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

I completely agree.
It’s a national disgrace.
I never got a penny. He’d change jobs , go unemployed, self employed.
Take their passports, driving licences , anything.

This post is a good example of what I mean - CMS have most of these powers already

The government should go after them. Have the power to seize assets. - they already have this power. A court order for seizure of goods can be gained. Also they can put a charge on a house.

Have access to their bank accounts. CMS can already take one off, of regular, payments straight from a bank account without a court order.

Have arrears never be written off so they can come after you at any point in your life. This can happen. They don't chase arrears after the child turns into an adult guy the debt can sit. Despite the (deliberately) poor wording on letters about write offs it's up to the RP if a debt is written off.
CMS debt isn't written off by bankruptcy or IVA.

And your estate after you die. This can already happen. I actually dealt with this when I worked there.
The current issue with that is the letters that are sent out to RP's about writing off debt don't make clear that it is a choice.

Maybe men need to work out how to pay for the children of their first families before rushing to make a blended one? That's one of the reasons there's a 14 year age gap between my DS and my DSD. We had to wait until he was in the right financial space to support both before TTC.

Because marriages never break down ?

Yanbu. I suspect there's a fair number of cash in hand tradesmen who use it to avoid maintenance.

That's a really interesting pov. While I completely agree it's a gendered problem, the way to turn it into a vote winner is to make it not gendered, iyswim. As always, feminism is good for men and boys...

If I were in charge 😂
I would make it a government loan to the resident parent
I would link it to NI number
They don’t pay then CCJ no fucking about
removal / block of passport so they can’t travel abroad on holidays

The CCJ would be efficient in that it would prevent him from renting / getting a mortgage getting a nice new shiny BMW 😂

it’s become acceptable to not pay for your kids
women often moan about how much there partner is paying and have no problems in seeing it reduced to pay for their own kids

So how would this work with the next family men decide to have? How many blended families would this effect?

It's always astounded me that non payment of child maintenance isn't a criminal offence. It's failure to care for a child properly.

I do think there is inherent sexism is behind the failure of any govt to address this. Statistically most resident lone parents are women. There's a 'well it's their own fault anyway' agenda. A 'but women can trap men agenda.

It's sickening.

100% agree.
I think the money should be recovered by HMRC, using all of their powers and then paid to the mother or whoever has custody (including the state). In this country we have more powers to enforce people pay their gas bill than provide basic support for their children.
Problem is, government would never create such a law because men like the fact that they can walk away from their kids without a backward glance or penny paid so it wouldn't be politically popular.

When you phrase it like this, it makes people think differently to single mothers being a drain on society.

But no one ever frames it like this. We need to change the framing.

Why are you confident it's not a vote winner? Governments of all colours seem to think slashing benefits is a vote winner, and that would be one result of a policy that actually made these loser men (and yes, it's men) pay for their children.

Because if it was it would have been jumped on.

It's absolutely not going to be a vote winner among men, and among the women whose sons/partner/brother have an ex who would "spend it all on hair and nails".

There needs to be a societal mindset changed first.

The change that needs to happen for this issue to be better is that it needs to have societal consequences for someone if they don't pay.

I was lucky. My ex's senior officers made it clear, when they heard from the welfare officer that I was having to go down the CMS route, that it would be looked on very dimly for him if it got to the point of DEO. That judgement (from people whose opinions he cared about) changed his attitude and he paid.

If Steve's mates in the pub told him he was a dick for not paying, or Mike was likely to not be invited back to 5-a-side because his friends think neglecting your children financial is shit, and if Brian finds women don't want to date him as he doesn't pay for his kids then men would pay.

It's currently acceptable to not pay if you're someone's mate, brother or son - that's what needs to change.

I remember reading an thing that was about how men pay more tax overall and I ended up thinking a lot of men are basically subsidising other men to not pay thier way with thier own children or to misbehave generally (looking at prisons and policing and A&E on a Friday night)

An excellent idea. I'd go one further and have a public log of parents who don't pay for any children they have so everyone can see them for what they are.

Some people not taking responsibility for their actions is a huge problem in society that needs to be addressed.

Indeed.

I think society is hardening on this too.

It's not the happier times of the Cameron era.

Can you image some of the policies now being rolled out now being even suggested in 2011 and the reaction they'd be?

It's 2025. The world has moved on.

Why are you confident it's not a vote winner? Governments of all colours seem to think slashing benefits is a vote winner, and that would be one result of a policy that actually made these loser men (and yes, it's men) pay for their children.

Too aggressive.

Then there's the DWP.

Just abolish the CMS and give it to the DWP to oversee.

There's enough heartless jobsworths bastards there to do it there without a second thought.

No one should be able to stay home on benefits because of a child. Don't get it. It's a lifestyle fir some people instead of doing a job.

And yes parents should pay to raise the kids they don't live with. No doubt.

That is because so much is unpaid.

It used to count toward benefits, then it was taken to go toward the welfare bill with parents on benefits only keeping £20 a week.

If it was a true vote winner then it would have been jumped on by a party imo.

Given the majority of MPs are still men, and this is arguably a 'women's issue', it doesn't surprise me that it's dismissed as not a big deal.

If a system was arranged that the government could potentially make a lot of money, they'd probably take it more seriously. But as the prisons are currently so full they're releasing prisoners crazy early, the US system isn't going to be adopted anytime soon.

Even if maintenance is paid it is excluded from a claim for benefits

Yes, I totally agree with you OP. I think that this is also something that isn't spoken about anywhere near enough. So many conversations go on in the public sphere about many different issues, but how many men don't contribute financially towards the upbringing of their children is rarely discussed.
If a man sires a child, he should be made accountable to pay for that child. And not working/receiving benefits should not be an excuse. (I've used 'sires' deliberately, not because I'm old fashioned, but I think the word 'fathered' is giving too much credit to some men.)
There are many reasons why the mother and father might not be together, but none of them warrant a father not paying. Also, if there are any reasons why the father is not allowed to see the children, they must still be made to pay and not use that as an excuse.
It would be wonderful if this financial accountability became the norm and was taught to boys from their teenage years. If you have a child, you (and the mother) are financially responsible for it.

Totally agree. With benefits etc being slashed, child benefit cap, they should absolutely be going after anyone who doesn't support their child, they made it.

I would have an independent body, similar to Joseph rowntree, who would work out what it costs to raise a child. Not fancy but the basics and would include the average cost of half a full time childcare place from 6months. Because I dont understand why they can opt out of paying for one of the most expensive aspects, both parents should be afforded the opportunity to work full time and the NRP should cover their share unless they have the child 50/50 (I bet this would encourage more focus on the issue).

Once that number is decided, it's adjusted based on days both parties have and then that is the amount that's owed. If an NRP cannot pay then the gov fronts it, because its not the childs fault and they still need to eat but they can claim it back from additional taxes, reduced benefits and taken directly from the estate when they pass with interest.

Problem is we would need great family courts and more support for abused partners as everyone would suddenly desperately need 50/50 for their beloved children which could lead to neglect and a whole host of issues.

11% of lone parents are men. There are way more men not paying child support than women. That being said I did read some stats a while back that said that proportionally, female NRPs are less likely to pay child support than male NRPs.