We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Suggesting changes to CMS and ideas how to instigate change?

solidpro
Posts: 631 Forumite


Hi
I have these distinct problems with the CMS (CSA) service. Do you agree, and if you don't, why?
Lastly, does anyone have any good ideas as to where to begin lobbying for change?
1) The notion of PWC and Non-Resident Parent as the only circumstance that can exist is out of date. I have my children 170 nights a year, and a Shared Care Arrangement court order. As a result, I take and collect both children to/from school 7 times a fortnight, they have residence at two homes (by residence, I mean equal belongings, uniforms, care, toys, bedrooms etc in two places) and we both are recognised by the courts as equal parent. However the CMS still sees fit to see this situation no different than the 'contact order' arrangement where it's more likely that one parent is a absolutely the primary carer with most of the responsibility, costs and time.
At the moment both parents MUST have the children 175 nights a year for it to be considered even close to 50/50 (but specifically it is still NOT considered 50/50 at this highest tier). It is impossible to split a 7 day week in half and make a whole number. It is impossible to split 365 nights in a year in 2 and make a whole number. Anything above 160 nights each a year should be considered 50/50 as 160 nights a year can only include many many days and nights of school care, along with a large percentage of involvement in their lives from both parents.
2) Whilst I agree that income should be considered - for instance if one parent earns £15,000 a year and the other parent £150,000 year they're likely to have a different life in both households, and I agree that could be unfair on young minds. However the disparity between households or parents should be considered rather than one child's parental income ONLY. Both parents should submit their own or household income and if the difference is more than 50% perhaps that should be the starting point for reduction based on extra nights? This would also strongly consider parents who gave up work to care for their children and also cover for when the existing 'PWC' earns much more than the other parent.
3) They do not state anywhere on the website or paperwork what the PWC money is actually for. We all assume it would be food and care for any disparity in overnight care throughout the year, and things like clothing, uniforms, school dinners, after school clubs and healthcare - but nowhere does it even hint that it should not be used for netflix and cigarettes. There should AT LEAST be a few suggestions, so as to prevent arguments when a 'non-resident payee' is being asked to also contibute for other things (which can cause the children being told that they can't go to cinema club because 'the other parent doesn't want you to'.
I know that they try to make it as simple as possible to reduce the cost or implimenting a rule, or explaining that rule. But I feel that we should be in a society that does it's best not to label a very active parent who provides an equal home life for their children as a 'non resident parent', and that some aspects of the calculation do not have to be black and white.
I would like these changes:
Best Wishes
I have these distinct problems with the CMS (CSA) service. Do you agree, and if you don't, why?
Lastly, does anyone have any good ideas as to where to begin lobbying for change?
1) The notion of PWC and Non-Resident Parent as the only circumstance that can exist is out of date. I have my children 170 nights a year, and a Shared Care Arrangement court order. As a result, I take and collect both children to/from school 7 times a fortnight, they have residence at two homes (by residence, I mean equal belongings, uniforms, care, toys, bedrooms etc in two places) and we both are recognised by the courts as equal parent. However the CMS still sees fit to see this situation no different than the 'contact order' arrangement where it's more likely that one parent is a absolutely the primary carer with most of the responsibility, costs and time.
At the moment both parents MUST have the children 175 nights a year for it to be considered even close to 50/50 (but specifically it is still NOT considered 50/50 at this highest tier). It is impossible to split a 7 day week in half and make a whole number. It is impossible to split 365 nights in a year in 2 and make a whole number. Anything above 160 nights each a year should be considered 50/50 as 160 nights a year can only include many many days and nights of school care, along with a large percentage of involvement in their lives from both parents.
2) Whilst I agree that income should be considered - for instance if one parent earns £15,000 a year and the other parent £150,000 year they're likely to have a different life in both households, and I agree that could be unfair on young minds. However the disparity between households or parents should be considered rather than one child's parental income ONLY. Both parents should submit their own or household income and if the difference is more than 50% perhaps that should be the starting point for reduction based on extra nights? This would also strongly consider parents who gave up work to care for their children and also cover for when the existing 'PWC' earns much more than the other parent.
3) They do not state anywhere on the website or paperwork what the PWC money is actually for. We all assume it would be food and care for any disparity in overnight care throughout the year, and things like clothing, uniforms, school dinners, after school clubs and healthcare - but nowhere does it even hint that it should not be used for netflix and cigarettes. There should AT LEAST be a few suggestions, so as to prevent arguments when a 'non-resident payee' is being asked to also contibute for other things (which can cause the children being told that they can't go to cinema club because 'the other parent doesn't want you to'.
I know that they try to make it as simple as possible to reduce the cost or implimenting a rule, or explaining that rule. But I feel that we should be in a society that does it's best not to label a very active parent who provides an equal home life for their children as a 'non resident parent', and that some aspects of the calculation do not have to be black and white.
