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

SingleSue

MarkRingland wrote: »

"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.

Our case was not through the CSA/CMS, private agreement, less stress for both of us, especially as he had threatened to give up work if I did!

Sambella

The problem is that whilst there is a disputes going on over contact the non resident parent isn't having the children and therefore any payment has to reflect that.

Maybe the CMS could possibly not become involved in assessing these cases until the disputes is sorted and meanwhile the non resident parent could put cash away for when the matter is sorted or pay a sum and make up the difference later?

Worst aspect of CMS is that the resident parent gets to receive the payment on top of any benefits but a non resident parent on JSA for example has to pay £7 per week. £7 is a lot to lose from £73.10. There is an unfairness right there.

I also think it should be worked out on net pay not gross as the non resident parent doesn't actually get the gross pay in their pocket. Non resident parents have a right to a life too. It is not taken into consideration whether or not the non resident parent has debts to pay as well. Some non resident parents may actually be taken below the benefit entitlement threshold after paying maintenance but cannot claim because of their actual earnings. There IS an unfairness here.

The CMS also seems to have flexibility on which tax year they base the payments on. Far better to let the non resident parent use the online calculator each month work out what has to be paid and pay it promptly. This way it reflects better on whether or not the non resident parent has had any statutory sick pay in the past month and how many days he had the children stay over as some months he may have them more and some months less. Likewise any overtime work is calculated as and when it happens rather than worked out on a yearly sum. I am all for fairness.

As they supply a calculator I don't see why it can't be utilised in this way and a yearly check by CMS could ensure things were done correctly.

MarkRingland

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

There is already legistlation in place for this. Assumptions are made in Child Arrangment Applications put to a Court, that the Child needs Quaility Time with Both Parents unless there is Child Welfare/Protection Issues, until a Child is 10 (12 in Scotland).

From 10 in most of the UK, either parent can request that a "wishes and desires" report is done. This involves either Cafcass or a Social Worker making a few visits to see the Child, without either parent present. They will then do a report to the Court, stating what the child wants, and also they will put their Expert Opinion on what should happen, for the Judge to take into consideration.

clearingout

MarkRingland wrote: »

"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.

Alternatively, Parent B is seeking additional contact with their children with the sole aim of reducing the amount of maintenance paid to Parent A. Often this results in children being cared for by step parents, grand parents, childminders, friends because Parent B is at work.

Show me a PWC seeking to increase maintenance and I'll show you an NRP seeking to reduce maintenance.

MarkRingland

"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"

First of all, the example was with someone only earning about 14,000, with 2 children.
As far as the benefit system goes, the resident parent would be topped up by the state, to about £80 per child, so we are talking about the resident parent getting an extra 33% ish, with no staying contact, or in a typical contact situation, about 25% (without them having to cloth and feed the child during contact time). So this is putting them in a better position than what the law says they need to live off.

Now in the case of higher earnings, say 40,000 again with 2 children, its closer to £20 per week. When cases can drag on for 9 months, its a significant amount of money for someone to lose as well as not seeing their child, if it turns out they have done nothing wrong.

"Why should there be when it can't be proved that there was an allegation?"
I know form not only my own case, and from cases I have advised on, that all that happens is Person x will tell them of an allegation. Social Services will advise based just on that. It is not their remit to ask the person to evidence it. They will then submit reports to Court stating it, but just make it clear that they was told that. Its only when the Court Process reaches a stage where it can go to Finding of Fact (4-6 months after a First Hearing), that the person making the claim must show the court evidence of it, or the Court can not consider it when deciding the outcome of the case.

"My understanding is the cap doesn't take into account child maintenance."
Correct, however this was a response to a comment, where someone had several children by different fathers, just to get Child Support. It depends on what area you live in, but if you use Milton Keynes as an example, in a 3 bedroom Council House, if your single not working with 3 children, your on the limit (with 2 Children if in private rent). As people would not longer get this state benefit income as well as the Child Support, it might sort that issue out.

"Has it been evidenced that this was the sole purpose or is it the non-resident parent's point of view?"
Yes, there has been posts when non resident parents after separation have tried to sort things out for themselves, to be met with "your not having the child overnight, as I get more money then".

There has been cases where the CMS have wrote to people, as the ex is now saying no staying contact, BEFORE they had been told. The phone call they then make, to the ex to try to find out whats going on, as been used then as the basis for a None Molestation Application, thus also getting the resident parent legal aid.

One of the worst cases involved a British man in his early 40's, who was well off. He met an EU National lady, in her early 20's via an Internet Dating site. She moved to the UK, and 3 months later she was pregnant. (He had been lead to believe that she had the injection contraception). He does the right thing by her, the child is born and about 2 weeks later, he comes home from the office, to find a Welcoming Committee of 2 Female Police Officers and 2 Social Workers. He was arrested for Rape and Domestic Violence, spent 9 hours in the cells before being Bailed, not to contact her. Social Services put her in some hostel. She decided she wanted to go back to where she was from, but while the investigation went on, due to the International Aspect of the case, CMS did not have Jurisdiction, so a Child Support Order was made. He was on bail for 4 months, when the Police then dropped the case, due to no evidence. She had already left the UK at that point.

While this is not related to the Petition, it shows what some resident parents will do for money.

MarkRingland

"The problem is that whilst there is a disputes going on over contact the non resident parent isn't having the children and therefore any payment has to reflect that."

The resident parent is still getting what the law of the Country says, if need be by accessing the benefit system, and something on top as some child support would still be paid.

