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

[CreviceImp]

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.

peggyundercrackers

'Access and maintenance are separate for very good reasons'
'Only in your opinion'

actually it's the law contact and maintenance are separate issues, a parent who isn't legally able to have access to their children still has to financially provide for them.

I do peggy. IME, those who ignore the obvious effects that withholding maintenance has on the child are biased due to feeling the need to justify the actions of someone close to them. Apologies if I've got the wrong impression, but there's a child at the centre of every maintenance case any any parent who chooses not to support their child financially is neglecting their duty to that child. There's no excuse for it, access related or otherwise.

TheRegularShow Actually the father of my children does contribute to my children.....he's called my husband. We both work but I only work part time and that's only recently so we have lived off one income and we have managed ok, so why can't a single parent?

Are you for real Kathryn ?

So in your opinion a single parent should have full financial responsibility and just get on with it?

The thing is, if access is withheld where a court order is in place and the RP can't demonstrate solid proof of good reason (safeguarding concerns are generally not a good enough reason), it is considered emotional abuse...

Not paying child support, court ordered or otherwise, is not. It is very much 'meh' with an 'oh well' attitude and generally very little is done to enforce.

Not paying child support, in any educated circles is recognised clearly as financial abuse. A way of punishing the RP with no regard for the child. Sadly in our victim blaming culture and within the court system, this is overlooked.

Well done OP. Annoying that I can't sign at the moment but I will keep checking back until I can and will advertise on my Twitter account. My ex is self employed and has refused to pay for nearly 4 years. He owes thousands. I know your frustration, it's so unfair that the SE are getting away with it so easily.

Kathryn the reason why you have been able live off one income is because you were at home looking after the children enabling your husband to work...I'm guessing full time. With all childcare and family logistics taken care of by you.
How would he have faired if you hadn't been there, or indeed how would you have faired if you had to support your children single handedly on your income alone, having to pay for childcare while you were working etc etc etc...

The CSA is worse than useless, they came after me the stupid twats. They wanted me to pay myself maintenance of £40 a week.
I was happy to let it go to court but they discovered their mistake and dropped the case.

My gs1's dad avoids payments through csa most months. He sometimes pays nothing, or pays ridiculously short. CSA always tell me I will get it next month, whilst happy for my gs to go without. They seem to miss the point that their role is to alleviate child poverty and put the child first and not support nrp's right to new designer jackets and iphones.

They tell me that if he rings and offers £50 per month, then they will take that. The CSA can only pass on what they receive and if the NRP decides to pay ridiculously short, then that is tough and they consider their job done. Yes, there will be arrears, but for the month he paid £70 rather than £250, he can pay it off over four months. Yes, this is putting the child first CSA style.

They get him to set up a direct debit, but it fails when there is nothing in his account (yes, on payday) and we have to start the process again. They are aware he is playing the system and said he is a father who genuinely does not want to pay for his son.

I move to CMS in August and will lose 4% of his money. Whilst the NRP will have to pay, they are trying to force me to agree between ourselves. What?? If he cannot pay when they are on his back so to speak, what chance do I have without this protection?

Yes, the CSA are absolutely dire, but without them, my gs would get absolutely nothing at all.

Oh wow @ Kathryn although I have no idea why I'm surprised. I suspect you are the same person who recently said all single parents are disgusting for bringing up their children in chaotic households.... ....do you think that no single parent ever had a husband that you need to tell us what one is???!!

at Kathryn

Can you really not work out that it would be a bit more difficult to survive on one salary if that salary had to pay for FT childcare AND all the costs of a home? Are you not very bright?

She must be goading as no one can seriously think it's acceptable that a single parent be left with sole financial responsibility.
Either that or she not being entirely truthful about whether her husband has previous children he doesn't pay for.

Bit rich, Kathryn, moaning at single parents for expecting an ex to pay for a child they created when you're sat at home making no contribution to your children? What would happen if your husband had decided he wasn't going to contribute because you weren't bothering? By your logic that would be reasonable, I think?

ElderlyKoreanLady

(in response to your reply to me)

I think of this issue not so much in moral terms but practical ones, ie, increasing compliance when it comes to child support. If the State denies a parent any custody or contact, or not enforcing custody orders, it basically alienates them from having a relationship with their children in any meaningful sense. To paraphrase Marx, it reduces their bond to their children to a callous cash nexus. Taking their money without ensuring they get to see their children positively invites them to refuse the only part of the relationship they are allowed to fulfuil: ie, pay. I know - not very rational of constructive, but a very human sort of reaction, and I think most NRPs are human too.