I would like these changes:
- The existence of a Shared Care arrangement or its equivalent to be considered in the calculation
- The upper most tier of nightly care to be lowered from 175 to 162 as this is the most likely equal scenario. (3/4 split during term time and 50/50 split during holiday time).
- Disparity in household or each parent to be considered rather than simply one parent's income.
- More adequate written detail of what the CMS payment should be covering, from the obvious such as heating, food and clothing on nights extra with any one parent, to the not-quite-so-obvious such as school uniforms and extra curricular activities.
Best Wishes
0
Comments
-
you are not forced to go through the CSA/CMS.
you are free to make your own arrangements between you.
the fact that you don't do this shows that as parents, you cannot agree.
why do you think that an outside agency should sort out your mess when you are unable/unwilling to do so yourself?
pay the maintenance ordered and don't pay for anything else.
if you CHOOSE to pay for other things that is your CHOICE.
don't expect the law to be involved in choices you decide to make.0 -
Just pay for your kids and stop being envious because your ex has landed themselves a high earning partner. It's the parents job to support their kids, no-one elses.Overactively underachieving for almost half a century0
-
you are not forced to go through the CSA/CMS.
you are free to make your own arrangements between you.
the fact that you don't do this shows that as parents, you cannot agree.
why do you think that an outside agency should sort out your mess when you are unable/unwilling to do so yourself?
pay the maintenance ordered and don't pay for anything else.
if you CHOOSE to pay for other things that is your CHOICE.
don't expect the law to be involved in choices you decide to make.
Im sure its not a 'mess' that either person wanted. Im sure that they both want their best for their kid. However, when one person has been hurt more than the other (common when relationships fail) unfortunately sometimes one of the parents uses their child(ren) to hurt the other. Vey wrong.
The CSA, through LAW allows this to happen. The more the hurt parent can keep the kids, the more the other parent is hurt by not seeing their kids as much, and also hurt paying a stupid amount for the privilege. For parents who like to abuse/ get revenge on the other parent for things that are nothing to do with the kids, the CSA is an incentive and tool for this.
Works fine for 'dads' or indeed 'mothers' who run off and sadly want nothing to do with their kids, they should pay for it. But for us that just want our kids an EQUAL amount, and face a revengeful ex, the CSA fails us.0 -
NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »Just pay for your kids and stop being envious because your ex has landed themselves a high earning partner. It's the parents job to support their kids, no-one elses.
I agree its down to the parents to support them. And i'm sure the poster does. How is it right that one person pays a crazy amount to support their kids, whilst the other gets money given to support them when the paying parent wants and can offer 50/50 custody, and the difference is only days?0 -
I value comments, but none of them are really to do with the topic. This isn't about my or your personal situation, it's about the specific ideas I've posted, and whether anyone things they agree or could improve them?
Plus where I might use them when approaching a way of hoping to make a difference, such as a local MP?0 -
I understand all the complexities at the lower end - especially when one parent doesn't have much money, or much space, or indeed isn't contributing at all.
However my points are aimed at those families where there is a shared care arrangement court order, and especially where there are court documents establishing that more than 160 nights are spent with each parent. I believe in this scenario, both parents are doing a lot of the financial contributions, be that directly with money in their own pocket, or time not working to care for the children themselves, and there should be a significantly reduced payment, but taking into account still a disparity between household incomes, either directly from each parent, or the household as a whole.
Perhaps not that many sit at this end of the scale, as at the other. But it's still frightfully unfair when many separated families are almost exactly equal in time, finances, resources and care and yet one parent is still considered 'primary' and the other 'non-resident'. Both of these terms are at best untrue and at worst quite offensive.
Even non-resident parents on the a very low take-home income of £11,000 a year, but with the children 170 nights a year (which in turn means they can only be providing equal time, food, clothing, uniforms, activities, fuel, and so on) still pay £163 a month to the PWC (who may well be earning nothing but equally may well have a household income of £100,000). Why?
Is that fair? Is it appropriate?
Is it beyond the realms of being within an equally simple structure to consider the situation if that split of time and a low or zero disparity of income exists?0 -
Even non-resident parents on the a very low take-home income of £11,000 a year, but with the children 170 nights a year (which in turn means they can only be providing equal time, food, clothing, uniforms, activities, fuel, and so on) still pay £163 a month to the PWC (who may well be earning nothing but equally may well have a household income of £100,000). Why?
Is that fair? Is it appropriate?
Is it beyond the realms of being within an equally simple structure to consider the situation if that split of time and a low or zero disparity of income exists?
I put those figures through the child maintenance calculator as they didn't seem right to me. A parent having their children 170 nights a year and earning 11K would have to pay £81 a month not £163.
What happens when it is a 50/50 shared care but one parents refuses to pay towards essentials, like uniforms, school trips, musical instruments, hair cuts and the other parent carries the financial burden. One parent could be paying no maintenance and have the children half the time but not contribute towards essential costs.
