Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To expect to XH to be prosecuted over the £80,000 he owes in child support?

347 replies

CreviceImp · 22/03/2016 09:09

Bit of background. My XH has refused to pay child support for years. The CSA have been ineffective to say the least. There have been a couple of occasions whereby he has had some attachment to earnings made and payments have happened but not for years. I have given up my career as a teacher because I have a severely disabled child (and two others to care for) and have been her carer for years.He currently is self employed as a haulage driver.

The last conversation I had with the CSA (or whatever moniker they are currently using) I was told they couldn't find a firm address for him. I found one and passed it on but they said they needed absolute confirmation and they couldn't get it. I received a letter last week stating they had written to him to let him know he no longer had to pay child support but his arrears still stood. Seems they have an address after all.....

Having got my MP involved to no avail and written/contacted them numerous times AIBU to expect that he now be imprisoned for the years of what amounts to child neglect? He has refused to share the care let alone the financial burden.

AIBU to ask what this government is going to do to deal with this ongoing inequality towards women and children? I see no social justice.

OP posts:
SoftKittyWarmKitty · 25/03/2016 21:52

Your petition is being checked OP, so I'll sign once it's live.

I've got a very similar story to many on here - ex is completely non-compliant, refused to communicate or cooperate with CSA, remained unemployed for many years, got a job then left as soon as CSA caught up with him etc, but about two years ago they caught up with him. It took them another six months to set up a Deduction of Earnings Order but I've now been getting semi-regular maintenance for about 18 months, since DS was 8. Even now I half-expect him leave this job so he doesn't have to pay. He also owes about £8k in arrears. Oh, and chose not to have anything to do with DS and has never even seen him. NRPs like him are a complete disgrace and a stain on humanity.

KathrynL · 26/03/2016 16:24

I don't agree that men should be penalised (criminally) for not paying csa, not at all.

ElderlyKoreanLady · 26/03/2016 16:35

Why not Kathryn? A resident parent would be. Is it not neglect if you know someone with more immediate access to the child is forced to pick up the slack?

KathrynL · 26/03/2016 16:45

I just don't think it is that serious to warrant a criminal penalty. Some women get into relationships (and get pregnant) to men who they are know are a waste of space deep down but are then shocked when they up and leave, so in these cases I don't think they should have the right to have them criminalised.

starry0ne · 26/03/2016 17:09

I haven't signed petition as I am not sure this is the way forward... I think as pp poster from NZ states it needs to be linked to tax system.. THe CMS need to use it powers not just the easy targets...

I am really not sure this is the way forward, would be passed...

ElderlyKoreanLady · 26/03/2016 17:15

So it's actually the women's taste in men that's the problem Kathryn? Nice Hmm

novemberchild · 26/03/2016 18:00

Ah, yes. Somehow, it simply must always be a woman's fault !

HelenaDove · 26/03/2016 18:23

Yeah Kathryn .....they are immaculate conceptions and the men have no input at all .....the special snowflakes Easter Hmm

TheRegularShow · 26/03/2016 19:07

Really Kathryn you think it's not a big deal that some people don't provide for their children ?
It's ok that children can live in poverty as they are effectively living off one Income?

You don't think it's enough to be criminalised , if a RP neglected their children they would face charges.

Shocked that you don't think it's a big deal. I'd put money on it you have a partner who doesn't pay for their kids

ElderlyKoreanLady · 26/03/2016 19:22

I'd put money on it you have a partner who doesn't pay for their kids

That's what I deduced from that too sadly.

What a huge double standard. An NRP failing to support their child financially is not serious enough to be criminal, but a RP not spending what's necessary on their DC is a crime because the child wouldn't have a buffer between them and the neglect?

Micah · 26/03/2016 20:52

Will we be able to prosecute rp's who don't allow access or limit access to maximise cm too?

I agree with pp in nz about 50/50 too. At present even with 50/50, one parent is still classed as rp, and gets cm, cb and tax credits, while the other, even if they have them the same amount of time, doesn't.

splendide · 26/03/2016 20:57

Do RPs who repeatedly ignore court orders not get done for contempt of court? Genuine question.

TheRegularShow · 26/03/2016 21:09

This petition isn't about contact it's about NRP not supporting their children.
Why do people jump all over child support petitions and throw other situations in the mix which require different petitions and isn't relevant?

Of course RP who withhold access or dont follow court orders should be taken to court but just because some RP do this doesn't mean all NRP get out of paying and try and derail a petition for change to help a lot of RP not getting support.

It usually follows the pathetic argument I don't pay maintenance as she spends it on going out and getting her hair done.

