Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

double_mummy

i just think everything is way too complicated at the moment and an idea like mine would simplify it

i also think there are a lot of people who choose to work part time as it decreases their liability

i really dont understand how children are less important than a credit card or loan or overdraft which is how they are treated at the moment if you dont pay a credit card they can add a charge to your house and if large enough force a sale - but there are none of these powers for paying child support

every person who has a child knew they were participating in something that could create a child

i didnt say this was a totally and completely thought out idea just a rough one i came up with in a couple of minutes whilst reading through this thread

and i completely think that child maintenance should be reflected on a credit file as it does show how people manage their responsibilities

if the consequences were clear and harsh i honestly think that it would increase the amount of NRPs who pay child maintenance

iammumtoone

I agree with double money that there should be a minimum amount payable by all heathy employable nrps not necessary 20% of min wage but still a set amount that accumulates, that takes into account other children as CSA does, until they can pay, they could then pay it off in amounts relevant to their wage until the dept was cleared. There are too many loopholes in the system for nrps to get out of payment.

In return I also think the rules should be tightened again pwc who are receiving maintenance but don't allow access. As long as a court has decided there is no reason for a nrp not to see the child then if access is not allowed a percentage of the amount received should have to be paid back by the pwc once the child has left home and not longer a dependant. As again it is too easy for a pwc not to allow access.

Marisco

iammumtoone wrote: »

In return I also think the rules should be tightened again pwc who are receiving maintenance but don't allow access. As long as a court has decided there is no reason for a nrp not to see the child then if access is not allowed a percentage of the amount received should have to be paid back by the pwc once the child has left home and not longer a dependant. As again it is too easy for a pwc not to allow access.

The Australian, and I believe the Canadian system (although I'm not sure on that one) is even better. If the PWC refuses contact for no good reason, then either a %age or the whole maintenance (not sure of figures) is stopped, until contact is allowed. That would soon concentrate the minds of spiteful PWC's, obviously if there is DV involved that is a totally different matter.

FBaby

The problem with the Australian system is that it takes the parent's interest before that of the child. My ex doesn't pay a penny despite working. Under that system, I could say that he doesn't see his children until he does. It would be very tempting, but in the end, it is the kids who would miss out.

My kids are very happy and balanced children who have a wonderful future ahead of them. I can't negate the fact that being able to have a good relationship with their dad is part of it and this matters to me much more than 'winning the battle'.

I agree with you Marisco about nrpps, I just find it disgusting that pwcp are treated so differently especially as I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they have the luxury of more contact with the children, but purely because as a majority, nrpps are male and there is still this old outdated view that males should act as main providers.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

The problem with the Australian system is that it takes the parent's interest before that of the child. My ex doesn't pay a penny despite working. Under that system, I could say that he doesn't see his children until he does. It would be very tempting, but in the end, it is the kids who would miss out.

My kids are very happy and balanced children who have a wonderful future ahead of them. I can't negate the fact that being able to have a good relationship with their dad is part of it and this matters to me much more than 'winning the battle'.

I agree with you Marisco about nrpps, I just find it disgusting that pwcp are treated so differently especially as I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they have the luxury of more contact with the children, but purely because as a majority, nrpps are male and there is still this old outdated view that males should act as main providers.

I agree, some things are more important than money, but unfortunately most don't think like us though. Some NRP's will go to any lengths to not pay, and some PWC's will do anything to screw more money from the NRP, including using the kids as blackmail tools, neither think about the kids. I think in these types of cases, the Australian system would be the way to go.

I understand what you're saying re PWCP's, but I don't really know what can be done about that, apart from not counting the PWCP's income for benefit purposes. Mind, can you imagine what a storm that would cause, especially if the PWCP is earning a good wage?

FBaby

[QUOTEI understand what you're saying re PWCP's, but I don't really know what can be done about that, apart from not counting the PWCP's income for benefit purposes. Mind, can you imagine what a storm that would cause, especially if the PWCP is earning a good wage? [/QUOTE]

From my perspective, it is the disparity between the two I think is wrong. Whether it is acceptable that step-parents contribute or not, I don't really have a strong opinion, although would favour that none should be taken into account, however, it is not right that it is disgarded for one and not the other when their rights over the children are no different for one or the other.

I wouldn't find it shocking if pwcs could claim child tax credits/CB for their children regardless of her partner's income, but that would have to be offset by the maintenance received and tax credits should not count as income for the purpose of maintenance.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

[QUOTEI understand what you're saying re PWCP's, but I don't really know what can be done about that, apart from not counting the PWCP's income for benefit purposes. Mind, can you imagine what a storm that would cause, especially if the PWCP is earning a good wage? [/QUOTE]

From my perspective, it is the disparity between the two I think is wrong. Whether it is acceptable that step-parents contribute or not, I don't really have a strong opinion, although would favour that none should be taken into account, however, it is not right that it is disgarded for one and not the other when their rights over the children are no different for one or the other.

I wouldn't find it shocking if pwcs could claim child tax credits/CB for their children regardless of her partner's income, but that would have to be offset by the maintenance received and tax credits should not count as income for the purpose of maintenance.

Can you imagine the reaction though, if a PWCP is earning say 80k pa, and the PWC is allowed to claim benefits?

FBaby

Well, no more shocked when it is the nrp that earns that much and the pwc is claiming massive benefits in child and tax credits.

It comes down to who should be responsible for the welfare of a child, his two parents or the parent and other person he share his residency with. My view is that it should be his two parents predominantly.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Well, no more shocked when it is the nrp that earns that much and the pwc is claiming massive benefits in child and tax credits.

It comes down to who should be responsible for the welfare of a child, his two parents or the parent and other person he share his residency with. My view is that it should be his two parents predominantly.

But the PWC is living in a different place to the NRP though. If she didn't claim benefits, then the NRP would have to pay her housing costs and bills, which is clearly ridiculous. Thing is with a PWCP though, even if the child was not there, he'd still have to pay housing costs, and normal bills i.e gas, leccie, water etc.

So the maintenance the PWC receives should just go on the childs' needs, that way a PWCP doesn't have to fork out for things for the kid/s if he doesn't want to. Of course if the NRP doesn't pay CM, then yes, that is a problem, but I suppose it's just the same as if the NRP had died.

I think what it does show is that there is no way you can satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try! There sure as hell seemed to be less problems when the courts dealt with things!

FBaby

but I suppose it's just the same as if the NRP had died.

The difference is that in this instance, they would most likely be able to adopt the child, or at least get parental responsibility.

I think that's what gets to me, that pwcp are expected to fork out, but would they find themselves in hospital with the child, they wouldn't be able to give consent to an operation. A bit of a drastic situation that doesn't happen often, thankfully, but it is the principle.

I think what it does show is that there is no way you can satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try! There sure as hell seemed to be less problems when the courts dealt with things!

I agree 100%.