Everybody is different, every case is different. It's not one size fits all.0 -
I think, if sadly when a relationship fails and the parents cant agree, there should be automatic 50/50 custody assumed (excluding situations where one person is just not capable of looking after them).
It can then be for the parents to say how much they can have him/her.
If the father says for whatever reason he will only have them 2 nights a fortnight, then he must pay for the difference in nights he has them less. (he has 52 nights a year, means the other parent gets to have them 261 more nights)
There should then be a standard cost worked out of what it costs per night which is the same for every child in the country regardless of paying parents income. (eg 10 pounds). More for special circumstances like disability etc.
the cost of a uniform (eg 200) divided by 2 and added to the total.
school dinners etc halved and added.
cost of any clubs/fees the child was involved with when the relationship failed halved and added to that total.
that total is then split over 52 weeks and payed.
The outcome of that would be a lot more fair, instead of how the system is now.0 -
I think, if sadly when a relationship fails and the parents cant agree, there should be automatic 50/50 custody assumed (excluding situations where one person is just not capable of looking after them).
It can then be for the parents to say how much they can have him/her.
If the father says for whatever reason he will only have them 2 nights a fortnight, then he must pay for the difference in nights he has them less. (he has 52 nights a year, means the other parent gets to have them 261 more nights)
There should then be a standard cost worked out of what it costs per night which is the same for every child in the country regardless of paying parents income. (eg 10 pounds). More for special circumstances like disability etc.
the cost of a uniform (eg 200) divided by 2 and added to the total.
school dinners etc halved and added.
cost of any clubs/fees the child was involved with when the relationship failed halved and added to that total.
that total is then split over 52 weeks and payed.
The outcome of that would be a lot more fair, instead of how the system is now.
An automatic 50/50 custody assumed and parents deciding how much they can have the children. Something very fundamental missing here which is the wishes of the children.
My children were 11 and 15 when I split from my ex, very much able to make up their own mind regarding contact. My ex was bitter and angry and thought he could make me suffer by evading maintenance, he specifically told me he wanted shared care so he didn't have to pay maintenance not because he wanted to be an equal parent.
Unfortunately some parents would push for shared care so there was no maintenance liable not because they want equal time spent with the children. That's the way some peoples minds work, on a par with the same disgusting motives of parents who reduce contact to increase maintenance, wanting to increase contact to reduce maintenance is just as bad. The financial incentive - not the best interests of the children.
An automatic 50/50 shared care in the case of a split is a very dangerous notion in my mind. Parents who naturally share the care of the children before a split would be more likely to continue on with this arrangement amicably. In a case like mine, when one parent has been emotionally distant and not hands on in any aspect of the children's nurture or care it would be detrimental to them to have to live with him for half their lives. I would like them to have more contact with their father but I can't force them, they have their own minds. It's very sad.
I have experience of absolutely amazing fathers in my family who are completely equal in terms of the love and nurture they give to their children and absolutely could do shared care and it would be in the best interests of the children. But it's not always the case as in my case.0 -
An automatic 50/50 custody assumed and parents deciding how much they can have the children. Something very fundamental missing here which is the wishes of the children.
My children were 11 and 15 when I split from my ex, very much able to make up their own mind regarding contact. My ex was bitter and angry and thought he could make me suffer by evading maintenance, he specifically told me he wanted shared care so he didn't have to pay maintenance not because he wanted to be an equal parent.
Unfortunately some parents would push for shared care so there was no maintenance liable not because they want equal time spent with the children. That's the way some peoples minds work, on a par with the same disgusting motives of parents who reduce contact to increase maintenance, wanting to increase contact to reduce maintenance is just as bad. The financial incentive - not the best interests of the children.
An automatic 50/50 shared care in the case of a split is a very dangerous notion in my mind. Parents who naturally share the care of the children before a split would be more likely to continue on with this arrangement amicably. In a case like mine, when one parent has been emotionally distant and not hands on in any aspect of the children's nurture or care it would be detrimental to them to have to live with him for half their lives. I would like them to have more contact with their father but I can't force them, they have their own minds. It's very sad.
I have experience of absolutely amazing fathers in my family who are completely equal in terms of the love and nurture they give to their children and absolutely could do shared care and it would be in the best interests of the children. But it's not always the case as in my case.
Ahh yes, you are right, I didnt think of it like that from the other perspective, my son is only young and loves being with his dad as much as his mum.
The kids should have their own say when they are old enough to make that decision, if the dad (or mother) doesnt make them feel like they want to be with them, then it is their fault for not being a great parent (as long as they have not been brainwashed, emotionally blackmailed etc) which sadly also happens.
I still think financially wise the way i suggested is a lot fairer than the current system, to both sides involved.
Sorry your story is another rubbish one, you sound like a great, caring and amicable/ respectful parent though, wish my ex had some of them qualities!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards