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

In thinking that 4 billion owing in child support is a national disgrace?

145 replies

CreviceImp · 08/04/2016 12:50

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/absent-parents-owe-4bn-overdue-7025101

Scandalous....

Make the Petition section on here something you visit regularly.

OP posts:
Rainbowqueeen · 09/04/2016 02:46

As well as garnishing wages, no reduction in maintenance for subsequent children, maintenance debt being a debt for life (including payable by the estate if the debtor dies) and no ability to get a bank loan (not just a mortgage) if you have arrears in maintenance I would not allow a non paying parent to travel abroad if there was a debt.

There needs to be consequences rather than just swanning off into the sunset without a thought.

AyeAmarok · 09/04/2016 02:53

Good ideas Rainbow

Andrewofgg · 09/04/2016 03:00

Good ideas indeed where the NRP is in regular employment but those are the easy cases. A lot of them are not and will never have much hard cash and will leave jack shit when they die.

kickassangel · 09/04/2016 03:39

Let's not forget that the 4 billion doesn't include the amounts that would be owed by any parent who is self employed and not admitting all of their income. There are plenty of people on here who have exes who claim that they only earn tuppence a week but live a luxurious lifestyle.

Pisssssedofff · 09/04/2016 09:06

But then that's tax evasion which will all know is fine.

MsColouring · 09/04/2016 09:36

My ex chooses not to work in order to avoid paying anything - he has actually told my dh this when he met him. Not quite sure how he survives. He was vile to me in mediation about money because I got tax credits and he thought he should get the child benefit (I don't get tax credits any more) He considers that he 'provides' for the children as he has to buy things like DVDs for the when their at his and 'this all adds up you know'. I tried to get £5 a week from him but the CSA, when they existed said that because he has them the equivalent of one night a week then it is classed as 'shared care' and he doesn't have to cen pay that - that one was thrown in my face during mediation as well.

When we were dividing our assets, he wanted a bigger share as my housing needs have been met (through a massive loan from my parents and me paying a mortgage) and his haven't. I gave up on trying to fight this as it wasn't enough money to justify the court fees. He's taken me to court over contact (he wanted 50:50) and continued to pay a solicitor to hound me over anything he feels is unfair but never pays anything towards what the children need: uniform, shoes, trips, swimming lessons. He'll avoid taking ds to the first swimming lesson of term to avoid being asked to pay.

I gotta letter recently saying he owes me £140 according and would I be willing to write this off (clearly there is some target to reduce the amount of maintenance owed.

I can't do anything about it. There is no agency out there who can force him to get a job and pay for his kids. I can't change his attitude. So all I can do is graft hard and make sure my kids are provided for myself - at the cost of me spending time with my kids but if I spent my life getting bitter about this that would be good for no-one.

Pisssssedofff · 09/04/2016 09:53

This dickheads should come with some sort of warning sign .... Who raises men like this ... I would be mortified

MsColouring · 09/04/2016 09:56

I really feel there should be a complete overhaul of the family law system. So many use money and contact to punish the other parent and it works both ways. This is never going to happen though as it would take investment from the government.

Andrewofgg · 09/04/2016 12:00

As for Finland and NZ: I would be interested to know whether that law was introduced recently and did it make any difference to the proportion of NRP fathers who went on to beget other children?

And would it here? That can only be a matter of speculation.

But if the answer is No, would it not merely transfer hardship from one child to another? I can see why it might be considered is some way just but I am not sure it is a sound basis for social policy.

MsColouring · 09/04/2016 12:06

I think the poster you was commenting on her SD was given an unfair hard time on here and agree with the sentiments that transferring hardship from one to another isn't fair.

Having a system where a percentage is taken from the nrp's salary just simplifies the matter too much. It is never that simple which is why so many people try and avoid it. Arrangements need to be drawn up on a regular basis on what all parties can afford to give and reviewed regularly. There should be no ways of avoiding this.

Cantchangeusernameback · 09/04/2016 12:11

I have a friend who pays (quite a lot) informally for his DS, but his XW won't let him pay maintenance (whatever it's called these days) officially because she is claiming benefits while saying he doesn't pay. Very unfair on him as it's him who will be chased - stupid to agree imo but he did because he was worried she'd make access difficult. I have no idea how common this is but he tells me he knows other people who do it.

