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

MarkRingland

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

After Separation, whoever gets the Child Benefit claims for the Child, so the welfare benefit reforms put them in a position where they have what the law of the country says they need to live off, considering their current household members.

Child Support is not considered as income when looking at any means tested benefits, so it puts the Resident Parent in a better position, by what is considered to be a fair amount, taking into account the none resident parents ability to pay.

Staying contact reduces the amount of Child Support payable, as the none resident parent should be providing everything in that time (food, cloths etc), bearing in mind that the Resident Parent gets the same benefits every week regardless of if they have the child 50% of the time, or 100%.

That is why at 53 nights you get a reduction, higher reduction at 105 nights, and even higher if your at 156, and unless your a very high earner, at 176 nights (more or less joint residency) you could not need to pay Child Support.

The calculation is fair, my gripe with it is where Money is used as a reason to limit or stop Staying Contact, as the current system does give a Financial Incentive. What I am saying, is when a none resident parent wants to have staying contact the Child Support 53-104 night rate should be payable, until the accused person has had the chance to challenge it. If a Judge decides a child needs to be kept from a parent, then to right they should pay the higher rate, from the date of that decision.

Where there is no Child Welfare/Protection Issues, the very least amount of contact when a child is over 2 is Friday till Sunday every 2 weeks, and up to half school holidays. This is why I am saying it should be the 53-104 night bracket, as its only cases what are more towards shared care, what exceed that number of nights.

MarkRingland

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

Each case is unique, as it depends on the none resident parents income, if they have any dependent children.

A none resident parent earning 14,000 a year, paying Child Support for 2 children who had the children for 53-104 nights a year, would pay about £35-40 per week.
The same person would pay £45-50 per week, if no staying contact is in place.

"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."

When an allegation is made, Social Servcies will be bias towards the person making the claim. If it does not stand up on Merit at Court, they are gone as there is no risk to the child. There does not appear to be any legal redress, if your a victim of a false allegation.

"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."

Where no Court Order Exists, BOTH parents are on the same legal standing (if they have PR)
Where a case has been to court, that takes away their ability to make that decision.

If they have concerns, then it needs to be refereed back to court, under Application to Vary. They must show significant reason why the case needs to be looked at again, and this must be since the Order was made. You can not revisit any aspect already ruled on, unless there is evidence what was not available at the last time an order was made.

If someone decides to ignore an existing court order, they can find themselves on the receiving end of an Application for Enforcement, where they can get a fine or be made to do unpaid work.

The area of law is about the child's right to quality time with both parents when sorting out Child Arrangements, not the wishes of the Resident Parent. Only proved Child Warfare/Protection Issues changes this.

"
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."

Under the old system, Child Support was considered as income, the same as wages. The problem with it was that when the none resident parent did not pay, this left people short on cash for things like rent or food. While they would get their benefits recalculated, it used to take up to 6 weeks.

The new system was very generous to some people, however the new Benefit Cap of £345 per week outside London for a single person will help sort this. This Cap covers in or out of work benefits for the adult, Tax Credits and Housing Benefit

MarkRingland

"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."

The benefit amount stays the same regardless of how much contact is in place. Its the amount of Child Support parent B pays (what is not considered as income for their benefits), what goes down the more Staying Contact they have.

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

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.

I suppose it depends what you think the point of maintenance is, if its just to provide the absolutely necessary support to the children and keep a roof over their head then I suppose you're right.

If its there to ensure that children benefit from the incomes and fortunes of both their parents, and that both parents make a meaningful financial contribution to their child's life, then what does it matter if its more than is strictly needed? After all, if the parents hadn't separated and dad was still a high earner the kids would benefit.

SingleSue

MarkRingland wrote: »

Where there is no Child Welfare/Protection Issues, the very least amount of contact when a child is over 2 is Friday till Sunday every 2 weeks, and up to half school holidays.

Oh how I wished this could have been enforced, unfortunately there is no way to insist a non resident parent has contact with the children.

Tiddlywinks

MarkRingland wrote: »

##########

Phew - neither concise or coherent. That essay has not really convinced me that new legislation is required.

(By the way, it's 'non resident' not 'none')

MarkRingland

"Oh how I wished this could have been enforced, unfortunately there is no way to insist a non resident parent has contact with the children."

I know and there is nothing you can do about that, except get Child Support calculated on the no staying contact rate.

Where the system is unfair, is when False Allegations are made to Police, Social Services or the Court, when a resident parent wants to reduce/stop contact. Its often 3-9 months before a Court case reaches "Finding of Fact" stage, where its either proved or the court can not consider the claim.

About 45% of the cases I am aware of, the person is cleared. 5% an order was made stopping any contact with the child, while the other 50% are still in progress.

[Deleted User]

Tried very hard to read and understand the OP's posts but not easy, they are not clear.

