Petition: Stop Child Maintenance being a Financial Incentive to Oppose Contact

awara

Welfare Benefit Reforms mean the parent getting Child Benefit after separation can access the systems to get up to the income the law says they need.


Child Support is not counted for means tested things, but more has to be paid if there is no Staying Contact, encouraging ex partners to try to stop it.


In the past 3 months there has been several cases on the Separated Dads Forum, where ex partners are opposing staying contact, just to get more Child Support.



Some have even gone to the extent of false reports to Police/Social Services what then stopped contact for months, while investigation is ongoing.



Children need both parents, and the no staying contact amount should only be paid in extreme cases due to Child Protection/Welfare.



The starting amount should be based on 53-104 nights contact


Please sign the petition for support. We need 10,000 signatures. Thanks

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/162856

Tiddlywinks

More government intervention?

Surely there is already ample legislation in place. Why does everyone now look to the government to solve their problems?

fishybusiness

More government intervention?

Surely there is already ample legislation in place. Why does everyone now look to the government to solve their problems?

Tend to agree, and OP's post and petition fail to consider so many issues and reasons why parents withold contact.

MarkRingland

I am a Moderator on the Separated Dads Forum, who started the Petition, what has been put on here by one of our members.

To clear up a few things on this, there is a clear Financial Incentive to stop or try to keep "Staying Contact" as low as the Resident Parent can, due to how Child Support it worked out. It considers

a, The None Resident Parents Income, as the calculation needs to take into account that person need money to live off. (Any Benefits they get do not count, or any income/joint benefit claims with a new partner).

b, If they or a new partner have dependent children living with them, who either of them get Child Benefit for, again the calculation takes this into account, as they also need supporting.

c, A reduction is made depending on how many "Staying Contact" nights are in place. This is as the Resident Parent via the Welfare Benefit System has what the law says they need, considering their current Household, and they get the same amount regardless of how many nights the child is not with them. When a child is having contact, unless agreed otherwise between the parents, the none resident parent has all the costs in that time, for example providing of cloths etc, so this reduction is to compensate them for this fact.

My gripe with the current system is all it needs is a "Claim" of any wrong doing, and you might have
a, Police Investigation, typically 4-9 months, perhaps with bail restrictions stopping any contact
b, Social Services involvement, who will be Bias towards the Resident Parent due to the claim, and want them to not allow contact while they investigate
c, A None Molestation Application, what can take up to 3 months to archive an outcome, if the facts are disputed.
d, A very long process if going to Court for a Child Arrangements Order, where the Court will want Cafcass or Social Services to do reports, again up to 9 months before there is an outcome to the application.

During a Court Process where there is a claim, the Judge has a Duty of Care towards the Child, unless the Expert opinion of Cafcass or Social Services says otherwise, so it might only be supervised daytime contact, or none, until a Court case reaches Finding of Fact stage, Police drop an investigation or the person if found Not Guilty if the Police brought charges.

What I am saying is that the starting point for Child Support should be with the reduction for 53-104 nights, what amounts to typical contact of Friday till Sunday, every 2 weeks, and up to half school holidays.

Only once a Police get a Conviction, or a Judge as part of a Child Arrangements Application decides the none resident parent should not have any staying contact (what is AFTER the accused person has had the child to defend the claim), should the full rate of Child Support become payable.

Under the current system, a false claim can lead to months of extra Child Support and there is no legal redress if the person is cleared. All the happens is that if Staying Contact is awarded, the Child Support gets updated, so the person only gets the reduction from that day.

SingleSue

A starting point of assuming 53-104 nights a year is not really a fair assumption either. There are non resident parents out there who prefer not to have their children on a regular basis and that would then be unfair on the resident parent in trying to afford everything while they then appeal the assumption and have it corrected to what is actually happening.

MarkRingland

Where the none resident parent by choice does not have contact I agree with you. The CMS system does ask both parents what is the current number of nights per year Staying Contact, and then if not agreed, they need to see any supporting Documents/Court Order. Therefore, where its by choice, both parents will be putting the right number in.