Arfarfanarf · 09/04/2016 12:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lalalalyra · 09/04/2016 12:22

chantchange That's madness because maintenance doesn't count toward benefits. It used too (to the detriment of kids like me), but it doesn't now.

The biggest issue with maintenance is that it's socially acceptable not to pay. Especially if the RP appears to have a decent life.

I also don't think that maintenance for first children should be reduced if a NRP has more children in a relationship. Everyone who haves children should think about if they can afford it and that shouldn't change just because someone is in a new relationship. Lots of people get arsey about 'why should a woman miss out on having children just because her partner had children before her?' but that's a decision that is to be made. You look at your income and you make the decision. You don't get to tell the mortgage company you are paying a percentage less because you are having a child so you shouldn't get to tell the first family they are getting less because of a choice you make.

Pisssssedofff · 09/04/2016 12:25

Exactly

cannotlogin · 09/04/2016 12:28

I don't think it should be claimed PWC spend 100% of their income on their children - without them I would still need a rod over my head, pay bills, a car, insurances etc. A certain amount is spent on me - my clothes, haircuts, my social life. An NRP has the same personal,costs.

The issue is, as you also point out, that with 3 children and and an ex who pays nothing, trying to save for the future (pension) is an issue and bigger expenses - my house will need a new roof (needs a new roof actually) and At my current saving's rate will take 10 years to pay for it. These things are worrying and cause me sleepless nights. If my ex paid even a small share of our children's costs, I would be able to juggle everything more successfully and it would be fairer.

Arfarfanarf · 09/04/2016 12:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pisssssedofff · 09/04/2016 12:34

I do spend 100% of my income on my kids and am in serious debt as a result of the times when he paid nothing.
I had a car and house when I met him, that's all gone now. Haircuts etc well yeah I have those but new clothes etc are a distant memory

MsColouring · 09/04/2016 12:52

As a resident parent, you just have to find the money somehow. If you can't afford something your child needs you find a way - hand me downs, charity shop, sell something, take on extra work, face the indignity of paying in installments for school trips etc. And it irks me that there is another perfectly capable parents out there who is fond of banging on about his rights who could, it he put his mind to it get a job, or do some casual work to ensure his kids don't miss out. It is a form of neglect.
Especially annoys me when I am sending them off for the weekend with shoes, coats, bags etc. all bought by me and I'm tending to send sets of clothes now as he makes a fuss when stuff he's bought (i think his sister buys most of it and a lot of it is too small!) ends up at mine.

Lemonblast · 09/04/2016 16:22

Can't change your friend is spinning you a line.
Maintenance is not means tested because so many NRPS are inconsistent when it comes to actually paying it.
So if you're considering having a child with this friend, he's fed you a load of bull Hmm

Lemonblast · 09/04/2016 16:31

NRP :'I refuse to provide my children with food, decent clothes and a safe and comfortable place to live'
No issue, encouraged and celebrated by new partners and family members.

RP : ' I refuse to provide my children with food, decent clothes and a safe and comfortable place to live.'
Abusive and neglectful. Inform social services. Burn the witch.

Ouriana · 09/04/2016 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mellowautumn · 09/04/2016 16:47

I think as a society we are stupid not to enforce this and it costs all of us huge amounts of money in the long term - most of the issues that come with 'single parents' and higher poor oucomes for children are related to the poverty that single parents find themselves in . Decent enforcement would cost relativly little and long term the social benefits could be huge.

MushroomMama · 09/04/2016 16:53

My ex is a permanent student or unemployed but no benefits living off whatever poor person is generous to give him

I've given up its so utterly demoralising and you get zero support from the child maintenance people.

It's so wrong and it's going to take some serious measures to change it but I can't see it happening

OrangesandLemonsNow · 09/04/2016 19:58

Maintenance is not means tested because so many NRPS are inconsistent when it comes to actually paying it

I do think however that if it got taken from source then they could very well end up including it in benefit/tax credit calculations.

cannotlogin · 09/04/2016 21:33

It does get taken at source. It is not an issue to get maintenance out of anyone who is PAYE (unless they work for someone prepared to break laws). It is difficult to get money out of the self employed, those who job hop, those who work for agencies and those who are in and out of work. Assets need to be worth more than £65k to be considered and this doesn't include property an NRP lives in. There is little to stop assets going into the names of new partners, siblings, parents, particularly if you have a good accountant.

Swipe left for the next trending thread