[Solved] Constant threat with CMS and an abusive Ex-wife

Hi

While I am not disagreeing with the general gist of your post, the CMS simply couldn't possibly deal with each case on an individual basis, they simply don't have the resources to do so, so they have to work by a set of generalised rules, and while I take your point about gross income, the old CSA did work on net income, but the calculation would then have been 20% of net, rather than 16% of gross.

The system isn't ideal, to say the least, but it is trying to cope with a workload that is far to large.

Thank you for your comments I'm simply venting, realistically yes they don't have enough resources but they should at least review my family based agreement I've included everything financial and non-financial and it gets completely disregarded because my ex can get more money by applying the general calculation.

Regarding the percentages if you are a basic rate tax payer at 20% it means you are taxes at 36%. I can pay for school trips, clothes, holidays, after school clubs I don't mind paying it BUT I want to see the money being spent on the children I want to be involved. That's my rant, the pure lack of consideration to a father's point of view who wants to do the right thing. I might as well have custody and pay a full time nanny.

I think your rant is justified Dad2... It often renders me speechless the lack of consideration for some hapless fathers caught up in the CSA/CMS merry go round.

I really think, in this time of equality for the sexes, that both parents household income should be used in any calculation of CM. Some women earn more than their ex's and may also have a new partners income to up their living standards.

Yes all parents should support their children financially, but there needs to be a recognition that fathers also have to put a roof over their own heads and that of future family too....we hear some desperate stories here.

Rant away Dad2! 🙂

Hi There,
.
I agree with both of the above, I think as actd has said (and you agreed) that CMS have been given an impossible task of managing a system that really doesn't work very well, so are over welmed with sticking to the rules that they have in place, I do think though that there shoud be a change as Mojo says so that everything is taken into account and I don't think that would take much more work, they already speak with the resident parent so they can find out the income they have though I don't completely agree that if the resident parent has a new partner that thier income should factor, I don't think it would be right that a non resident parent would get a reduction on what they pay through CMS becuase they're ex now lives with someone who earns good money. The new partner isn't responsible for the up bringing of the child which is what the CMS payment is supposed to be for.
.
It's a really tough one as it would be so difficult to please everyone, but I do think there needs to be some changes, I don't think it's fair that a non resident parent should go without especially if the resident parent earns much more.
.
GTTS

Chaps,

Thank you for your comments I do appreciate all of your views in this matter which has rattled me beyond belief. I don't mind the payments but at full whack it means I can't do anything for my children because I need to put myself first and that's with basics in order to be able to survive.

I truly believe a petition should be raised on the government website to push for a review of CMS payments. Society has changed the fathers of today are far better role models and I see it for myself on a regular basis.

I'm now facing the prospect and having my kids over and not being able to treat them to anything except my company. I was a kid once and I enjoyed being taken to different things and doing different activities. It is ridiculous that I'm being labelled the same way as a father who neglects his children.

Hi Dad2

You will not find many people on here, fathers or not, disagreeing with your overall sentiments about the CMS/CSA (oh, and if you think it is bad now...try the CSA of the 1990s and early 2000s) - and it is good that you have strong opinions about the process, as it *does* need reforming.

I can appreciate your anger (many of us have been in exactly, or worse, places) but do try to look on the bright side. You mention that you wont have much to offer your kids except your company...but often, this is what kids most enjoy - the rest is just distraction. Also, it is worth bearing in mind just how *valuable* your company (and their company for you) is .... as there are many father's who fight a considerable fight simply to spend a few hours with a supervised visit, or none at all.

I don't mean to detract from your rant - you do, and should, rant - it is a good release. But I just wanted to point out, ultimately you still have what is most precious...and this is time with them.

It almost contributes to break down of marriages and reinforces women to have children because regardless of what happens they will always be financially secured

a) by the biological father
b) by the stepfather

Men have to demonstrate in court their children prefer them over their mother which is a impossible task given the fact that my ex brainwashed my children. I could have them over without finding my daughter shuffling through my draws, taking pictures, sending messages to her mother. Simply and utterly poor behaviour and there is no law which will stop my ex from behaving the way she behaves.

For years women have been claiming inequality, they should experience what I have and is currently experiencing and then you will get a taste for inequality!

The family based agreements are a good idea and actually helps a father bring his point of view to the border of the table but the mother can disregard the agreement and all I'm left with is a % calculation. No guarantees I will see the children, no guarantees the money will be spent on the children.

There is a slight improvement from CSA to CMS, from 20% on net to 16% on gross with pension payments being taken into account. In my opinion, family based agreements must be considered by the CMS at the initial stages it's not going to take long to read it and consider it when it's 2 pages max.

