To think that not paying child maintaince should be a criminal offence like tax evasion(276 Posts)
One of ds's friends has a father who is extremely well off, but has been terrible about paying maintaince. The man has taken no interest in his child, and the mother has found getting maintaince out of her ex is like getting blood out of a stone. The little girl is living in adject poverty because her father owes thousands. The man is able to afford a whole host of foreign holidays and can easily afford to support his daughter.
I feel that men who hide their income for maintaince purposes should be jailed. Even if they have second families.
YANBU at all. I agree wholeheartedly.
I am also concerned about "Trial by Facebook", Amazoniancracker.
Yes agree and then it can be declared before tax credits are awarded. I was stunned to find someone getting £1500 per month maintenance and £800 wages and still getting tax credits because they don't count the maintenance.
It should be a criminal offence but there is no political will to get this sorted.
I have thought long and hard as to why this is and have come to the conclusion it would just be too expensive to go after these men!
As a society, we should shun men who don't pay support for their children. Ironically, it often seems that the media and even other women, vilify single mothers as being feckless, drains on society etc. but we hear very little criticism of the men who bugger off and do nothing to support their children.
YANBU, there should also be a register for deadbeat non resident parents who don't pay anything which can be checked by employers/potential employers and potential partners with the amount outstanding etc.
I totally agree OP and the same conversation only the other day.
I truly believe that it should be run along the benefit changes. They say they're trying to tackle the benefits problem, well some families wouldn't be in the dire straits they are if the fathers (or mothers depending on the situation) were made to cough up.
I don't think it should be a percentage of salary though, but a set amount that is true to the cost of living.
I'm in Canada and they jail people here if they don't pay and obviously have no intention of doing so. There was a delightful man jailed who had worked in the Middle East for years as a doctor, snuck back into Canada for a visit and was hauled off from the airport.
There are a couple of problems. One is that the case above is very obvious. He never intended to pay, was a flight risk and obviously loaded. They can't lock people up who effectively hide their cash, or who look like they might pay at some point, because in jail they won't be earning. The other issue is that locking people up is expensive. It is only a deterrent if people know it can happen.
corlan how on earth would anyone know who wasn't paying child support in order to shun them? it would be down to his word against hers because no doubt if a person thought they would be shunned, they would lie and as no-one has access to their bank account then we just have to take their word for it. anyway, how would you go about shunning them without breaking all sorts of discrimination laws?
santashohoho i totally agree with you about the amount being set according to the cost of living. i said the same on a thread a few weeks ago. if they can work out how much it costs to live (NMW, living wage etc) then they should work out how much it costs to raise a child and standardise it across the UK. it should be taken from income in the same way as tax and paid to the account the CB and tax credits (if applicable) are paid to.
My ex just leaves his job when the csa find him. He does this every time.
What would people suggest to solve this problem?
5madthings - I posted on that thread early on but have stopped reading it because of the ridiculous attitudes of some of those posters.
Nuttyproffessor - I believe that is due to the risk of non payment leaving someone in dire straits.
Maintenance used to be counted towards IS but is no longer due to this reason.
Paying for the children you create should not be optional.
I think the americans have the right idea.
Sling you in jail.
take your driver's licence.
take your passport.
I also agree that people should think those who refuse to pay for their children are revolting. We should think less of those who walk away from their responsibilities.
wildworld does he claim benefits inbetween jobs? how is he surviving if not?
I think it should be considered child neglect.
"I also agree that people should think those who refuse to pay for their children are revolting. We should think less of those who walk away from their responsibilities. "
oh i totally agree. it is disgusting that a parent can get away with neglecting their dcs in this way yet carry on their lives using the money they 'save' (not paying for the dcs) to go on holidays and decorate their houses or buy new partners engagemnet rings. if i paid as much for my dcs as my ex used to pay (zero) my children would have been removed from my care for neglect as they would have been starving to death!
Booyhoo - I can give you an example of my XP who does not pay support for our daughter. His family know he doesn't pay support because I have told them!
His mother, (who is a lovely woman) makes all the excuses in the world for her son -oh, he's not earning much etc. There doesn't seem to be any shame attached to the fact that providing for his child is way down his list of priorities and I think there should be shame attached to it - massive shame.
