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

But that's my point re that specific proposal by the OP.

They're saying the man should pay 50% of the actual cost of raising the bills, rather than the care minimum of their legal obligation, completely agree with this.
I don't see how that is compatible with the second condition of "more if they earn significantly more".

The first part is based on "I don't care how little they earn they provide 50 percent of the actual cost" while the second is "if they earn significantly more than they pay more than 50% of the actual cost", so what happens then if the woman warms significantly more or is dirt poor? The universal initial premise of the man pays 50% regardless of his circumstances goes out the window?

This is the op's proposal for how it should work rather than how it does in which I accept the resident parent bears a significantly greater proportion of the financial burden

I genuinely don't understand why it's not just treated like tax. Use end of year tax calculation with ALL income. Automatically include dividends, directors loans etc. Use that calculation for the next year.

None of this 25% change in year nonsense. Among the many many loopholes my ex has found, if your income changes by 25% they will adjust the amount. So as soon as the calculation is done he reduces his income by 26%. Payments are reduced. Then increases it by 24% and no increase to payments.

The system just doesn't work. There should be strict punishments for people playing these sorts of games.

Yes I would strongly support DNA testing and use the DNA database to feed into the Police one.

As I said, so called "low level crime" is very often just a side hustle for worse. I bet you'd solve a ton of bigger crimes by testing absent fathers.

It is also very easy for the RP to prevent the NRP seeing their child.

If you believe this shouldn't we make sure that it is the right man that is on the database?

Would you support DNA testing for this to prove who the father is?

The link between CMS and family court is already problematic. My ex only showed any interest in 50/50 after a CMS claim was put in.

It does. But women simply are not learning. If the problem is so huge, and I don’t doubt it is, then why aren’t women becoming more savvy and realising that they can and should do more to ensure a relationship, particularly one where children are involved, is very carefully thought through, negotiated, well communicated, and that the responsibilities and commitment come from both parents. It doesn’t matter how loving the initial relationship is, how stable the finances are, (hopefully both of these are in place before any thoughts of child raising become reality), a child in a relationship will alter the dynamics. The commitment and time needed ramps up hugely, the expense is there, the having to share out the love kicks in. I do wonder how many couples go into parenting where only one of them is fully committed to having a child, leaving the other grieving almost for a life they might have had previously? It’s very hard today, more so than when I got married, for couples. Women want a great deal more out of life than just bringing up baby, but biology for a start, hormones, programme them to be the baby minder, certainly in the first few years. Some women have good partners, but go into “protection” mode and get frustrated with their partners if baby care isn’t up to their exacting standards, alienating their partner in the process. Some couples have no support from anyone else, so it becomes a grind, resentment sets in. I’m sure no one signs up for having a child that requires extra help, which must put even more strain on any relationship. So it breaks down. Babies are for most couples, easy to make. But it’s the lifelong commitment, very intense for a couple of decades, that some males and indeed some females don’t fully consider. The communication, the dedication between parents is either there, or it isn’t. X how ever many children you have. I honestly think some couples would give more thought to getting a dog than they would raising a child.

That said, relationships do break down, and children still need caring for, so more should be done if possible to sort out finances and time given towards raising children from broken homes. As amicably as possible. It’s still a shared responsibility.

I think not paying for a child you made is imoral disgraceful and should be punishable by a prison sentence.

Exactly - as with sexual deviancy and violent offences, so called "low level crimes" are actually a pattern of behaviour.

I totally agree. It’s disgusting. I’ve seen so many posts on here from single mothers who are struggling and get nothing from the father.
I would like to see much harsher penalties for not paying.

When me and my ex was together, I was the ‘breadwinner’. I was only 21 but I was successful in my career, I worked hard - I had my own home and car and was doing well for myself. Well, my ex on the other hand was 30, he refused to work (we didn’t have kids), he sat in my home all day using my money on his games and his takeaways whilst I was at work.

anyway, I fell pregnant and I had to flee this abusive pos. My son is disabled and only in part time school so I never had the opportunity to go back to work and have to rely on benefits as I’m his carer. My son’s dad on the other hand went to work; progressed in his career but because he’s self employed he doesn’t have to pay a penny in the eyes of child maintenance (tribunal pending).

These dads pay either nothing towards their children or a teenie tiny fracture of the costs whilst often the other parent looks after the children full time so they don’t have to work around school hours or pay a penny in childcare. I wish it was a system like America where they take all parts of the ‘case’ into consideration, like with me that children who are disabled cost more and the parent looking after them full time have their career impacted- as a result the paying parent should pay a lot more for this. But no, self employed parents get away with it and if you do pay the fraction of your income - it’s just that a tiny percentage and it’s a flat rate. No extra costs, no consideration for clubs or uniform. No factoring that the resident parent has an entire wardrobe of clothes whilst the paying parent has a couple of outfits. There’s so many factors

Given the growth in the black economy, tax evasion, benefit fraud, and clearly child maintenance avoidance, isn't it time that all the governmental departmentals involved started to work together with highly trained task forces who had the ability and power to look at the "whole picture" of a person and then give more powers to tackle the avoidance and evasion as a kind of one stop shop. Powers to access bank accounts, surveillance if necessary, and share the existing HMRC powers to check governmental databases etc. I really think the whole thing has gone on too long and is too enmashed in "normal" life for too many people that separate governmental bodies each only responsible for it's own area, and usually grossly under-resourced are simply unable to even begin to tackle the scale of the problem.

