[Solved] Should Ian Duncan Smtih Consider Fathers Rights

Just wanted to say I support this thread, Dad2. I will write my story after work or late night today.
Come on guys! We keep moaning about the same thing but don't do anything. Someone takes a more proactive stance than us and is trying to do something, let's support!

Can just say as a Mother, the money that I receive from my children's father goes directly on my children. It pays for very little tbh but it goes on my children. Whilst I appreciate that there are some Mothers and fathers out there that spend the money on other things, the majority do spend it on their children.

I think there's a misconception about what child maintenance is for! Looking after a child is also about providing a roof over their heads, paying household bills and putting food in their bellies. Perhaps running a car to get them to school and back and forth to activities at the weekend...that's before you think about schoo trips and clubs, dinner money, school uniforms, clothes and toys.

I think there's a misconception about what child maintenance is for! Looking after a child is also about providing a roof over their heads, paying household bills and putting food in their bellies. Perhaps running a car to get them to school and back and forth to activities at the weekend...that's before you think about school trips and clubs, dinner money, school uniforms, clothes and toys.

Yes of course, but I think what angers people is the lack of contact etc.

For example, I pay CMS, my ex has a house she always had, she had my child and now Im paying for that roof. But I also pay for a roof that my child is more than welcome to live and stay at, but hes not allowed, because his mother says so, so therefore Im now supporting her roof that she always owned, before the child was born. In a incredibly affluent area she chose, whilst running a £20k car.

I pay for my car to run back and forth picking the child up and pay for activities such as swimming. I buy clothes, toys and food for when with me, gas, electric, water to bath, bins, pram, car seats etc. nothing is supplied to me. So theres nappies, drawers full of clothes, bed, bedding, even have to supply my own dummies - if I refuse, child doesnt come and then IM refusing contact, rock and a hard place spring to mind etc

I think the issue people take is sometimes the disproportionate amount. We dont have equal contact - as she chooses not to and I had to concede to get some contact. Why? because she can. I send just under (£12) per week what my place costs to run. She earns more than me. I know her income doesnt and probably shouldnt come into it, but this is NOT the sole responsibility of fathers this is 2016 not 1956, if we share responsibility then she also shares financial responsibility surely? If that was the case my child costs over £800 a month/£200 a week

The guy who say he only had £1400 to spend because its taken from my gross that doesnt include student loans and whatnot that got me my position, I dont even have that to live off and pay the above as Ive highlighted in other threads.

Dad2 wrote....

I understand in full that I have a financial responsibility to my children but what I don't accept is that there are no CONTROLS how that money is spent. The receiving parent does nto have to justify (in most cases) her actions to anyone not even the CMS.

- How does the CMS know that my contributions are being spent on my children?

Twiston...this was what I was responding to, I think you know where I stand on Dads rights, it was late and perhaps I should have made my position clear but putting controls on how maintenance is spent isn't workable in my opinion for the reason I gave.

However I agree that in the 21st century where gender equality is pursued aggressively, both parents income should be considered... The feminist lobby has a great deal to answer for. 🙂

However I agree that in the 21st century where gender equality is pursued aggressively, both parents income should be considered... The feminist lobby has a great deal to answer for.

This is a common comment (both parents income should be considered) about the current child maintenance situation. I'm not singling out Mojo...just, that this is the last comment in the list ..!

I think what people may *not* be aware of, is that the very first CSA scheme was designed to work on exactly those principles. This was known as the CSA1 scheme, and applied from 1993 to 2003.

And the link below gives the details of how "maintenance" is worked out.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317504/csa2024-1993-scheme-rules.pdf

And was considered to be "unworkable" due to the data burden relative to the outcome. I think another important point is that any "infrastructure" investment is tax-payer funded...which brings its own issues.

Since the 1990s there has been a gradual move to a "less is more" approach with regards to child maintenance. Today the CMS require just one number from HMRC to compute a maintenance calculation....of course, this comes at a price of accuracy - but perhaps overall this approach yields benefits for both the child and tax payers.

I agree that in an ideal world, gathering more information about both parents would yield a more accurate reflection (for the father) - but I think any argument that starts with the assertion that investment in child maintenance infrastructure should increase so that child maintenance should decrease to a "fairer" amount will always be a very "hard sell" in relation to the benefit to the child (the central concern of CMS and the family Justice system).

That said, I do think there are real problems with the current system. I agree with the less is more approach in general. I think any agency that is bashing out a formulaic message and then having parents declare themselves bankrupt, give up work or walking away from children is to be avoided. As we all know, abusing the system to deprive a child of parental contact is just as damaging to a child (perhaps even more so) than a lack of finances - and this built in abuse needs to be recognised and fixed. Things such as "shared care" rely on honest parents putting their children's needs first - yet we hear time and again of RP who deny their children spend any time with the NRP, and in doing so they are rewarded with a higher maintenance amount. The incentive is simply backwards - I wonder how many fathers would suddenly have their contact reinstated if the CMS told mother's a portion of the child maintenance will be held-back if shared care does *not* take place (assuming no Court Order and no DV)? Overall though, I think more could be done (with the existing rules) to "incentivise" parents and in particular the NRP to consider ALL aspects of a child's welfare.

Of course this raises yet more problems. If CMS incentivise RPs to allow contact (rather than rewarding them for blocking it) - "Women's charities" will cry children are being driven into the hands of those accused of DV...and given how the family justice system operates (being accused is almost the same/worse as being found guilty....) we will then have many more NRPs claiming DV (as already happens in Court for cases involving child arrangements) ..... the whole system really is a can of worms...improving one aspect can have non-intended consequences down the line...

