Gingerbread - Children Deserve More Report/Finding

Came across this report about CM avoidance and the need for further CMS reforms to protect our children from able parents who play the system to avoid paying.

Worth a read for so many of us who struggle to get fair payment through the CMS.

gingerbread.org.uk/content/2380/Findings

The problem HMRC have is that if people know their data is freely shared they will see an increase in the amount of tax evasion or avoidance so in effect shifting the problem onto them.

Why not look at the reasons why a lot of avoiders don't pay, I would guess a fair few don't because their ex has messed around with contact and they feel why should they pay for kids they have little connection with. Courts need to enforce contact orders and provide fathers with the knowledge they have their backs if their ex doesn't stick to agreed contact.

Spinit - You do make a valid point. But it is completely wrong for there to be a relationship between CM and contact other than to allow for reasonable expenses and adjustments. Just like bad behaviour doesn't normally determine the outcome of financial proceedings, lack of contact with child should not be factor in that child's financial needs. It is important not to connect the two issues and to deal with each one separately.

There was a recent case where the mother was handed a suspended sentence for not complying with a Court Order for the father to have contact with the child.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/commit...t-nottingham-allsop/

There is an enforcement avenue NRP's can take to enforce a Contact Order and I think Courts are beginning to take more action. The problem with the CMS system is that the NRP is home free if they manage to work out how to exploit the various loopholes in the CM system. So reform is necessary.

I agree there *should* be no connection between the contact and support payments but I suspect based on just how people are that there would be some correlation between the two. If you have contact with your child and can see they don't have what they need you are way more likely to support them than if you haven't seen them for several years and don't know either way.

I hope it is changing as I know from first-hand experience that they provided zero support, lot's of noise but when it came down to it they were not willing to do anything and the ex knew that which meant she didn't take them seriously.

The point you make is a matter of moral obligation and the absence of contact makes the NRP feel less financially responsible for their child. I'm not sure that is necessarily the case for the majority. The real issue here is of legal obligation to support your child, whom you have equal parental responsibility for and the CMS's clear inability to enforce this obligation effectively and fairly.

My ex's issue with CM is simple. He refuses to pay me any money. He does not see that it is for the benefit of the children and would rather I plead and practically beg him to buy them new shoes or pay for their clubs etc. I was in an abusive relationship and my ex uses this ability to withhold money as a way of control and manipulation. I certainly can not live like that and should not have to degrade my self to begging in order to get him to pay a fair amount towards providing for our children. He has regular contact with the children (as per court order) with no obstruction from me.infact I've always been more than accommodating and flexible about making contact work. So some men use the it to exert power and dominance. This is why having a robust and effective CMS is so important.

This is another issue that I think a lot of men feel their child support payments don't make it to children themselves, so why pay. I had many times when my children complained they didn't have this or that when I had already paid the child support to my ex. I would have liked to have some kind of 3rd party accountability for the expenditure which again would quash that argument for withholding payment. You yourself may scoff at that as I'm sure you would never spend money meant for your children on yourself but there are plenty of women who do.

spinit wrote:

I would have liked to have some kind of 3rd party accountability for the expenditure which again would quash that argument for withholding payment. You yourself may scoff at that as I'm sure you would never spend money meant for your children on yourself but there are plenty of women who do.

There certainly are parents abusing the system on both sides. I'm not denying that. But the CM system has to give some protection to victims of domestic abuse. The effects of coercive control can't continue through CM. And some men will abuse that same accountability that you seek. Certainly, there are parents who agree CM, set up a joint account and all the child related expenditure goes from that account and both can see exactly what its been spent on. But a lot of household expenditure is not just for the kids. It's family expenditure. How does one seperate this? My grocery shop is mostly feeding three teenage boys but yes it does include my meals too. My mortgage/ rent, broadband, Sky tv, utilities, petrol etc. Are all family costs for us all. Some expenditure can't just be seen in isolation as for the children.

There maybe a few going out buying Prada handbags, Prosecco or their fags with the CM money - but it's not the norm. Most struggle to make ends meet and personally go without to ensure the children have what they need. I'm sure, generally, NRP's paying CM will still have more disposable income that the RP receiving CM.

Thank you for your views Spinit. I certainly appreciate being able to see things from a different perspective. But ultimately there is just no reasonable excuse not to pay!