Morally I agree that child support and custody/access should be treated as separate issues. And of course custody/access should be in the child's best interests, ie, risk of abuse = no contact. But as a matter of practicality, it seems to me that child support is more likely to get paid of both parents continue to be involved in the life of their children. For example, where I live it is quite common for one parent to have, e.g. 2/3 care and the other 1/3 care, with the 1/3 carer (who presumably earns more) paying a redued amount of CS to the 2/3 carer. I think it is far less likely to get paid if one parent is reduced to a cash cow.

Toad-in-the-hole.
When it comes to child maintenance the usual myths of Cash cow , living off exh money are thrown about but if people actually researched the statistics of child maintenance they would find out they are helping NRPs who don't pay carry on these myths.

From gingerbreads website on child maintenance
' the majority of single parents receive no maintenance'
'41% of single parent children live in poverty '

If there is RP living off exh maintenance it will be extremely low % as most single parents get nothing , and if they do it's usually a minimal amount due to NRP lying about their income.

I find it really insulting when people throw these terms about when they have no idea the amount of people getting away paying nothing, and if a single parent gets anything they are made to feel like they are living off exh money.

I'm sorry for your situation. I have no desire to offend and I apologise if I have done so. As I said earlier, my view is that evading CS should be a criminal offence (just the same as tax). Having read your posts, it's people like your XH who I think would be caught by that offence.

Neverthless, I understand that in the UK, the family courts' (very old fashioned) approach is typically to award custody to one parent only. If what your post says is correct, all it does is prove my point.

Not ignoring you Toad, I've just had a good amount of and wouldn't do the discussion any justice if I replied now

toad. Why do you assume non-paying NRP are being denied access to their children? My ex and I have been through a number of arrangements - shared care (where I paid all childcare, school uniform, shoes, haircuts etc. etc), abandonment on the part of the ex for an 18 month period (just disappeared, no contact, never picked up the phone, reappeared when relationship broke down), every other weekend and one night in the week.......he regularly 'threatens' to move away because 'you don't need me' (aka I have got on with life, pay through the nose for childcare and otherwise cope).....he has never paid maintenance (except under severe duress detailed up thread) and has no intention of doing so. You would have to ask him why as I learnt a long time ago that conversation about money = guilt = abuse.

There is no conspiracy on the part of the state to deny him the ability to fully support his children. These are his choices. I don't comment. I don't offer opinions. His girlfriend is welcome to turn up at parent's evening. I don't bad mouth him - the children love being with him. I am entirely as no contact with the man as I possibly can be 'cos he's not nice and my life is easier with him at arm's length.

In my experience this experience is not unusual. He has every opportunity to fully support his children. He doesn't. Why do you think that is?

Out of interest as this makes my blood boil,l and NRP is stealing from their child, is there any lea way in English Law (I am in England) for a child to take out a civil suit at maturity? As they can in medical negligence cases.

Even better if they could have someone take one out on their behalf before maturity.

I'm not in your situation but when I hear men that don't pay for there children it makes me so angry. I do feel that they are let off far to easy, they should be prosecuted for not paying child maintenance.
When they agreed to have a children they became responsible for that child and should bloody well pay child support.

toad. Why do you assume non-paying NRP are being denied access to their children?

My point is that UK family courts will typically award custody to one parent only. Here, family courts will typically award shared care unless one parent doesn't want it. It appears to lead to better outcomes when it comes to paying child support. By awarding custody to one parent only, you deny the paying parent a meaningful relationship with their children. I find it unsurprising that the paying parent then doesn't pay up.

Nothing in this implies that it is morally acceptable to evade child support, something which I believe should be a criminal offence. However, I do think that taking a very moral position is useless if it fails to reduce child support evasion.

In my experience this experience is not unusual. He has every opportunity to fully support his children. He doesn't. Why do you think that is?

I don't know your situation so it would be ridiculous for me to speculate.

Whether the child has contact with the nrp or, and whatever reason that may be, the child STILL EXISTS, still needs to be housed, fed, kept warm, clothed, needs transport at least to and from school, etc. The child's need to be cared for doesn't stop just because contact doesn't happen.

That is why contact and cs are separate issues and should remain so.

Just received notification that the petition has been rejected. because apparently its already possible for people to be sent to prison for non payment.
I have never heard of that happening though.

Cannotlogon of course children are denied access to the NRP - just because it doesn't happen in your case doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. Some of the thread on here about people leaving partners is frightening given the way they think of their children. There are lots of examples on here where the ro won't give access to the nrp for lots reasons - most of the reasons ar total nonsense as well.

Toad your posts make lots of sense. Family courts here need to stop treating one parent as an accessory - Barring abuse all care should be shared unless one parent doesn't want it - parents should be made to make it work end of.

Ok we can work on wording for a new petition.