Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

275 replies

ReallyTired · 30/12/2012 21:12

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.

OP posts:
pigletmania · 01/01/2013 20:49

YANBU I totally agree with you

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 21:06

I have no idea whether her cupboards are bare or if they are full. She's never told us. All I know is we struggle on my 1 wage but our cupboards and fridge always have the basics and we still scrape by the best we can. I don't know how much they earn, but they have two incomes coming in which is currently more than us. I really don't care about how wealthy they are or what luxuries they have as its none of my business (i'm not a new partner who is obsessed with ex's finances) but If I was to pay maintenance the kids would be living off crap here and that's not fair.

flippinada · 01/01/2013 21:15

YANBU - but I doubt it'll ever happen, unfortunately.

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 21:23

you've chosen to pool finances with a man who has children. if you haven't realised that means there will be money leaving the house to pay for those children until they're 18 then you haven't really thought things through have you? as i said, if you're happy to take on all his bills while he's out of work i dont understand why the first one you paid wouldn't be his children. i'd get rid of the phone, internet, tv, car and loads more before i'd stop paying for my dcs to be warm and fed. and if your DH isn't getting any out of work benefits it must mean you are earning enough to keep him. if he is getting JSA then his CS would surely come out of that money? not that it's an issue for you as you do 50/50

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 21:46

I know exactly what being with a man with children entails. And I believe I am doing my absolute best to ensure that although her father is out of work she still is well provided for and will be until she is an adult. My partner will have found work WAY before then though my gosh! I'll just let you know now that we don't have sky (we have freeview), our tv is one we bought when we could afford a tv, we have pay as you go phones and if we want to use the Internet then we go to families houses, so we're pretty savvy on how to save money and make sure the basics are catered for.

As for JSA, you don't have to be earning that much for your earnings to prevent your partner from receiving JSA.

Circumstances could may well change in the future. OH's ex could lose her job, or she could split with her partner and take a huge dip in income. My partner could be in a job then and she may well turn to my partner for
CS and fair enough. She'll be getting the financial assistance she needs. If its still the case that I am the sole earner though, then as harsh as it sounds I have my own household to run and can't afford to subsidise two. it's as simple as that.

Original poster
ReallyTired · 01/01/2013 22:08

I don't think its up to anyone to decide whether they support a child they brought into the world.

"If its still the case that I am the sole earner though, then as harsh as it sounds I have my own household to run and can't afford to subsidise two. it's as simple as that. "

Children need enough money to live and I feel that if man is supported by someone else then he can make a contribution to his children. The income of the ex or her partner is irrelevent. The fact is that the father created the child and should contribute to its upkeep.

If he cannot afford child support payments for exisiting children then prehaps he should be stertlised before he has babies with a new partner.

OP posts:
Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:13

no. not just your household. you and your partner's household and his children form part of that household. again, it's not an issue for you as you do 50/50 but if at some point in the future you are still the sole earner and SDC is with mum more of the time, meaning CS needs to be paid then you and your DH would have to adjust your outgoings to enable you to still provide for his children, jsut as you would adjust your outgoings to provide for your own children.

i'll put it to you this way. i have two children but no partner. if i was to bring a partner into my home to live who was earning above the threshold for me to be able to claim out of work benefits would you think it fine for him to just pay the bills and food for me and him and leave me to find some way of finding money for food and clothes for my dcs? he would be my partner, he would be supporting me financially but according to your logic he shouldn't be expected to support my dcs even though we are now a family and our household income has been assessed as a whole and not individually. he would say he loves my children as if they are family but he wouldn't pay for them to eat. does that not strike you as bloody odd!

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:16

Ahh ReallyTired, but when we had our child he was working so he COULD have afforded the payments, had his ex wanted the money but she didn't. Circumstances change and it's unfair to come to the conclusion that my child should not be here due to his father now having zero income. He'll have another job before you know it, and then if his ex wants maintenance she'll get it.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/01/2013 22:19

It's a it different if you are not living in the same household as the child.

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:22

the children still exist and need to eat whether they live with you or not. the same way the ones that live with you need to eat.

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:24

Lol Booyhoo, how many times do I need to tell you, I AM paying my
partner's child to eat! If you had a live in partner he would do the same
but only when your children are with you! I have no idea if your children see their father or not, but if you had a partner he would be paying for your household only and would therefore be paying towards the upkeep of your children. Nothing wrong with that. If your children are with you full time then he'll be paying more. Again nothing wrong with that.

If my partner's daughter was here full time I would be inevitably be paying
more for her upkeep. My son is here full time and therefore I plan his meals for 7 days as opposed to 4.