Babynamechange · 26/03/2016 21:15

TheRegularShow exactly!

Micah · 26/03/2016 21:21

I mention it because it's about both parents.

Both parents should be entitled to equal parenting roles. Cm should only be payable if there is an unequal parenting division.

It is relevant because if this petition is followed and upheld, rp will be able to get nrp imprisoned for non payment of the parental obligations, while refusing to allow them to be a parent.

Personally i think that if an rp deliberately refuses or obstructs access, then cm should be withheld (maybe paid to a 3rd party to hold until agreement reached). As they are very rarely prosecuted or imprisoned for defying court orders, as it is detrimental to the children.

TheRegularShow · 26/03/2016 21:36

I disagree, withholding child support is usually something a NRP does as a power play to get what they want whether they are right or not and the RP has to agree to whatever they demand. It's a power play

If I was a NRP and was refused access I would still pay support to ensure I had done the right thing by my child.
Withholding support money is tit for tat and punishing the child.

starry0ne · 26/03/2016 21:47

It is often mentioned the child support and contact are separate issues..They are treated this way in court and so should be in this case...

Irrelevant of contact...A NRP should pay...there are enough avoiding it as it is...

ElderlyKoreanLady · 26/03/2016 22:13

Access and maintenance are separate for very good reasons.

What kind of messed up logic are people using when they punish their child by withholding maintenance because they've been denied access?

Add to that that there are legitimate reasons to withhold access (ie, safeguarding) but no such legitimate reasons to not pay for your children.

"S/he won't let me see the child" is an excuse for not providing and it's accepted far too readily. Often without knowing whether it's even true. I know my ex has been telling people he doesn't see DD because I won't let him, when what I've actually said is we need to discuss my safeguarding concerns in mediation and put measures in place so I'd know she's safe.

Toadinthehole · 27/03/2016 02:51

Actually the logic is clear: if a person can be excluded from meaningful contact from their children, why should they financially contribute?

I think it should be a criminal offence to evade the assessment or payment of child support, punishable as a maximum by imprisonment. However, I also think it should be a defence that access to the children has been unreasonably withheld. That defence should not remove liability to pay CS, only to the crime of evading it.

Babynamechange · 27/03/2016 10:42

There are nrps everywhere claiming that they're not allowed to see their children ... I guess as it gains sympathy and stops awkward assertions on their lack of care etc for their children. It's a good excuse to do nothing isn't it.

However the fact is that contact orders are almost always granted to nrps regardless if there's been domestic abuse etc. There may be a short period of time in a contact centre in these cases, but this is very temporary.

If an rp breaks a contact order, there is almost a zero tolerance policy on it regardless of whether it was due to safe guarding issues or not. Many victims of DV are terrified to break contact orders for this reason. If the NRP breaks a contact order, doesn't show up etc etc.... Nothing happens.

Maintenance orders are rarely enforced. Which is particularly tragic as the number one reason for poor outcomes for children in single parent families is poverty. Refusing to pay any child support or evading it as much as humanly possible is extremely common and sadly, as this thread has demonstrated, people are still all to eager to justify it. Child support is for the benefit of the child and leads to far better outcomes for that child. Not paying it is completely unacceptable.

ElderlyKoreanLady · 27/03/2016 12:06

Actually the logic is clear: if a person can be excluded from meaningful contact from their children, why should they financially contribute?

Because to withhold maintenance is punishment for a child who doesn't deserve to be punished and who has the right to support from both parents. Hmm

peggyundercrackers · 27/03/2016 12:45

Access and maintenance are separate for very good reasons

only in your opinion - as pp has already mentioned court deal with them already as a single issue and rightly so. legislation should be pulled together to deal with all child issues under a single act. if non payment is going to be thought of as abuse so should withholding access - one act could be seen as financial abuse the other as emotional abuse.

peggyundercrackers · 27/03/2016 12:46

Because to withhold maintenance is punishment for a child who doesn't deserve to be punished and who has the right to support from both parents. Hmm

and how can NRP support their child if they are being denied access?

ElderlyKoreanLady · 27/03/2016 13:17

Nobody here has said that denying access without there being any safeguarding concerns is acceptable, or even that it's not abusive Hmm

And financial support is a form of support. Ideally a child would receive financial support in the form of maintenance and other types in the form of access. Withdrawing all types of support because one is being denied only punishes the child in the long run.

Who is it close to you who claims s/he doesn't support their child financially because they don't have access then?

peggyundercrackers · 27/03/2016 13:48

Elderly do you mean me? I don't know anyone who withholds maintenance.

Swipe left for the next trending thread