"The CMS also seems to have flexibility on which tax year they base the payments on. Far better to let the non resident parent use the on line calculator each month work out what has to be paid and pay it promptly. This way it reflects better on whether or not the non resident parent has had any statutory sick pay in the past month and how many days he had the children stay over as some months he may have them more and some months less. Likewise any overtime work is calculated as and when it happens rather than worked out on a yearly sum. I am all for fairness"

The problem with doing it pay day by pay day, is when income changes, you will have months that the Disregard Amount (for that persons day to day living costs, and if dependent children living with them also) might exceed the earnings that pay day. You have people who work employed more hours than their contracts, Zero hours contracts, as well as many Self Employed People.

Any change of income of over or under 25% is reportable soon as it happens in a CMS case, and ongoing payments change from that date. Many Resident Parents get Tax Credits, what pay based on the last tax year amounts, unless there is a reportable change, so why would there be an issue with using the non resident parents last tax year amount, as the law requires them to report a change of 25%.

"As they supply a calculator I don't see why it can't be utilised in this way and a yearly check by CMS could ensure things were done correctly. "

It is only the basic calculation on the Dot Gov website. Either party can apply for a to change the considered income, what by default is the Gross Taxable Income.
The Resident Parent might want to challenge
a, Excessive Pension Contributions, what reduce taxable income amount.
b, If the non resident parent gets any "Benefits in Kind".
The Non Resident Parent might want a reduction for
a, Excessive Travel for Contact Costs, where a resident parent has relocated resulting in extra costs. (In own car its 9p per mile they allow, or the cost of a public transport ticket).
b, In a situation where either a Joint tenancy or Mortgage exists, a non resident parent might not be able to afford their half, and the full child support amount. There has been "test cases" on this, and the Child Support can be "shorted" depending on the income and disregard amounts, as the law now considers them to be supporting the child, by providing housing for the child. (This does not apply where they still live in the house). However, when sorting out who gets what in Financial Settlement, the fact that the Child Support should be paid to the resident parent, means that they get the credit for the shorted payment.

MarkRingland

"Alternatively, Parent B is seeking additional contact with their children with the sole aim of reducing the amount of maintenance paid to Parent A. Often this results in children being cared for by step parents, grand parents, childminders, friends because Parent B is at work. "

When a case goes to court, any contact is made around the non resident parents availability. This should be time that they are with the child, for at least the bulk of the time.

In my own situation, my Court Order has provision for my mum to collect the children for me, as I work in the transport industry, so might not be back by school closing. I have since changes jobs, I now get home 5-6pm on a Friday, but I spoke to my ex, who is fine with this, and she also has the children for my ex when asked. (How it should be).

However, if either party is using child care, the other parent has the right to challenge that, where a court order exists, under an application to vary. The Guidelines set out now favour (where no issues with either parent) the child being with a parent, unless there is a good reason.

Example, Child A lives with Parent A
If they work late on a Monday, so that day the child goes to after school club etc, fine.
If they work late also on a Tuesday, and the child likes the after school club, its a grey area
If 3 nights a week this is happening, and the non resident parent is available (for example working 6am-2pm shift), if they asked the court, they would get extra contact.

In my situation, my ex is she wanted to, could ask for my contact not to be from school on a Friday, to be for example 6pm, when I can be present, and the court would side with her.

"Show me a PWC seeking to increase maintenance and I'll show you an NRP seeking to reduce maintenance."

In law any money changing hands has no legal bearing on a case. Its only when the arrangements are in place or change, that they are then considered as part of Child Support.

While the Government is pushing for "Family Based Agreements", the Resident Parent is in a no lose position going into it, as they know the CMS calculation, so they either archive a better deal, or put CMS in.

clearingout

Mark, I am a veteran of the family courts and your analysis is certainly not my experience.

I would suggest that the real issue here can be found in the non payment of child maintenance which Gingerbread states stands at around 62%. This, for me at least, is a far bigger issue affecting thousands of children who's life outcomes are seriously reduced as a result of one parent's inability to get over themselves.

Let's tackle that and then look at the more complex situation you describe where parents put themselves against the system and each other in a bid to come out on top.

I will also say that I have every empathy for lower earning NRPs who I know struggle to meet both their living costs and meet their legal maintenance requirements. It is not easy to make the system fair to everyone and I believe minimum wage NRPsmcome off quite badly. So do PWC like me who have very high earning ex's whose self employment allows them to dodge maintenance in full.

Tiddlywinks

MarkRingland wrote: »

"Has it been evidenced that this was the sole purpose or is it the non-resident parent's point of view?"

Yes, there has been posts when non resident parents after separation have tried to sort things out for themselves, to be met with "your not having the child overnight, as I get more money then".

Posts on your forum are just opinion, partial personal interpretation etc and NOT evidence.

clearingout

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.

This is particularly unpleasant analysis of individual situations you have no real understanding of. And are some people really making judgements about women based on how many children they have with how many fathers?

The real reason behind the maintenance disregard is, I suspect, a cost-benefit analysis of the cost of having to re-calculate entitlements on a regular basis. A particularly clever NRP could keep a PWC without money for weeks at a time for the sake of small, non-regular maintenance payments. The DWP and local authority could literally have recalculated 52 times a year with a small change to maintenance each week. But more importantly, children were going without for weeks at a time. This is not the sign of a civilised society and is punishing people who are already struggling.

I am with you, nevertheless, that there are those who don't work as a result of benefits plus large maintenance payments. The cap will help with some of these cases. It is short sighted 'cos maintenance isn't payable forever but for some parents, I guess being there for their children is what drives them. Old age will be difficult for them, however.