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:25

paying for my partner's child to eat**

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:30

and as i've said many times, we aren't talking about your situation as you have 50/50 agreement and CS isn't necessary! we are talking about a situation where the child spends majority of time with 1 parent so the other has to pay CS!

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:31

you dont seem to be getting what i'm saying because you are thinking of it fro the situation you are in (50/50-no CS paid)

Original poster
ReallyTired · 01/01/2013 22:35

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass

I am not suggesting you get rid of your existing child. I am suggesting that you have no further children. I assume that you were aware that your partner had a child before you got together.

Your partner needs to fund existing children whether they live with him or not. If you are supporting your partner then I feel that your family needs to contribute to support the other child. Your partner cannot live on air and either can a child.

Under my scheme your partner would be put in jail if he failed to make a certain level of contribution. (say £50 a month) A SAHM parent does not have zero income. It would be up to him to find that minimum contribution somehow if he is not working.

Prehaps the state should find some additional workfare for him to do if he is having real trouble finding the money. Ie. 10 hours a week community service cleaning up dog shit in return for the state paying.

OP posts:
SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:36

Okay then, of a full time £700.00 wage from an apprenticeship, how much do you suppose I would have to pay if the contact arrangements were different? Bearing in mind we pay full rent, council tax and all of the other necessary bills, which basically leaves us with not that much really? We get a bit of tax credits.

Would £20.00 a week do? Or is that a pittance? Because I'm now trying to establish just how much you would expect someone in my position to be paying.

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:41

ReallyTired, I'm not even going to take you on with that dog shit comment, other than snigger at it.

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:42

i couldn't honestly tell you what would be appropriate. that's why i suggest the Govt work out a national minimum figure for what should be paid in CS teh same way they're able to work out the cost of living, they should be able to work out the cost of raising a child and average it out across the country so that anyone having children will know that no matter what their circunstances they have to pay £X amount per week/month for their child instead of being able to say "oh well i'm not working so i dont have to pay anything as 15% of nothing is nothing"

borninastorm · 01/01/2013 22:46

We are talking about children here, little helpless people who we have brought into this world and who rely on us, their parents, for everything. The children did nothing to cause the breakdown of the relationship, they just want and need to be looked after and loved by the adults who created them.

If you are willing to bring a child into this world then you should be willing to pay for and provide for that child.

Children are not created by women alone and should not be provided for by women alone. And women should not be stigmatised for raising children alone. Men should be stigmatised for not supporting their children.

If you get into a relationship with an NRP don't let him hide his wages behind you, don't help him to not provide for his child. He's happily not provided for one child, he could just as easily and happily not provide for the children you have together should your relationship break down for whatever reason.

And please consider the emotional damage the financial (and often emotional) denial by men of their children does to these children.

I honestly cannot believe that we live in a society that enables men to not provide for children they created. It is appalling and every single man who does not help raise his child, financially and emotionally, should be ashamed. And if you live with a man who does this you should be ashamed of yourself and him.

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:51

Well why don't you put the idea across then, if of course you haven't already done so. Why don't you also tell the govt to start getting the CSA to pursue new partners for CM? I'm really interested to know how they'd go about doing that.

ReallyTired, I am 2 months away from giving birth to mine and OH's second child. He lost his job when I was 5 months pregnant. Not ideal to be having another baby whilst he's out of work, but how were we to know that circumstances were going to change?

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass · 01/01/2013 22:54

borninastorm, I'm assuming your post doesn't apply to me?

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:55

well said bornina. although i would like to add that women are doing this aswell as men.

that's why i think it should be possible for the Govt to insist the person financially supporting the non working/non benefit claiming NRP should be liable for the CS. i think it would make ALOT of people think twice before moving in with a person who doesn't pay for their children if they thought they would have to pay for it themselves. i also think it would make it harder for people not to pay CS unless they were lucky enough to meet someone who was more than happy to pay for their children. and NRPs who didn't pay would hopefully end up thinking it's too much hard work trying to say i have no money (if they were having to prove how they were surviving) and would just either come clean and pay or claim benefits and pay.

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 22:58

it isn't on their radar at all sowhat. if there was likely to be a genuine effort by the Govt to focus on solutions to this problem i would definitely get involved and put it forward but at the minute it just isn't being considered at all. they're more interested in washing their hands of the responsibility of making NRPs pay by actually charging the parents who are just trying to get what they are owed from non compliant NRPs.

Booyhoo · 01/01/2013 23:00

i don't think born's post applies to parents who are paying for their dcs sowhat your DH has his dd half of the week and is paying his share.

borninastorm · 01/01/2013 23:04

sowhat as you and your DP share custody of the SC then it doesnt apply to you.

booy I do appreciate that women do it too and should have put that in my post. Sorry.