who is supporting) whilst the other isn't.

The bottom line is that the system consider pwcp more of a parent because the children live under their roof and I don't agree in that the two should trigger a financial responsibility.

I personally find it shocking that an nrp who doesn't pay a penny towards their children can get automatic parental responsibility but a pwcp who might fully support their step-children financially might not be entitled to it.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Your citing the obvious! What I am doing is showing the unfairness in the system with one step parent expected to support his step-children (he may also himself have children from a previous relationship who is supporting) whilst the other isn't.

The bottom line is that the system consider pwcp more of a parent because the children live under their roof and I don't agree in that the two should trigger a financial responsibility.

I personally find it shocking that an nrp who doesn't pay a penny towards their children can get automatic parental responsibility but a pwcp who might fully support their step-children financially might not be entitled to it.

Yes I think we all agree, it is unfair, but what I'm saying is, that the NRPP should not be forced to pay, some think they should. If they agree, fine, but if not, then they shouldn't have things like DEO's against them.

Most NRP's that don't pay haven't got the luxury of a rich wife to keep them, so the CSA usually get them one way or another. This bloke is "lucky" in that way, he's determined not to pay, and he has the means not to do so, yes, hellishly unfair, but I should imagine he is in a tiny minority. So changing the law just for very few people, is not IMO a good idea.

System

double_mummy wrote: »

i think this needs to be simplified loads

personally i would charge every nrp 15% of full time minimum wage (for one child 20% for 2 etc) then anyone who earns over min wage pays 15% 20% etc of their wages

if a nrp decides to work part time or not work at all or are self employed then they would still be charged the min wage rate - they if they dont pay they can be chased for this debt via normal methods including CCJs

if an nrp is on benefits then the nominal fee will be paid if off for illness/disability. if on JSA then the bill will continue to rise as normal

no statute barring occurs on the debts and they can be taken from an estate and is paid to the pwc no matter when it is received the debt increases in line with inflation

liability is calculated the normal way - from birth until full time education is finished

the CSA facilitate payments and chase the people who dont pay

people cant get out of paying a credit card debt because they choose not to work why should they be able to get out of paying for their kids??

So you advocate a debt for life that can/will probably never be discharged especially as you want to ruin the NRPs credit rating as well, meaning the chances of getting accommodation and work is greatly diminished. What's the plan? Go to court each year and give him a CCJ for that years payments because he can't pay?

TBH with a regime like that then there is absolutely no incentive to ever work again. At least with a CC debt there is an escape by declaring bankruptcy, you are advocating no get out at all.

Your plan is revenge of the worst sort - Totally ruin the NRP if they fail to pay

Marisco

double_mummy wrote: »

i think this needs to be simplified loads

personally i would charge every nrp 15% of full time minimum wage (for one child 20% for 2 etc) then anyone who earns over min wage pays 15% 20% etc of their wages

if a nrp decides to work part time or not work at all or are self employed then they would still be charged the min wage rate - they if they dont pay they can be chased for this debt via normal methods including CCJs

if an nrp is on benefits then the nominal fee will be paid if off for illness/disability. if on JSA then the bill will continue to rise as normal

no statute barring occurs on the debts and they can be taken from an estate and is paid to the pwc no matter when it is received the debt increases in line with inflation

liability is calculated the normal way - from birth until full time education is finished

the CSA facilitate payments and chase the people who dont pay

people cant get out of paying a credit card debt because they choose not to work why should they be able to get out of paying for their kids??

And what if the person doesn't "decide" to work part time, but that is the only hours they can get? So if someone is earning (and I'm only using rough figures here) 7k part time, you'd charge them as if they were earning 13k full time? If that isn't a disincentive to not work at all, I don't know what is!!

JSA for a single person is (approx) £3,750, and you'd charge them 15/20% of 13k? They might as well just tip all their JSA up!! And if they cannot pay the whole amount (which they wouldn't be able to) the debt just accumulates month on month? Not only that but you'd charge "interest" (inflation) as well? And all this just because there are a tiny minority that won't pay their dues, and choose to live off their partners?? Thank god you don't run the CSA!!

clearingout

!!!!!! wrote: »

Your plan is revenge of the worst sort - Totally ruin the NRP if they fail to pay

Why should my ex get away with not supporting his children, year after year? Why are people supporting NRPs to laugh in their ex's faces and pay nothing - because I guarentee behind every non-paying NRP, there is a collection of family and friends who think it's hilarious. I don't particularly want revenge - but I do want a system that comes down on non-payers very quickly and in a way that hurts them and makes other potential non-payers think twice. Too many people are raising their children on a single income whilst a useless system stands around and applauds.

I don't believe parents who genuinely lose their jobs or can't work as a result of illness or injury should be forced to pay, but any able-bodied parent who is ducking out of full-time work, job-hopping, working cash in hand or manipulating their self-employed earnings should fear what potentially could happen. They don't. As a consequence, we have thousands of households - and therefore children - being supported by their PWC's sole income and all the difficulties that go with that.