To think that not paying child maintaince should be a criminal offence like tax evasion

[ReallyTired]

One of ds's friends has a father who is extremely well off, but has been terrible about paying maintaince. The man has taken no interest in his child, and the mother has found getting maintaince out of her ex is like getting blood out of a stone. The little girl is living in adject poverty because her father owes thousands. The man is able to afford a whole host of foreign holidays and can easily afford to support his daughter.

I feel that men who hide their income for maintaince purposes should be jailed. Even if they have second families.

It's not just men who do it.

And very few of the evaders actually admit doing do, some of the really crappy ones boast about it but far more when talking about children say stuff like

" I pay what I can and do what I can" sadly this often means they pay and do nothing. That's why new partners often don't have a clue.

Threerings, that would only work if the PWC was earning and paying to raise the child. We seem to have double standards, its prefectly ok on mumsnet and elsewhere to not work and let otherr tax payers pay to feed and house the child (and pwc) yet the NRP is vilified if he doesnt financially contribute. Being the PWC doesnt mean you cant work, millions of parents work and raise children.

Courts should start with 50/50 care after a split, that way the child gets equal time with both parents and they each pay their own expenses for when the child is with them. Where it cant work due to distance, then both parents should provide equally for the child not just one.

Sadly many women help their current partners shun previous children so its not just men that are to blame but neither party should get together to the detriment of the child.

I am a pwc and do work to support my dc, my exp has done everything to evade his csa payments, saying why should he pay as he doesn,t live under my roof. In short he gets away with it and see,s dc regulary. So the shame is totally on him. NRP should be vilified if they do not contribute finacially. It should go further and make NRP that are in prison work in there and also contribute instead of lounging around on their playstations and having money for Tuck shop goodies. Pay for your child like the pwc has to.

hmmm, I see your point but I wouldn't want to see it made compulsory with the alternative of prison for all parents, regardless of circumstances or what the other parent thinks.

It would be a cold day in hell before I'd take anything from the biological father of my children, he's vile and evil and I couldn't stand him ever having any potential claim over them because he'd been so good as to provide a bit of cash. Ugh. They are my children and I will raise and provide for them on my own.

Luckily he is South American so it doesn't apply.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if I had an ex who was delightful but didn't have much money and had 3 or 4 other kids in a new relationship and I had plenty of money myself I wouldn't want to take money from him either.

I wonder how many of the posters advocating prison for non-payers have realised that would mean that automatically they were no longer liable to pay anything.....

Wouldn't really matter if they are not paying anyway, creamteas

Sock, in my admittedly limited experience, female NRPs where they do exist, are far less likely to pay than men.

As a proportion, male NRPs form the larger proportion of NRPs, but of the families I know where the NRP is a woman (admittedly only 3), not one pays any sort of maintenance.

Of the families I know where the NRP is male, maintenance is paid - although I actively choose not to socialise with those who will not provide for their children so there are no toss pot NRPS of either gender that I am friends with.

Why do you say that, creamteas? People are still liable for the debts they owe when they are in prison (although they can apply for reduced payments or a deferment) CAB info on debt and prison

Those saying any debt owed by a NPR after death should be paid to govt if pwc is on benefits are being very black and white about it. People who are on benefits aren't just on benefits because they have children! There are all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with NPR not paying cs that mean someone has to claim benefits. There's also the fact that being on benefits isn't a permanent state of being so working out what was due to them and what was due to govt from a debt would be a bit difficult. It's a bit short sighted to say " you are on benefits, you don't get any of this paid back to you"

Maybe it should just be if child tax credits have to be claimed by the RP then it should be paid back to the state, and if a proportion of housing benefit is awarded so that a child isn't being raised in a room in a shared house.

I wouldn't want my xp to go to prison for non-payment, that would ruin his life and terribly affect his children.

I don't think there is much wrong with the current system (not including the planned changes which are wrong) that couldn't be fixed with more investment into the it and the staff, or rather a stop being put to the deliberate underinvestment the CSA has suffered.

Yes I do lock em up.

Just thought I'd pop in and point out from an American point of view that the American system is not any better. Just an example....

It took over 10 years to get child support payments from my ex. CSA there was less than useless. We had a restraining order against him (stalking, threatening to kidnap our daughter and threatening to harm me seemed to be a favourite pastime of his) with our new (again) address withheld... and CSA GAVE it to him. When I rang them about it, the woman said "it's his RIGHT to know where you live"... he lived in another state - only came to the state we lived in order to harass us then leave again. When I pointed out that court paperwork said he was not to be given our address as he was dangerous, the woman said in a nasty voice "well, YOU're the one that married him!" Yes, that's very helpful. Thanks.

Even though they gave him MY information, they couldn't even tell me if he had been located by their agency. Which was painfully obvious when they told me that I needed to find out where he was living (address) and where he was working. Now, realistically if I knew that, I'd have told them. But they told me they couldn't attempt to collect the child support until I gave them this info.

