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

MarkRingland

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

It is recent changes on Welfare Beneifts, and how Child Support is worked out.

As a Veteran, you will know that the non resident parent in some situations, had a claim on part of any benefit income for the child, dependent on the contact.

The Reforms changed that, so you either get the Child Benefit, or you have to pay Child Support.

My point is not about payments, it is the fact that there is a Finantial Incentive for a resident parent to try to stop or limit contact, as the current calculation then means they get more Child Support.

People have questioned if this is happening, and from what I am seeing it it, but regardless of that, the oppertunity is there.

What ever angle you look at it from, a residnet parent can stop or reduce contact, forcing often a Mediation Process, unless an alligation of Child Welfare/Protection happens, when it can not straight to court, for the other parent to get contact.

It should not be the case, that they can make themselves better off each week, by doing this, what is why I am saying that when contact is wanted, the zero rate should only kick in, if a Judge decides it is not going to happen.

Tiddlywinks

clearingout wrote: »

And are some people really making judgements about women based on how many children they have with how many fathers?

I certainly hope so...

Casually popping out babies into unstable relationships is just selfish and immature and society needs to push back and say it's not acceptable.

clearingout

MarkRingland wrote: »

It is recent changes on Welfare Beneifts, and how Child Support is worked out. As a Veteran, you will know that the non resident parent in some situations, had a claim on part of any benefit income for the child, dependent on the contact. The Reforms changed that, so you either get the Child Benefit, or you have to pay Child Support

I am afraid you are wrong. Recent welfare reforms have not changed how benefit/maintenance are calculated. I have been at this 10 years now and children have been counted once only by the system for benefit purposes. There has been no possibility of making a partial claim for an individual child, although separated parents have always been able to claim for a child each, for example, where they have two (or more).

The new CMS calculations vary from the previous system and are now based on pre-tax rather than post-tax income and it is now possible to not have a claim where care is deemed 50/50. I am aware of annual calculations which is different but as I gave up on the system years ago, the new detail is not as clear to me. I also have no real understanding of CSA1 prior to 2003.

There are no situations where a NRP had a partial claim on benefit income. It makes no logical sense. Why would tax payers be asked to pay for a child twice?

MarkRingland

"There are no situations where a NRP had a partial claim on benefit income. It makes no logical sense. Why would tax payers be asked to pay for a child twice".

They did not, however there was cases (mainly where it was 7-7 or 8-6 or 9-5 over 14 days), where the resident parent had to hand over part of what they got for the child.

In the reforms, it changed to be whoever gets Child Benefit keeps that, and can claim for the Child so they have at least what the law says they need, considering the current household, and the other parent has to pay Child Support.

CMS replaced CSA, and the new system was better for non resident parents, as the calculation take the staying contact into account. Where it lets people down, is this £520 a year it can make the resident parent better of by, if no staying contact is in place. Where no Court Order Exists, its in their control to stop contact, and they can then get this in some cases for up to 9 months, before the Court can make a decision.

FBaby

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?

These are individual situations I am very familiar with unfortunately and the attitude about their entitlement to continue to enjoy their middle class life, which involves not working or very limited hours is quite shocking. It has nothing to do with the number of children these women have at all, as a matter of fact, none of those individuals I refer to decided to have children for the sake of benefits or maintenance, but as part of marriage, or in two cases, as an 'accident' that naturally led to marriage.

My point is not about payments, it is the fact that there is a Finantial Incentive for a resident parent to try to stop or limit contact, as the current calculation then means they get more Child Support.

People have questioned if this is happening, and from what I am seeing it it, but regardless of that, the oppertunity is there.

As Clearing has pointed out, yes the opportunity is there, but no more than there is plenty of opportunities for self-employed non resident parent to dodge their figures to pay no maintenance or very little and without knowing statistics, I think that not only these situations are much more common but the sums are much higher too.

We all see things from our own perspective understandibly, so sympathise with your plea if indeed, you think that your ex has reduced contact purely for the purpose of being entitled to additional maintenance, but if this was to be changed in the law, so should many other loopholes that mean that children are losing out.

Ultimately, we should all remember that WE are the sole people responsible for the welfare of our children, and that should mean spending more time getting to know the partner we decide to have children with so that even though we can’t prevent discovering they are not the person we thought they were, they are still the type of person who do want the best for their kids.

clearingout

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I certainly hope so...

Casually popping out babies into unstable relationships is just selfish and immature and society needs to push back and say it's not acceptable.

Because it's the woman's sole responsibility? Because you know the circumstances of all women who have children by more than one man? Because all of their circumstances were casual, immature and unacceptable?

clearingout

MarkRingland wrote: »

They did not, however there was cases (mainly where it was 7-7 or 8-6 or 9-5 over 14 days), where the resident parent had to hand over part of what they got for the child.In the reforms, it changed to be whoever gets Child Benefit keeps that, and can claim for the Child so they have at least what the law says they need, considering the current household, and the other parent has to pay Child Support.

Where is your evidence of this? There was no legislation to this effect. In fact, the law very, very clearly separates money and contact. A judge would not be able to rule, as part of a residence/child arrangements order that child benefit should be split. However, as I previously said, it was possible for parents to claim separately for individual children.

It has always been the case that maintenance was reduced by the CSA depending on the number of nights a child stayed with their NRP.

Are you advising people on these issues?

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

These are individual situations I am very familiar with unfortunately and the attitude about their entitlement to continue to enjoy their middle class life, which involves not working or very limited hours is quite shocking. It has nothing to do with the number of children these women have at all, as a matter of fact, none of those individuals I refer to decided to have children for the sake of benefits or maintenance, but as part of marriage, or in two cases, as an 'accident' that naturally led to marriage

Then why make comments about how many children they have by how many fathers? It is clearly an advantage if all fathers pay maintenance but the statistics are stacked against that! The system will always be advantageous to some and less so to others. It is short sighted not to take control of one's own future in these situations but personally, if I didn't have a disaster preparedness approach to life, I would probably work less and be there for my children more.

MarkRingland

"As Clearing has pointed out, yes the opportunity is there, but no more than there is plenty of opportunities for self-employed non resident parent to dodge their figures to pay no maintenance or very little and without knowing statistics, I think that not only these situations are much more common but the sums are much higher too."

CMS check the Self Assessment Gross Profit with HMRC. Unless HMRC find anything wrong with it, it has to be that amount used, unless there is a reason to apply to vary the income used (for example Benefits in Kind, or high Pension Contributions).

"We all see things from our own perspective understandibly, so sympathise with your plea if indeed, you think that your ex has reduced contact purely for the purpose of being entitled to additional maintenance, but if this was to be changed in the law, so should many other loopholes that mean that children are losing out."

This is nothing to do with my own case as we have our own agreement, where I am paying in excess of what she would get if CMS was put in.

The Petition was started due to a high number of members of the Separated Dads Forum either being told by an ex they can not have overnight contact, as it reduces how much child support they have to pay, or the resident parent has stopped contact, and introduced allegations made to Police and/or Social Services, and like I said on another post, often the letter from CMS about the change of contact nights arrived before either the allegation was made, or them even told contact was being stopped.

From the cases I am aware of on the Separated Dads Forum, in less than 10% of the time an allegation of Domestic Violence or Child Welfare/Protection issues, has the non resident parent not ended up with staying contact. In each case, it exceeded 3 months, most exceeded 6, some exceeded 9.

There is no current redress system where a non resident parent is a victim of an allegation used to stop contact. All that happens is once cleared they get contact back, and therefore the child support will reflect this.