The angle my Petition is coming from where the Resident Parent has made Allegations resulting in no Staying Contact taking place, where the none resident parent wanted it to.

There should be a process where if the None Resident Parent is having to use the Courts to get Contact, that this 53-104 night rate should kick in, until it is proved to a Judge that no Staying Contact should take place.

Unless there is Child Welfare/Protection Issues proved in a case, when asked by the none resident parent, contact of at least along the lines of Friday till Sunday every 2 weeks, and up to half school holidays is awarded, due to the child having a right to Quality Time with BOTH parents.

In a Criminal matter, its innocent until proved guilty, however in Family Law, because a Court or Local Authority has a Duty of Care (often just on the word of the accused ex partner), contact is either supervised or stopped, with the person making the claim also receiving more money as a result of the claim. Where someone earns about £14,000 per year, the difference in child support is about £10 per week.

It is due to the number of False Allegations being made, I done the Petition.

fishybusiness

You seem to have made some assumptions to back up your case, assumptions I do not agree with.

There should be a process where if the None Resident Parent is having to use the Courts to get Contact, that this 53-104 night rate should kick in, until it is proved to a Judge that no Staying Contact should take place.

Quite simply....why?

In a Criminal matter, its innocent until proved guilty

It is but it is entirely possible an accused person has to stay away from the purported victim(s) until trial or further evidence is gathered.

Where a child is involved, the system does exactly the same thing, and as you suggest a father can be told to not contact their child, for the protection of both.

So, although innocence may be proved in both cases steps can be taken to prevent contact.

Tiddlywinks

Clear as mud...

It would help if the author of the petition could string together a brief and coherent explanation of why more legislation is required.

FBaby

What's the difference on average between a every other week-end contact and half holidays (the standard) and less than 52 days contact?

Frankly, if a resident parent is prepared to go to the extreme of filing false accusations for the sole purpose of stopping all contact, I think there is likely to be much more serious issues about their ability to be a good mother.

My belief is that what is much more common is that the resident parent wants to stop contact because of concerns over the welfare of the children, which in some cases might be well funded although the non resident parent doesn't agree, or brought on from paranoia/over protection.

What I think is ludicrous though is that child maintenance isn't counted any longer for the purpose of maintenance. There is still a stereotype that only those on low income separate with resident parent having children from different fathers and never working in their lives. I know quite a few single mums from middle/high middle class exactly in this situation who between two, and in one case three fathers get between £500 and £850 a month just in maintenance. In addition to the benefits they get, they have more disposable income than a single mother paying high taxes. They have no incentive to work because they don't need to. They do tend to get a bit desperate to find a well off man though before their kids get to teenagehood as they know that life will be very different a single parent once they have all finished college.

MarkRingland

"You seem to have made some assumptions to back up your case, assumptions I do not agree with".
In the last 6 months in excess of 100 members of the Separated Dads Forum have posted for advice, following a false allegation being used to stop contact. While there might also be other reasons behind it, it is wrong to have a system what gives a Financial Incentive for a Resident Parent to try to limit Staying Contact.

"Quite simply....why?"

When a Resident Parent makes a false allegation, the only way forward for the None Resident Parent is to apply to the Courts for contact, if it has been stopped.

During this process, the Child does not see a parent, who also has to pay more Child Support as a result. I am aware of cases where even without any evidence (just the word of an ex partner), that the court process goes on for months, only for the claim not to stand up on Merit, at a Finding of Fact Court Hearing, and as a result, Staying unsupervised contact put back in place on a Court Order.
There is no legal redress about the fact that the ex partner lied to archive this extended period of more Child Support.

Proxima_Centauri

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Clear as mud...

It would help if the author of the petition could string together a brief and coherent explanation of why more legislation is required.

If I've understood it correctly, Parent A can try and prevent Parent B from having the child/ren stay over theirs because it will negatively affect the amount of benefit Parent A will get.