Lastly, the Govt, via the CMS, consider themselves to have a "moral obligation" to not make it easier/cheaper to have children and "walk away" than to have children and "stay married". This is what drives the % rates applied to calculate maintenance. It goes without saying this is totally sexist, simplistic and outmoded. How many marriages break down because one party considers it may be cheaper to raise children divorced, than otherwise?? It also ignores those cases where the woman leaves the man and takes the children with her. I also disagree with a Government agency having a "moral obligation" in the first place - marriages breakdown for many reasons - never once have I heard of a father "walking away" because it would be cheaper to do so...how offensive!
thl

THL commented -

.... I'm not singling out Mojo...just, that this is the last comment in the list ..!

Glad to hear it THL! 🙂

Typical government getting things back to front....this is a topic that can stir emotions.

Aside from the issues surrounding CMS, dads rights have been marginalised, we had high hopes that the Children and Families Act 2014 would have teeth as initially promised, but as it progressed through the Houses every bit of progressive action was removed and the watered down version is no better than what it replaced....even after the promises made by our Government.

Dad2 wrote....

I understand in full that I have a financial responsibility to my children but what I don't accept is that there are no CONTROLS how that money is spent. The receiving parent does nto have to justify (in most cases) her actions to anyone not even the CMS.

- How does the CMS know that my contributions are being spent on my children?

Twiston...this was what I was responding to, I think you know where I stand on Dads rights, it was late and perhaps I should have made my position clear but putting controls on how maintenance is spent isn't
workable in my opinion for the reason I gave.

However I agree that in the 21st century where gender equality is pursued aggressively, both parents income should be considered... The feminist lobby has a great deal to answer for.

fair enough!

i think something needs to be done to reform the whole system

Its equal rights for men and women in everything except family/child law where the mother gets what appears to be 80% rights and father gets 20%.

The CMS are making it more of an incentive for mothers to reduce contact to as little as possible, or to stall it as long as possible. Because the less time the father has, especially 0 overnight stays then the more money the mother gets. So When things get messy then the CMS adds fuel to the fire.

A friend of mine pays CM for his son which ok a father must pay something towards their child. But they havent considered the fact that his ex partner earns a lot more than him so really she doesnt even need the extra from father,

The whole CMS system is based on number of overnight stays,,,,yet what they obviously dont realise is that a child sleeps at night so wont be eating, the lights/consoles/etc wont be on...the cost is during the day,,,feeding etc...so regardless of whether your child stays over night..if he or shes with you during the day then he/she will cost you the same.

There system should include a function to offset child maintenance to top up the mothers income with fathers paymentsrather than being 12% of father gross income minus overnight stays.

And i cannot understand why its based on the gross wage, because i live off my net pay so thats what any further outgoings should be based on, or they should offer tax relief for the maintenance amount if its coming out of gross.

Ive had a nightmare with the CMS over the past 9 months and its still ongoing and not resolved. they were lightning quick to contact me when the ex filed for maintenance and demanded money within 3 weeks turn around and gave me the talk of "if you refuse to pay well take it from wages" and there is possible legal action etc.

Yet ive contacted them over past nine months on issues which will by rights reduce my maintenance as based on their guidelines. These being 1) over night stay, 2) change in pay as the maintenance calculation was based on previous years P60 3) contact costs i.e supervised contact and travel to pickup/drop off.

I have sent in all the evidence they requested, pay slips, receipts for supervised contact, court orders stating overnight stay etc. yet they keep fobbing me off with excuses like "its in a queue waiting to be dealt with", or "the case worker is busy and will get back to you" or "im the new case worker, the case has just been forwarded to me, and i will be reviewing it shortly". Its like they keep passing the case and calls to various people who run off the same excuses then when excuses run out they pass it on to next person. so far ive spoke to 15 different people all telling me the same [censored].

NINE Months since my first contact and still no result ...ive been paying the original amount to avoid arrears so i know im owed almost £2000 yes 2 grand in over payments and its almost near my annual review...but these incompetant fools dont care. yet they were bugging me within 3 weeks for payment.

ive raised a verbal phone complaint (i was told by the person on the phone that there isnt a procedure for a written complaint again to fob me off) but after speaking to CAB i found out there is an actual written complaint procedure in place. Now ive done this and waiting again, but still no result.

my next step is the mp and failing that the independant complaint review team.

i was under the impression that the old Child maintenance options was reformed due to various problems to the CMS but my experience highlights the fact that its all the same clowns, same excuses, same failures just rebranded and changed to a gross pay scheme rather than net pay.

I work with several fathers who are with the old and new system and not a single one has a positive experience

I would get in touch with your MP and ask them to raise a complaint with the CMS - assuming that the complaints system is the same as the CSA, they can raise a complaint at a hgher priority than you are able to do.

When the CMS originally contacted me...i raised the concern and questioned how they would confirm my money was being spent on the child...seing as its called the child maintenance service and not the MOTHERS maintenance service.

The lady on the phone told me "wed like to think the mother would act in her childs best interests and as a father it is your duty to pay". So then i said to guarantee my money is going where it should be...i offered and said if she sends me a list of anything and everything the child needs i.e food clothes on a weekly basis i would get it and drop it off by end of week..even though its more hassle i could guarantee my money was going to my son and not on a new outfit or to get her nails done. But naturally they said they cant do that.

The child law and child maintenance are two things that are well overdue a reform