Payments triple but ex-wife will be worse off
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.WHEN Stephen and Susan Moore divorced in 1991 they reached a settlement in the county court whereby Susan would get most of the pounds 19,000 from the sale of their home and the benefit of two life assurance policies, while Stephen would accept responsibility for joint debts and pay pounds 91 a month maintenance for their daughter Lauren.
But this delicate formula was overturned last month, when the Child Support Agency decided the maintenance should be increased to pounds 324 a month and the Treasury would claw back income support and other benefits from Susan.
Stephen, 34, from Rock Ferry, Merseyside, is incensed that one-third of his income is going to his ex- wife. He would be better off unemployed, as he would not have to pay child maintenance. He is seriously considering giving up his pounds 17,000 a year job - pounds 1,000 a month after tax - as a central heating safety inspector.
His new wife, Julie, 29, whose two daughters from her first marriage he supports, is also angry that their income will be slashed. Julie does not work and her former husband pays no maintenance for their two daughters aged nine and six who live with her, because he is unemployed and on income support. With the increased maintenance payment, Julie and Stephen Moore's income will barely match their outgoings.
And, even though her ex- husband will be paying far more, Susan is also unhappy because she will be worse off. As she is on income support, she is entitled to housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptions, dental care and school meals. When the increased maintenance takes her above income support level, she will receive 80p a week more than now, but she will lose the fringe benefits.
Susan, from Bromborough, Merseyside, is seeking advice on how to challenge the new amount. 'The form made no mention that I could lose extra benefits . . . If I had known I would never have signed.'
Julie Moore said: 'People were led to believe the Child Support Agency was to force fathers who did not pay any maintenance to contribute. But instead, my ex-husband still pays nothing because he is on income support, Stephen's payments have more than tripled and his ex-wife will be worse off.'
(Photograph omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments