To think that men who evade paying for their children are a burden on society?

I think it could be done very simply. It costs $7000 a year to raise a child (made up number for easy math of $1k per night). Depending on how many nights a week each parent has the kids, they need to top up the other for the extra days.

If it's 50/50, there's no adjustment as each pay $3500
If it's 2 nights a week for the full year, then 2 nights = $2k, 5 nights = $5k, - so the 2 nighter has to top up the main parent by $1500.

Payment is not decided on "ability to pay". It's based on the cost to raise a child.

Single parents with close to 100% of time with the kids don't get an option on not paying for them. Deadbeat parents shouldn't be able to get out of their obligations either. Unemployed, cooking the books - no impact. You have a child you pay. It can be taken out as part of the regular payment at the source. No additional admin than someone splitting their pay between two accounts. The parent owing, doesn't get an option on paying, the money is automatically taken. Same as tax and other compulsory payments.

Completely agree that CMS should be completely restructured and processes should be put in place to ensure BOTH parents are financially contributing to a child.
However I do also think that they need to consider the high volume of NRP’s which in most cases are men, who want to see their child more, however do not get the chance as the RP does not want to lost any CMS.
Myself and my partner have recently finished a long court battle where he has now received a 50/50 shares equal care agreement, much to the dismay of his ex partner who stated in court that she did not want him to have more time with the child as her csa would drop and she would have to work more. As you can imagine the judge was not very impressed. Before this riles anybody up, previously to this agreement he paid above the recommended amount, and for the mortgage on the previously shared house for two years before it was sold.
Majority of the time the NRP will be the man, and as a result there will be a higher volume of cases over men shirking their financial responsibilities of a child. However the problems within the CMS are not limited to this one particular issue, there are numerous ways in which it should be improved so parents who want to see their child are not controlled by parents who want to site at home and have the paying parent fund their lifestyle

Had 4 children with my husband, we were together 16 years and never really even had a cross word. Come 2020 lockdown, he had an affair with his colleague (the only 2 left working in person at his company) and walked out of the family home one morning for work and never came home. I don't think any amount of careful thinking could have foreseen this. It was a huge shock to me, my family and friends. He'd always been an incredible hands on dad too, walked out and we didn't hear from him for 6 weeks. When he finally got back in touch, he arranged to see the children for 3 hours a week on a Sunday afternoon....and five years later does no more than this. It's almost like he's had a lobotomy.

A law like that would affect millions of kids, from birth, having a hugely positive impact on work uptake (mums able to afford childcare and get back to work etc). The fact this has been known and ignored for so long shows it's not as popular with the public as taxing private schools, for example.

how is that in any way an issue? Man doesn't want baby, uses condom/abstains.
Woman falls pregnant because she has sex? she should not have ALL the accountability.

Honestly, the HandmaidenSignal went out quickly on this one.

It can be criminalised without using prison. Suspending driving licences or passports for example.

Women who are resident parents are already doing more than their share. And yes, if they are the higher earner they will be providing a better lifestyle for their child. That doesn’t mean the absentee low earner should get away without contributing.

I’m not a Labour voter but if they put through a law saying that wayward parents were no longer shirking their responsibilities, and that they were bringing in zero tolerance to non payers, with fines, criminal records etc. I’d hold my nose and vote for them. Especially if they said, this will save £Xxx on benefits and this is where we are spending it.

So if you don't agree with what you are told on here you habe to agree with the only answer is you have to be a man?

I don't see the logic myself

Absolutely. I belive it is a criminal offence in the US to not support your DC? Why can't they be charged with child neglect and abandonment?

Agree with the premise completely but not sure how this can form part of your solution.
"They should pay at least half the actual costs of raising their children, more if they earn significantly more than the other parent"

So if they earn significantly less than the mother she should have the financial burden?

For example a men who has a one night stand and the women gets pregnant or even in a relationship where the man has been completely open about not wanting children

there is a SUPER EASY way not to get "trapped" into having a baby. Men should use it if they don't want to pay for "accidents"

Mine got away with out paying by skipping the country he's had 5 further children since.
Fortunately I had my parents who helped with childcare to allow me to continue working.
The CMS is useless, they have the powers needed to make it harder for the NRP to dodge paying, they actively choose not to use them
This issue mainly affects women so there is no political will to do anything about it.

There is definitely an attitude problem about women/rp being grateful for what they get. I once wrote that if my ex went truly 50/50 it would be more expensive than the £250 he pays (and he pays below what he should). I had people replying saying that children didn't cost that much, driving lessons and mobile phones etc were luxuries and not needed, how could I expect that kind of lifestyle for her etc..
The missed point was that I shouldn't have to make cutbacks for her so he can go on 5 star holidays and leave her with less, we both earn good money and we should be putting in the same in to her.

This.

Men who don't pay for their children should have a Claire's Law database on them to warn future partners. I know several men who have families all over the country they don't pay for and they keep going on having more, getting engaged then buggering off before the marriage.

Yes, totally agree. And then watch them run screaming for the male pill.

The only men not allowed in their DCs life are violent or abusive ones. It is very easy to go to court and be added to the birth certificate and gain a 50/50 shared care arrangement. It is easy to self represent in court too.

Can it not be treated as other debts are and sold to an agency if not paid. So the NRP is given their yearly bill broken down into monthly payments and at the end of the year if they are in arrears the debt is sold off. The recovery agency then takes on the burden of recovering the debt and they add more on top for their expenses. Taxpayer isn’t out so much with all the chasing admin costs. NRP pulls their finger out and pays up on time in the future or decimates their credit scores with CCJs so they can’t get their expensive cars on finance.

To be fair, I DID have a baby with a feckless loser. I admit it. I had poor role models and it was what I knew.
At the end of the day though, I worked full time and did manage to create a reasonable life for myself and my son, despite his dad's failure to contribute.
Financial support form the father would have been a massive help, but instead he pretended to be too ill to work so he didn't have to. Indeed taxpayers, including myself, ended up paying for him to avoid his responsibilities. I felt like he stole from me twice by not paying anything and claiming benefits...

Only a twat of a man would think of their child(ren) as 'pay to view'. Those children still need to eat, be clothed, be kept warm, etc., etc.

Only a very stupid sort of a poster would write posts like that.

Edited because no woman would write that.

Well the men have to show up and put themselves on the birth certificate so they can just refuse to be there, then not pay.

They can, very easily, go to court and get added to the birth certificate and get contact with the child, if they bothered their arses.

It's depressing how many excuses there are for men out there.

I'm more concerned about the children affected, not the sex of the person who isn't paying.

Why does the solution need to be gendered? What would be the point of only targeting men?

The vast majority are men, but that doesn't mean that children of mothers who don't pay shouldn't get the same support and help.

Who do you think these children shouldn't be supported?

I am absolutely stunned by this! I really cannot comprehend why so many are not being arrested for fraud in this case!

There is nothing to stop a non violent or abusive man seeing his children. All he has to do is go to court for an access order.

nope. Children are not pay-per-view.

If you have children, you should pay. Wages should be garnished if necessary.

Seeing the children is another matter - take the other parent to court and get it formalised.