Maintance payments should be like the USA(53 Posts)
Why is it that non resident parents are means tested? It drives me crazy. The cost of raising a child should be 50/50 and therefore each parent should be required to provide for 50% of the costs. No matter what. When you are the resident parent you have to beg,borrow or steal to provide for the children and yet if you choose to be a feckless parent and not work you only have to pay a palt amount. No consequences for you mate, its sick!
In the US you get a bill for what your child needs, regardless of what you can or cannot afford, if you don't pay you go to jail.
When will the UK make these feckless, losers pay for the closeness of their pants!!!!!
Amen to this! Possibly one of the few things the US does better than this x
50% of the costs would vary though I think, and require constant recalculation? It would be more expensive when a child needs a new bike or has a school residential etc.
I'm lucky because I've had stable CSA for 7yrs and no contact with xp. The stress of having to ask for more would be miserable, and impossible.
Some misunderstanding about how child supports works in the US. In my state, it is calculated in part based on the relative assets and income of the two parents. So it is often not 50/50. However, you can't get out of it simply by choosing not to work. In those cases, the court will impute income and enforce the order, if necessary.
Do you really think that a woman making $30,000 a year should contribute equally with a man making $150,000?
And wouldn't it give the NRP some say over what the RP spent on the DCs?
If someone started a petition on change I would sign it and get all my single mum friends to sign it too. My ex hasn't paid one penny since DD was born
Of course! Why not. Ultimately I am talking mainstays here.
A child is created by two people and has needs that have to be met, when these have a financial cost the parents should be equally liable 50/50.
Also I realise that it is more complex than my description, but I am talking about responsibility being taken by government to ensure BOTH parents pay equally for their children. Otherwise it is the state that picks up the bill in most cases.
There needs to be stronger ramifications for those who think they can procreate and leave. Or worse still have contact with said children but pay nothing towards their care.
I think it's about time that the UK followed the ISAs lead on imputing earnings for parents deliberately making sure they are under-employed but the whole idea of 50/50 is not true - the USA had a similar approach to the UK AFAIK
California I did that once it only received 100 signatures
And wouldn't it give the NRP some say over what the RP spent on the DCs?
We don't have the concepts of NRP and RP in much of the US. It's shared residence, but with the understanding that because of school, etc. children may spend more time at one residence than the other. Generally speaking, laws are set up to prevent one parent from dictating how child support payments are spent. However, if one parent believes and can prove that the other parent is not adequately providing for a child, in spite of child support payments, then they can apply to the court for redress.
I don't know anything any the US laws on this but anything has got to be better than our system where a man can fuck off and pay nothing for years, despite earning loads when the woman he left is on benefits and then, when finally tracked down, get away with paying the bare minimum. I think it's disgusting.
Generally speaking, refusing to pay child support in the US is contempt of court and you can be sent to jail for that. The system does have its inequities, but it has teeth as well.
The cost of raising a child should be 50/50 and therefore each parent should be required to provide for 50% of the costs.
That would require the state to dictate what a child must be provided with. I've successfully parented my DD on an income of <£15000 a year, but she certainly didn't have the same quality of life as she had when I was earning £30000+. The government would have to legislate as to what a resident parent MUST provide, and what are added extras.
Which would then apply to ALL parents, not just those who are separated. And a lot of parents would fall short of providing the minimum. Then what? Take the DCs into care?
Unless you are a US resident with an ex wife who cannot afford to take him to court in the USA - then he can do what the hell he likes.
I have a good American friend who is unable to pay the full amount of maintenance payments for his two sons. The mother insists the boys attend private schools in Manhattan, have expensive holidays, expensive clothing, etc. So he is exiled in France. He believes that if he sets foot on American soil, he will be hauled off to prison. I don't know if this is true but he believes it.
The practice in my state is that if one of the parents experiences reduced circumstances that are likely to continue (happened a lot during the recession where high earners lost jobs and then found new ones that paid much less), they can apply to the court for a modification (reduction) in support payments. That may mean a change in the circumstances of the child's lifestyle, but there would have been a similar change if the parents were still together. It would be considered inequitable for the other parent to insist on maintaining a lifestyle that their combined resources can no longer afford.
Didnt the CSA have to close down at some point due to it being so ineffective..
Agree that sanctions in the UK should be stronger, like in the USA.
Completely disagree that both parents should contribute 50/50.
What if the RP has only been able to take a school hours minimum wage job because they can't afford childcare, and the NRP dad is a high earner because when the parents were together, he was able to focus on his career because he'd a SAH partner. Should he then only give token support and keep all the rest for himself to spend on new cars while his children live in poverty?
'So he lost his job which obviously meant now he couldn't pay child support or support his children with his second wife.'
More fool him for having more kids he couldn't support and his dozy bint if a second wife for procreating with a feckless eejit who already had a kid to support.
All too often, people think they have a right to spawn with every person they have a relationship with and expect the state to pick up the tab.
You see it on here all the time, too. A poster comes on and talks about splitting up with the father of their children and the first question is what benefits they can get rather than the NRP paying up for their kid.
'So he is exiled in France. He believes that if he sets foot on American soil, he will be hauled off to prison. I don't know if this is true but he believes it.'
So he pays nothing? I hope he does get hauled off to jail one day. What a tosser.
Expat, my friend is an architect. He & his ex ran their own offices in NYC until she met someone else & demanded a divorce. She took everything. He was without work for months & homeless as well. He couch-surfed to survive, doing odd jobs to survive. He had a breakdown eventually. He is not a tosser.
May I introduce the Australian (WA) system.
OK I'm a bit fuzzy but it goes something like this.
There is a legal minimum per child, a bit like minimum wage. The RP is entitles to a 'pension' for a number of years.
Personally I think it should run something like a student loan.
Child should receive a minimum by law per week. Absent parent should pay like a student loan, so if they are not working then they pay nothing or a very small amount but the child (parent of child) still receives at least the minimum. RP can still go to court to argue for more.
But the debt is recorded against the non resident parent and shows up in credit reports so if they are not paying then it is difficult to get credit or a mortgage.
Unlike the student loan the debt would never be wiped and any amount outstanding at death would be taken from the estate. Only if there is some amount outstanding, then would it be wiped.
Anyone who doesn't pay maintenance for their kids is a tosser.
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:
Please login first.