After a couple years of this, I had to hire a private solicitor to locate him and force the issue through the courts. When we found him and finally got it through so there was a court order to take money from his pay, his employer notified him and he quit his job that day. He moved just over the state line, and we literally had to start all over again from square one, taking it to court in THAT state. And as soon as we got to the point where his employer was going to take money out of his pay, he quit again. Moved back across state lines. The old case in that state had been closed, as he'd moved to other state, so we had to start all over AGAIN! Finally after about 10 years from the time of the initial court order for child support, he was stupid enough to blow off a court ordered appearance (probably thought he was untouchable at that point and with good reason I suppose!), and they issued an arrest warrant for him. It took another 3-4 months before he was picked up, because (in the words of the local law enforcement who knew him) "police have actual criminals to deal with"... when they finally arrested him, he had $1000 bond, which the judge kept and applied to his child support. That judge actually put him on probation for two years, and conditional to his probation was regular child support payments. He still was rather irregular, but at least it was something! His probation officer also had the "he's not really a criminal" attitude as well, so he didn't get in trouble when he missed payments. PO actually told him as long as he didn't miss 3 in a row, he wouldn't report him to the court - so he paid every 3rd month and ignored the rest. Maddening.

It's no better in the states. Really. And it's not national, it's at a state level, so they just have to move states and it starts all over again. Not pretty.

Biological parents should be financially responsible for their children until those children reach adulthood, dual responsibility, no excuses, end of story.

That's regardless of second or blended families or new partners or any other thing. If you father a child/give birth to a child - your responsibility, nobody elses.

ExH does not pay maintenance for DD. He is expecting DC 3 with his new wife. I did think WTF, he can't afford the kids he has!

But I also agree a bit with Drcoconut, the less ties the better though that is partly because they laid a guilt trip on me that they could not afford to eat etc. Can't be doing with that kind of crap, they were complaining about DD wanting an extra slice of bread when she was there. So she stopped staying for dinner.

They have more money now it seems, but I don't want to broach the issue, I was made to feel like I was wanting the food from their mouths!

Sorry that was my whinge for the day!

Yanbu but jail them and they lose their job and you lose any child support you may have got.

I want to praise the csa (I know shocking right!) as they found my ex was using his mothers maiden name to be paid into, threatened him with legal action for non payment and now take the money direct from source. I call up each year to ask for a check on his circumstances and they've pulled him up on 2 promotions. He is now paying what he should plus arrears.

Sorry posted too soon. Every contact I've had with the csa has been a really positive experience too

My ex is British but lives in the USA with a new family. Our ds1 is 19 now and he has not paid a penny for him.
CSA has no legality in the States so they were no help. It might be illegal not to pay child support in the US but only if the child lives there too, as we live in the uk ds1 has got nothing from his dad who lives a v nice life in the states. And believe me I tried the lawyers route to no avail.
IMO we continue to 'allow' fathers to get away with this and we allow people/media/mps to put down single mothers and blame us for the problems in society and with children.
It should not be socially acceptable to not pay for your children, but you rarely hear these fathers be taken to task for it.
Surely 2013 would be a good time for mothers (single and not) to come together and say "it's not acceptable to father a child and not pay for that child."

How do you "know" the father is filthy rich? Going on foreign holidays is not a reliable sign, could be he is hooked up with a wealthy girlfriend or won an amount on the lottery.

If a single parent s claiming benefits and meeting the needs of the child, then he/she is maintaining the child the money is his/ hers and they are entitled to claim it.

There are more benefit claimants who have paid in to the system than ones who haven't if you pay into it then use it, so what that's what it's for that's why we pay for it. Why demonise them and make claims that they arnt also supporting there child.

You work you pay tax and ni then you have paid in so if you then claim it is you supporting your child.

E320, in my case I know my ex is filthy rich because he took one of my houses and one of my companies and obviously I know how that does.

the thing is festive tax credits and aren't altered according to whether a NRP pays CS or not. so the PWC isn't claiming anything they wouldn't already be getting if a NRP paid CS. if you were to make it that unpaid CS was paid to the Govt upon death of NRP (from the estate of deceased) in the case where PWC was on benefits then those PWC who were on benefits and did get CS throughout are actually getting extra benefits than those whose NRPs didn't pay. it wouldnt be a fair system at all. its basically saying, if your NRP pays CS every month you get to keep it but of your NRP doesn't and we take it after they die you dont get to keep it. how is that right?

that should be tax credits and benefits aren't altered.

But if the parents were together and their combined income was too high for them to be able to claim child tax credits, then they wouldn't claim them and they woudo be supporting their children themselves. If they are separated and the PWC has to claim child tax credits to either look after their child, or pay for childcare so they can look after their child, then they are being subsidised by the state.

I don't agree that child support money isn't counted when it comes to claiming benefits, especially CTCs, because its still income. Unfortunately, it has to be that way because so many NRPs are unreliable when it comes to payments, and we shouldn't risk leaving the PWC with nothing.

That's why the money from the NRP should go to the state if CTCs are being claimed.