I.e. your child maintenance avoider could well be fraudulently claiming benefits and also working cash in hand. Three different "offences" that actually need one governmental body to look at the whole picture, all the evidence, and then take the sod to the cleaners!

Men/NRP don't pay maintenance as a reward for seeing their children and how much they pay is firstly reflected in there wages and then how much shared care they have of their children.
Why would the CMS need to consider if they want to see their children more? Ultimately court handles this and then maintenance is reduced or increased dependant on the outcome at court.

Very often council tax

Not offensive

This is the thing that baffles me. Where's my option to say to Tesco "I still need the food, but I'll pay you when I can"

That's very offensive council tax.

So they get to dodge maintenance to cover the debt that they actually would face proper consequences over

Yes, if the kids live with you it’s not possible to refuse to feed them because you have spent something on your credit card!

I agree. My ex is on benefits but doesn’t have to pay maintenance because he has debts that are “priority” over paying maintenance. This has been the case for 2 years! How is that even a thing that you don’t have to pay if you owe debts? 🙄 all they have to do is take out an advance every year then don’t have to pay.

@cadburyegg His divorce settlement (if it was from house sale and intended to buy a new one) should only have been disregarded by UC for a set length of time (it's either 6 or 12 months, I can't remember which).

With 100k in the bank he's absolutely not entitled to UC after that grace period.

He should also be found to pay at least the basic £7 a week (for some reason this absolutely infuriates so many men).

In your shoes I'd be seriously considering reporting the 100k to UC.

There's really no consequences for feckless fathers.
There is no societal shame
The CMS are toothless
The 2 child cap doesn't impact them
Women will continue to reproduce with them

Yes, men seem to be able to do this. Lobotomised is correct.

I agree and I’m glad to see a reasonably busy thread on the topic.

I was married. We had 2 planned for children. My ex doesn’t pay any regular maintenance. Sometimes he will pay for specific things if I ask him. Usually I get “I can’t afford to” yet in the last 12 months he’s bought a new car and gone on many weekends away with his girlfriend etc. He has 100k in his bank account from the divorce settlement and still won’t pay anything because he’s “saving for a house”. He gets away with it because he’s gone self employed and on UC. Supposedly UC will only support the self employed for a year before they are expected to make a profit, that definitely isn’t happening with him. When the CMS did their annual review a few months ago, the letter said that he “receives some money from benefits”. Apparently that means he doesn’t have to pay, but single mums on benefits are expected to use those benefits for the benefit of the children…

One thing that made me laugh bitterly last week was that he couldn’t do the school run on Thursday like he normally does because his car was in for an MOT and service. I have the children 80% of the time and somehow still manage to arrange car repairs around the children. Tomorrow in fact my car is going in for its MOT and ironically I can’t afford for it to be serviced at the moment…..

If you saw him out and about you wouldn’t believe it. He always dresses smart, looks presentable and is articulate. I don’t go around telling everyone my business but if I happen to mention to people my exh doesn’t pay maintenance, nobody really bats an eyelid. The general public don't care, society doesn't care because it is an issue that mostly affects women. There is so much deeply embedded misogyny in society. I've had comments directed to me on here, that i shouldn't have married a man like this. As if it's my fault he doesn't pay. That being said, most of the supportive and helpful advice I've had about the situation has been from MN. There are some women who abandon their children but that is the minority. i'm not saying they shouldn't be made to pay, of course they should. But if the situation was flipped on its head and suddenly 90% of single parent families were headed by men, and it was mostly women abandoning their children (financially or otherwise) then there would be much more outrage. The political AND societal will would be there.

and yes I work practically full time (more hours than my exh does…) before anyone asks. I’ve made progress in my career since our split because I want our children to be provided for. I don’t know why he doesn’t feel the same.

Even small things are very telling in the attitude toward this issue.

So between May 2024 and October 2024 there would be no enforcement actions while they switched bailiff providers. A five month gap between contracts.

Five months where the ones that dodge to the point of needing bailiff actions have no action available...

THis isn't going to happen though until something is done about the costs and availability of wrap around and emergencyvchildcare. RP needs a job - then they need childcare and in most cases the CMS paid by the NRP doesn't touch the sides. Even if the NRP can afford wrap around childcare they still have the school holidays to cover whilst the NRP can carry on working without worrying about that. DC are sick - falls the the RP to take the day off work to look after them - too many of those and they risk being out on their ear.

In America they'd be prosecuted.
Very simply UK is legalising neglect.