I will not be signing the petition. I don't believe it is that easy for a vengeful parent to make false accusations and have them stand up in court, without getting into trouble themselves. I do believe payments from a non resident 'no stay' parent should be more, whatever the reason. We are talking £10 a week, I think, from the example given.

I see wrongs on both sides happening in the present system. Doubt this petition will change things and not sure it should (I speak as a resident parent who would have loved the non resident parent to have had any stays in the previous 20/10 years - two children)

FBaby

A none resident parent earning 14,000 a year, paying Child Support for 2 children who had the children for 53-104 nights a year, would pay about £35-40 per week.
The same person would pay £45-50 per week, if no staying contact is in place.

So either way, it is extremely low and not even close to providing 50% of what two children need. Not blaming the resident parent for being on a low income, but at the same time, it's hard to feel sorry for them when they fighting over such an amount that in the end won't support their children any way. I can believe it more when there is a lot more to gain from the resident parent, ie. the difference is over £100 a month or more.

When an allegation is made, Social Servcies will be bias towards the person making the claim. If it does not stand up on Merit at Court, they are gone as there is no risk to the child. There does not appear to be any legal redress, if your a victim of a false allegation.

Why should there be when it can't be proven that there was an allegation? I separated when my kids were toddlers. Their father had just passed his driving licence despite being in his 30s. He was convinced he was as experienced as one who had passed it over 10 years ago. His driving petrified me and I burst into teards a number of times when they got in his car wondering if I was doing the right thing, or would fail them for not stopping contact (because he would never have agreed to contact under the condition of no driving). Thankfully, nothing ever happened, but what if it had? If I had stopped contact, he would have been joining those victims father taken to court by a bitter ex. These issues are rarely black or white.

The new system was very generous to some people, however the new Benefit Cap of £345 per week outside London for a single person will help sort this. This Cap covers in or out of work benefits for the adult, Tax Credits and Housing Benefit

My understanding is the cap doesn't take into account child maintenance.

If its there to ensure that children benefit from the incomes and fortunes of both their parents, and that both parents make a meaningful financial contribution to their child's life, then what does it matter if its more than is strictly needed? After all, if the parents hadn't separated and dad was still a high earner the kids would benefit.

Except that in the cases I know, the money goes to support the mother not to provide extra to the children. It means that they don't have to work to also provide towards their children. Maintenance is put in the family pot and it goes from there, not separared for what is for the children solely, what is for the family as a whole (so mother benefit herself directly) and what goes towards the mother only. In essence, for such women, it becomes spousal maintenance in addition to child maintenance.

Personally, I think that in light of the sum involved, when we are talking about non resident parent falling into the under 52 days rather than over 52, the figure involved as so unsignificant that it really isn't worth the fight on the basis of the payment. If contact is the issue, than as you say, there is the courts to resolve 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.

Has it been evidenced that this was the sole purporse or is it the non-resident parent's point of view? Let's not forget the cases when it really is the child who doesn't want contact any longer (my kids have chosen to reduced contact themselves, no impact on child maintenance since their dad has never paid a penny in the first place).

fishybusiness

Maintenance is put in the family pot and it goes from there, not separared for what is for the children solely, what is for the family as a whole (so mother benefit herself directly) and what goes towards the mother only. In essence, for such women, it becomes spousal maintenance in addition to child maintenance.

Personally, I think that in light of the sum involved, when we are talking about non resident parent falling into the under 52 days rather than over 52, the figure involved as so unsignificant that it really isn't worth the fight on the basis of the payment

This breaks it down nicely!

In our house we receive maintenance for my stepdaughter. The money goes in to the family pot. It is fair to say it does benefit my stepdaughter, she has an evening club costing us a pretty packet in fees and travel once a week, she is going to grammar school next year, which will again cost us a small fortune, without her dads money we couldn't do either.

I have two children, and pay a reduced rate to their mum, reduced because of my income and over the last 4 years because I have been ill and not working.

It is true to say that when living on benefits as we have done until April this year, the income from maintenance made a significant difference and so OP I can see the argument for somehow preventing lone parents manipulating stay over nights to ensure their income is maximised.

As has been said, if legislation supported your thinking, what would happen when children start to choose their contact routines?

Mine are 10 and 11 and they now have the choice of when to come over, sometimes I don't see them for a week or longer, then one wants to stay, and stays for a week or so. I bet that happens alot as kids are growing up. The number of nights kids stay over perhaps becomes less important to both parents as they get older, but at what age? All kids and families are different.

Would you also want to legislate at what age the stay over threshold changes or becomes less rigid?

Personally, I think the whole debate is mixed up and your petition should more about support and maybe prosectuon of those parents that make false allegations against the other parent. Really it is a terrible thing to do in its own right, and perhaps demands a change in the law.