I am about to loose my house because of the CMS

How can they just turn up and demand a weeks wage less a few pounds from you each month.
There is no consideration for the farther or the circumstances.
They start with we encourage you to talk and make arrangements between each other, laughable statement.
Why why would any receiver want to do that, they soon find out that they will get more by direct assault with the CMS.
If you ask the CSM for a breakdown of how the % is calculated for the Child then they just hide behind the current legislation rules.
Its xx% for xx% children end of.
They have a blinkered rhetoric, and if you ask a question outside of this then they have no idea, and direct you to some random website.

The reason i am loosing my house is all my fault. the reason is some years ago i met this girl we bought a house and we then got married we then had children
but then she started cheating then she left then she ignored the solicitor with the separation agreement because she knew she would get lots more from the CMS.
So i have to pay all the debt i have to clean up all the mess i have to beg to see my kids, i have no rights where the CMS are concerned.
She walks off knowing there is £350 coming here way each month.
Where as i get up each morning and go to work knowing that my out goings and much more than my incomings thanks to the one-sided system of the CMS.
I do take comfort from you (CMS) when you say we put the children's interest first.
just wonder how that works when they see i have been evicted from the family home, for doing what going to work.

I am sure you will know you have done the best for my children as i am being evicted in the next few weeks.

Regards

Your summary is exactly correct Dad2,

What the state has decided to do (over decades, this is not a new thing) on our behalves does result in marriage breakdowns and ultimately a poorer environment for children. During my voluntary work (teaching) I notice that 100% of the habitually disruptive children do not have a strong and permanent male role in their lives as their mothers' boyfriends tend to be transient. In my humble opinion society will reap the results of what it has sewn for many decades.

There are undoubtedly lots of very poor fathers with no interest in their children (or their wives/female partners come to that) out there, and it has generally been popular with the electorate (and particularly the female half of it) to crack down on them. In practice it would appear to me that pursuing scurrilous fathers is a bit pointless as many have no regular income (or abode) anyway, so what happens is that the severe measures designed to catch poor fathers get applied to thousands of decent dads who then struggle to live. The state has invented a family law system (and instruments of state that support it) that is very strongly biased in favour of women (to an extent that would be illegal in employment law), and then created a strong causal connection between residency and money that encourages mothers to prevent children from seeing their real fathers. In addition the state provides a debt collection agency to enforce payment by fathers, I suspect this has almost no effect upon the scurrilous ones but brings those who want to be responsible to their knees.

I suppose governing administrations are in a difficult position: on one hand they have at least half the population demanding that absentee fathers be made to pay, and on the other they must try to keep the (already much too large) state welfare budget down. The answer (over the decades) has been to apply the same unfair rules to all fathers (I suppose technically to mothers as well, but statistically there are few of them).

I'm sorry not much of this helps you at the moment Dad2, but be assured you have our understanding and support.

Best wishes,

O

Gentlemen,

It feels great to know I am not on this alone, it is not the best of situations in particular for those losing their homes thanks to the CMS. I disagree with the percentage calculations. For example, my ex-wife is the residential parent because she wanted to be the residential parent, my door is always open for my children they don't even have to knock. My beef is simple, THERE ARE NO CONTROLS OVER THE MONEY PAID TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARENT.

The CMS claim to be doing it on behalf of the children; therefore, they should have enough resources to ensure payments are being monitored on the paying parent and receiving parent. If the CMS actually had a system in place whereby the receiving parent had to submit expenses weekly, the CMS would see a trend and actually realise for themselves that the percentages are incorrect and paying parents are contributing over the odds.

I had an interesting call with the CMS. My ex-wife decided to go to the CMS and make a claim stating that I haven't been paying child maintenance. Complete lie, we have a court order in place and I am following it to the letter BUT the CMS straight away decided to go on the offence and taking my ex-wife's statement and then they say the service is unbiased.

Fair to say we did have a loan regarding a family home we developed which under the rules you can adjust your child maintenance payments against it BUT not for one instance did the CMS even consider telling me about a Deed of Variation. I had to research it and find it and when the woman on the other end of the line said "I think this is all" I replied, "No it is not, you have not evaluated the whole case and failed to tell me about a deed of variation".

Now, if that is not being biased then I don't know what it is. CMS are improving but they are just at the start, there is so much more to be done and I will probably not see it in my lifetime.

This just gets better with the CMS. So basically my ex-wife has said to the CMS that I don't look after my children and they took her side!!! Where is the unbiased service!