Although despite my XP always paying via CSA for our DC's I would be livid if anyone thought it made him a good dad (he was an abusive maniac and had the paternal instincts of a dead rat). Luckily he hasn't seen the dc's in over 3yrs, and I would stop him seeing them, but I bet he dines out on it in the pub saying how great he is for paying maintenance but he's not allowed to see the kids <gets out violin>.
Society should shun men who don't pay and who have treated their dc's like crap. I know loads of women who put up with dads not paying because 'he's great that he still see's the children' .
I didn't want to get ranty on a sunday evening but this topic does tend to bring out my pissed off side. I'll go and read the sunday papers now.
It can be complicated though. I don't get any maintenance for DS1 and I have never applied. The peace of mind that my abusive ex has got the hell out of our lives more than makes up for any loss (not much since he was unemployed when I last saw him). To rake it all over again for the sake of money would not be beneficial in our case. While I'm not loaded, I have studied and worked so that I have enough to keep us and we don't need child support payments. Many people disagree with me and say I should make him pay etc but I stand by my decision. Up to other people what they do and to decide what is best for them/their DC - important disclaimer!
oh yes, a golden child? exp is one of those. can do no wrong in his mother's eyes. that's the problem. people seem to 'buy' all these justifications for why people dont pay CS instead of saying "actually son/daughter i'm ashamed of you. it makes me sick to think you have created a child and dont give a damn how he/she is eating or being sheltered or kept clean and clothed." but they dont, they always justify it to themselves. there's always a good reason (usually "she's a psycho and wont let him see the child. why should he pay for a child he cant see?")
Booyhoo this time he has applied for benefits but the other times before he hasnt. His wife or his credit card support him.
Now any suggestions on how myself & my dd can spend the mahoosive amount of £5 a week.
You can spend as much as you like on raising a child.
"They can't lock people up who effectively hide their cash, or who look like they might pay at some point, because in jail they won't be earning. The other issue is that locking people up is expensive. It is only a deterrent if people know it can happen. "
They lock up people for tax evasion, even though it is expensive. However the punishment of having a criminal record and a suspended jail sentence would be enough for some men. Prehaps you could have a fines/ community service for a first offense.
Lots of jobs like accounancy will not employ someone with a finanical criminal record. Having a criminal record rules out someone becoming a teacher.
Somehow the message needs to be driven home that it is not acceptable to refuse to support your children.
"Op do you know what abject poverty is? are SS involved with this child?"
Povety is all relative. No social services do not routinely involve themselves with families living below the breadline. I know lots of families who are working poor and in povety by British standards.
It may well be true that no one is poor by ethopian standards, but relative povety is a serious issue. It is grim when a family can not afford simple pleasures like going to the sports centre for a swim for they stress when the school asks for money for an outing. Or they feel extreme embrassment when their child is given a small christmas present that they cannot recipocate.
If you don't believe there is povety in the UK then see
Attitudes can be changed. My parents' generation grew up thinking it was OK to have a few drinks then drive home. Thanks to govt campaigns drink driving is now largely seen as a complete off limits and someone who got prosecuted for it would find people judging them. If the govt made it a campaign to clearly state that anyone who became a parent (except for the cases of rape where a woman gets pregnant) was financially responsible for that child for the next 18 years, then the attitude could be changed.
It really is appalling how many people think that it's fine to have sex without factoring in the possibility of becoming a parent. The only guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. If people think they are sensible/old enough to have sex then they must make sure that they won't become a parent OR accept that they are a parent for a minimum of 18 years.
i can understand that drcoconut however i dont think it should even be a case of you having to apply for CS from him so as to draw his attention back to the fact he has a child. i think it should happen automatically when a birth is registered. i think both parents should have to supply NI numbers and it be declared whether child will be living with both parents or parent A or parent B. if parent A then that parent is eligible to pay half of the total figure it costs to raise a child and the amount should be expected to be covered by CB and tax credits. parent B should have the other half taken from their salary in the same way as tax and paid to the account the CB is paid into. this should be from birth. it should also remain the same amount for parents who are on benefits and no reductions for having other children or step children.
I'm tempted to send my ex a link to this thread. He seems to think that I can raise our child on thin air. I'm in full agreement. Stick the arseholes in the stocks.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.