Advanced search

Laws to punish deadbeat parents?

(177 Posts)
user1472582572 Sat 24-Jun-17 22:59:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Heirhelp Sat 24-Jun-17 23:04:59

Highalert Sat 24-Jun-17 23:06:53

Like that's ever gonna happen.

limestrawberry Sat 24-Jun-17 23:08:04

Bloody well should be.

user1472582572 Sat 24-Jun-17 23:09:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DawnOfTheMombie Sun 25-Jun-17 06:49:38


CMS have been useless here. I claimed over a year ago and they still haven't got a penny.

ExH job hops so a deduction from earnings can never be set up, his sister just sends any court letters back as "not at this address" even though he is and even though he regularly claims JSA inbetween jobs using that address.

Because he's No Fixed Abode and doesn't stay in continuous employment there's is fuck all they can do.

It shouldn't be like this. Also F4J have been telling ExH all the loopholes to avoid paying such as the job hopping etc. The ones that go to these lengths to avoid paying should absolutely be jailed.

worridmum Sun 25-Jun-17 07:58:55

I would only be on board if deadbeat RP get punished more often for ignoring court ordered contact eg actually using their powers rather than bankrupting fathers wanting access so having to repeatedly go to court for the RP just to ignore the order and having to go back to court....

worridmum Sun 25-Jun-17 08:03:39

Of that means RP lose residence more often or them having to pay costs so be it because at the moment it takes years for courts to do anything about obstructing access and even when they do its a mere slap on the wrist where as the nrp is normally out 10.000s of pounds ...

user1472582572 Sun 25-Jun-17 08:18:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Andrewofgg Sun 25-Jun-17 08:27:29

The enforcement of debt is a serious problem, but imprisonment for any debt is never right. Nor can you make it an offence to quit your job or find a new home.

Many if not most NRP debtors have other debts too - and if you were running a business you would want your customers to pay their business debts including what they owe you. You would not want one creditor given means of enforcement which were denied to others.

limestrawberry Sun 25-Jun-17 08:30:55

It's not quite the same as 'a debt' though, is it?

Andrewofgg Sun 25-Jun-17 08:35:18

It is a debt. If I owe £1000 in CM and £1000 to a business for goods and services supplied and I only £1000 somebody has to lose out. If both debts are commercial and I go bankrupt they get £500 each and the debts are discharged. But bankruptcy does not apply to CM debt.

Andrewofgg Sun 25-Jun-17 08:37:35

Let me add in the light of my username that I am not and never have been an NRP and I have no time for those who are. But I do have an eye for the practicalities and a sense of when the remedy is worse than the disease.

limestrawberry Sun 25-Jun-17 08:40:09

andrew, if I spend my money on repaying debts and my children don't eat, go barefoot, yadda yadda, the court will NOT kindly say 'well, we understand you had debts.'

araiwa Sun 25-Jun-17 08:47:17

Didnt we get rid off debtor prison in victorian times?

There needs to be a better way of collecting child maintenance but noone can pay if theyre in prison

eeniemeenieminiemoe2014 Sun 25-Jun-17 08:52:23

cms useless here too. kids arent cheap sad

Osolea Sun 25-Jun-17 08:56:33

There is a difference between CMS debt and other types of debt in that the person who is owed CMS will be given money by the state ensure that the child's needs are met. That obviously doesn't happen in other types of debt, so it's not the same.

Obviously, all parents should be expected to pay for their children, resident or not and I'm not defending NRPs that don't pay. I'm a single parent that needs money from my ex too, and I would support much more enforcement of child maintenance payments because the current system is ridiculous, but I don't think that saying it should be the same as any other type of debt is helpful.

DawnOfTheMombie Sun 25-Jun-17 09:06:49

My ExH doesn't see our daughter because he chooses not to. He fucked off when I was pregnant (after begging me to have a baby) didn't contribute a penny whilst I was pregnant, saw her about 4 times from birth to 7 weeks old, hasn't seen her since and I gave up trying to get him involved last summer when he refused to attend mediation. I cannot force him to be a parent. But I don't see why he should get away with not contributing financially.

On the flip side my elder child has a fantastic relationship with their Dad, we co parent incredibly well and he's been a fantastic support for me through this whole nightmare. It's been a shock to the system dealing with a man who had zero interest in his child.

araiwa Sun 25-Jun-17 09:06:51

Cm should be paid direct to resident parent by the government in a similar manner to other benefits.

Government then reclaim the money from nrp in a similar scheme to paye, so direct off wages.

I bet inland revenue would suddenly care a lot more about nonpayment

Alittlepotofrosie Sun 25-Jun-17 09:12:02

Andrew you've got no time for NRPs? What, all of them? Relationships break down for all sorts of reasons. Surely it's better to be a NRP than it is to subject a child to living in a household where the love and respect has gone?

DawnOfTheMombie Sun 25-Jun-17 09:12:14

araiwa that's a decent idea.

My ex works for around 4 weeks, then quits (or gets fired because he's an arsehole) goes on the dole - they never check why he left previous job - but only claims for a maximum of 6 weeks - gets a job - cycle begins again. He does it because it takes around 8 weeks to set up the deduction from earnings and do by the time it's done he no longer works there angry

Urubu Sun 25-Jun-17 09:12:25

Good point worridmum

Also, OP, not sure how you could prove someone is changing jobs / working for their own limited company because they want to pay less child support. People do these to pay less taxes (legally) even when there are no DC involved.

DawnOfTheMombie Sun 25-Jun-17 09:15:13

urubu in my case ExH brags about it regularly.

onadifferentplanet Sun 25-Jun-17 09:16:31

If basic maintenance was taken at source like other deductions I think fewer people would go without. It is not just the non payers it is the constantly late payers too. Over the last year despite my payments being collected through a deduction of earnings order ( which took 14 years to set up!) the time it takes to get to me is coming later each month and the CSA seems reluctant to chase payments from employers too until they are several days late. So far this year I have had only one payment of the correct amount and on time. I know people will say it shouldn't be relied on but why shouldn't it? If like me you are on a limited income that money can make a huge difference. NRPs who happily pay more than the basic amounts could still pay that as a private arrangement.
I think if it was done this way the CSA or CMS would have more time and resources to chase up the job hoppers.
Also whilst I agree there are RPs who cause difficulties with access there are also a lot (my ex included) who say they are denied access when it simply isn't the case.

Andrewofgg Sun 25-Jun-17 09:17:17

araiwa The NRP working cash in hand, not working at all, on benefits himself? Your scheme won't worry any of them!

A thought. Every year a certain number of people quit the rat-race, take a less stressful and less well paid job or become students. Is anyone saying that an NRP cannot do that and reduce his CM payments accordingly? Are they tied to the hamster wheel until the children are all 18?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: