Child Maintenance-Should fathers on benefits pay more?

Not just Netflix is it, broadband, phone contract, Amazon prime Disney plus, sky, you should have nothing if you can’t pay for your kids, no luxuries

Here we go again... people on benefits having Netflix like it is the crime of the century. It is £6pm.

Bet you have something, people on benefits usually do, Disney plus, Netflix, Amazon prime, phone contract, sky, even if you claim
Not to I won’t believe you, my ex is on benefits and smokes, drinks, always has the latest phone and designer clothes.

Please tell me how? I work pt dh is unable to work due to MS. I cant increase my hours due to caring. Ive never smoked and last time I had a drink was a bottle of wine on xmas day. I'm sick of the idea everyone on benefits is well off. We live below the poverty line. Over 2k a month down since DH had to be medically retired 4 years ago but cost of living continues to rise.

£7 a week IS DISGUSTING.

Well yes, I think there used to be.

Isn’t that where ideas of a man ‘doing the decent thing’ came from?

Because not taking responsibility for a child you had conceived was seen as dishonourable, even in fairly recent history.

This is the problem. There is no shame in it anymore.

Anymore ? Was there ever ?

It's almost as if the CMS (DSWP, HMRC etc) are run by men ...

Goodness, @CalmGreenWasp I would buy you a cup of coffee every week and more. I hope that your child’s father one day regrets his actions and tries to make amends.

So often it is female-run services and charities that pick up the slack for absent fathers. Baby banks are probably an example of this. But I still donate because it’s generally mothers who are left holding the baby.

Apologies for the historic language but there used to be an offence (not sure if it was civil or criminal) called ‘bastardy’ whereby men who had fathered children out of wedlock were brought before magistrates and made to pay the costs of ‘lying in’ (i.e.childbirth) if those had been met by the parish. There was the cost and also the shame factor, as the men were publicly named in court.

Drink/drug driving is an instant ban. Mh wouldn't protect him from that. If anything it would work against him as if it was having such an effect its his responsibility to contact the dvla which he has failed to do.

I agree with you op. My ex does pay cms and its not nothing, but compared to what I cover, its nowhere near half and we earn similarly. I have funded tutoring, school fees (out of necessity, after state proved unable to provide what they needed), AuAdhd assessments, private dentistry, laptops for school, expensive hobbies with no input from him other than the statutory CMS. Yes, technically those are all choices or luxuries but realistically, a good parent will make them happen so their children can thrive. There is no comprehensive list of what its meant to cover, just vague references to 'essentials'. I'd happily do 50/50 but he never wanted it. I know there are difficulties on the 'other side'..sometimes paying parents are wrongly assessed but whataboutery helps no-one. The whole thing needs radical overhaul but there is no political will at all.

There are two issues

The first is that there are already a lot of powers, its the unwillingness of the CMS (DSWP, HMRC etc) to use them.

Clearly in this case there are a number of agencies that might be potentially interested in the non resident partner but in practice are not.

Secondly prior to the CSA the 'Parent with care' did all the legal leg work, this is now blocked and can potentially leave the taxpayer on the hook for losses as a result of the CMS's incompetence or unwillingness.

It is the child who loses out on the lifestyle that their resident parent (normally the mother) might have otherwise been able to afford: extracurricular activities, clubs, trips, clothing etc. Perhaps tuition before a crucial exam or similar. That sum of money adds up over eighteen years. Of course I know that many, many mothers will go without themselves in order to provide for their child, but it is called ‘child maintenance’ so that is why I think a child should be able to bring a claim.

Perhaps facing a now-grown child in court might make some non-resident parents (normally fathers) think twice?

I believe some young adults have sued local authorities for the non-provision of services during their childhood? So there is a model for retrospective claims.

Anyway, there need to be far stronger levers available to both resident parents and their children.

Sorry OP I had an old thread open and didn't realise how much it had updated!

The issue isn't his benefits, the issue is cash in hand work. Report him for that.
Benefits aren't always increased in line with inflation, and aren't even based on what would be an affordable amount to live on - there's no link between the benefit rate and what things actually cost.

But if you don't claim it then you cant kick off an investigation into his finances

If he's using Cocaine and driving then The Police might be interested for driving under the influence

You know and understand the history behind the decision to remove the means testing (it wasn't quite that), yes?

I'm objecting to structuring it as a higher payment for higher rent, in a non-time-limited system. I think there should be a pot you get and you cut your cloth from it. With a higher amount in the first year or so to help you adjust to your new circumstances. You can no longer afford that flat in Pimlico.

Many taxpayers are also claimants. But you knew that.