Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

24skins

FBaby wrote: »

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 agree 100%.

This bothers me too - my partner supports my children without question while the NRP has contributed nothing toward them in nearly two decades, but if got hit by a bus tomorrow my ex would get the kids. One has all responsibilities and none of the rights, the other has all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

Marisco

24skins wrote: »

This bothers me too - my partner supports my children without question while the NRP has contributed nothing toward them in nearly two decades, but if got hit by a bus tomorrow my ex would get the kids. One has all responsibilities and none of the rights, the other has all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

Have you got your sums right there skins? I think at 20 years old they'd be capable of looking after themselves!!

24skins

Marisco wrote: »

Have you got your sums right there skins? I think at 20 years old they'd be capable of looking after themselves!!

They're 17 & 15 but the youngest has severe autism & will need lifelong care which is one of the reasons it's such an issue for us; decisions will need to be taken about his adult life & his dad's say will carry more weight than that of the guy who actually brought him up, because biology & neglect trumps stepping in and caring for a child morally, spiritually and financially!

I don't know what the answer is as every situation is different, but there is an unfairness there which I'd love to see addressed.

Marisco

24skins wrote: »

They're 17 & 15 but the youngest has severe autism & will need lifelong care which is one of the reasons it's such an issue for us; decisions will need to be taken about his adult life & his dad's say will carry more weight than that of the guy who actually brought him up, because biology & neglect trumps stepping in and caring for a child morally, spiritually and financially!

I don't know what the answer is as every situation is different, but there is an unfairness there which I'd love to see addressed.

Is there no way you could legally make your oh his guardian, if something happened to you?

ruth2561

My ex husband did pay regular maintenance through the child support agency. Once he met his new partner and they had a child together - in the space of a year - he decided that he didn't want to pay for his three existing children anymore. The CSA set up an attachment to earnings at which point he left his job and went self employed (he is a barrister so set up as S/S through chambers keeping same clients)

He has claimed he is penniless and has no income although he collects the children late many times on his way back from court so obviously working and not penniless - the CSA have been very very good and refuse to believe that as a barrister he has 'nil' income....

I have just received my first payment in 6 long months due to our persistence - me phoning them regularly and them chasing him.:T

To the original poster - I feel your frustrations, I work really hard to provide for our children, I do agree with your notions of making your ex liable even if its by taking money from his new household even if not earnt by him. If your ex chose to have children he is liable to support them financially - if he has no income that he needs to bloody well get one or ask his women to give him some pocket money for his children's upkeep!!!

xoAmyox

Marisco wrote: »

Is there no way you could legally make your oh his guardian, if something happened to you?

There is a way to ensure this happens, my partner and myself have discussed it in relation to my son.

In your will, you can convey your parental responsibility to another person. This could be a grandparent, partner, or even just a good friend.

This gives that person all the rights and responsibilities of a biological parent.

Obviously, do take proper legal advice to be able to set this up.

FBaby

This bothers me too - my partner supports my children without question while the NRP has contributed nothing toward them in nearly two decades, but if got hit by a bus tomorrow my ex would get the kids. One has all responsibilities and none of the rights, the other has all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

I've just read your post. Indeed, that is exactly what my issue is with the system. How can someone be expected to be financially responsible for children yet have no legal rights whatsover on these kids?

In your will, you can convey your parental responsibility to another person. This could be a grandparent, partner, or even just a good friend.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. I was clearly informed by my solicitor that whatever you put in a will in regards to parental responsibility after one's death could easily be challenged in court by a biological parent. Unless they were a threat to the kids, they would most likely gain custody. Obviously this is less an issue with older children who would given a voice as to where they wish to reside.

justontime

I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about this discussion. I think we all accept that CSA1 was (and for some people still is) very complicated and it has caused hardship and unfairness on both sides. We seem to have reached the point of people wanting to have the last word and to make other people see things their way. I wonder how constructive that is.

We now have a system which is much clearer and hopefully much fairer, and in due course everyone will be on the new system. Rather than getting all bitter and twisted about past or present unfairness, shouldn't we be helping people to learn from our experience. The new system encourages people to come to private agreements (and if they can't or won't the consequences will be swift and expensive). I think we all know from our various experiences that it has to be better for the children if there can be some degree of communication and cooperation between the parents. Everyone loses out when it all gets bitter and angry and the biggest losers are the children.

So on an advice forum such as this surely the most important thing is to offer advice and encouragement to people and to help them to accept that there has to be compromise on both sides. There is always going to be a degree of unfairness (whichever side you are on) but you have to get over it, focus on doing what's right for the children and supporting the children to have a loving relationship with both parents. It will not work in every case but a lot of people could avoid a lot of heartache if they followed this advice.

clearingout

justontime wrote: »

The new system encourages people to come to private agreements (and if they can't or won't the consequences will be swift and expensive). I think we all know from our various experiences that it has to be better for the children if there can be some degree of communication and cooperation between the parents. Everyone loses out when it all gets bitter and angry and the biggest losers are the children.

How will the consequences of non-compliance under the new system be 'swift'? There is still no means by which to make a parent immediately face their responsibilities if they are in a position to procrastinate (self-employed). Nor can the system make a can't-be-bothered employer move more quickly. Things might move more quickly if the CSA actually used some of the powers they have and sought to publicise the fact that they have had to fine a local business - or even multi-national - to get them to pay maintenance because their employee refused to, but there are no plans to do this. Unless I've missed something?

justontime

clearingout wrote: »

How will the consequences of non-compliance under the new system be 'swift'? There is still no means by which to make a parent immediately face their responsibilities if they are in a position to procrastinate (self-employed). Nor can the system make a can't-be-bothered employer move more quickly. Things might move more quickly if the CSA actually used some of the powers they have and sought to publicise the fact that they have had to fine a local business - or even multi-national - to get them to pay maintenance because their employee refused to, but there are no plans to do this. Unless I've missed something?

Even self employed people submit tax returns so they can be assessed in the same way that everyone else is assessed. Not all self employed people are scamming the system, most pay their taxes and are honest just like everyone else. Most people will have enough sense to pay up and avoid charges.