AIBU to just not understand why child maintenance works the way it does??

[Oreosaretasty]

I just don't get it. why do so many people get away with not paying? Especially the ones who pay and still see their kids? While I do not suggest withholding contact unless they pay (Wouldn't necessarily flame you for it either, but I wouldn't suggest it and can see arguments for and against...) Why is it so allowed and wide spread? What is the problem? AIBU to not understand it?
My main stance is, If I had a kid (Unfortunately I don't yet) and decided one day to not pay for the roof over their head, not pay for their food,school uniforms, travel/whatever else kids need. How long do you think social services would take to remove said kid...?
Not very long I'm betting.... So
I just cannot comprehend it!
AIBU to think people shouldn't get away with this??

" (£42 a week for 2 children..."
That's their lunch sorted then. What more could they possibly need ?

When my grandfather was made redundant that £64 a week was taken into account for benefits and no account was made for the fact that my father never paid a single penny. So all that happens is that my grandparents were £64 a week down before they even started.

This is what worries me! When I have to apply for things they always ask if I'm in reciept of child maintenance, I always say NO. Even though I am supposed to be getting it I never have, I don't want to be penalised for saying NO but I also don't want them to penalise me for saying YES when in reality I don't get anything. I do always explain circumstances face to face or on the phone but when it's a tick box on a form I always have to just say no.

Imo "in receipt of" means actually receiving. Otherwise they'd said entitled to surely? Could be wrong, don't take my word for it

seminormal Just double check every time.

My grandparents had a CSA ordered amount and that meant it counted as income. The assumption was if a government dept ordered it then it happened. So they used it as an income amount when working out housing benefit and benefits to live on. It was an absolute nightmare for them.

I shout very loudly now whenever the suggestion is made that we go back to the old system where maintenance counts toward benefits because it was awful.

That's their lunch sorted then. What more could they possibly need ? hmm

I always thought she'd get it when she had children of her own, but she's actually worse now. And from discussing random things with friends I've realised she's not alone.

That's why men get away with it so much I think, a lot of new wives/girlfriends not only accept it, but encourage it. If women ditched a guy for shirking his responsibilities to his kids it'd make a fair few more men think again!

My ex pays the minimum.
We both work ft and he thinks we co parent.
I guess he is pretty involved with the DC - EOWetc.

However the maintenance he pays doesn't even cover 50% of their after school etc childcare costs.

Better than those who get nothing but it still seems very wrong to me.

I remember after we split up, my ex took the car that I had bought (I have epilepsy) At the time, he was in the forces so paying maintenance. He was supposed to pay £250pcm maintenance and £168pcm for the car repayments as I never got the use of the car, his new girlfriend did instead. After about 6 months, he said he could no longer afford both so I had to use my maintenance to pay for the car

Thank God that approx 12 months later he wrote it off drink driving and the insurance paid out in full.

There are plenty of countries where people DO have the amount collected the same way as tax is, so it's a totally workable system. Of course, there are those who are self employed/cash in hand, but at lease everyone who did PAYE would be paying. If someone self employed was dodging the system, they could be chased by HMRC who DO actually bother to track down debtors.

It's not just the cost to the children of the non-paying parent (which is horrendous, deciding to leave your own kids in poverty ) but it also means that many resident parents are having to claim benefits/unable to afford childcare so that they can work.

The entire country would benefit from non-resident parents actually paying up to support their kids.

There was a thread on here once trying to add up the total amount of unpaid child support. The figures were huge - it's billions of pounds of accumulated unpaid support. That's billions of pounds of benefits the gov have paid out instead. That is enough to make taxes go DOWN, or to put into the NHS.

It's a huge moral embarrassment, but also a financial fuck-up.

And it would be relatively easy to fix.

To the poster who said RP's should provide receipts for the maintenance, gas, electricity, rates, mortgage/rent, food, clothes, school uniform all cost money and way more than maintenance any NRP I've ever heard of pays towards their DC. CM is supposed to contribute towards all these and everything in between that is the cost of bringing up DC.

I always feel rage whenever anyone thinks RP's should produce proof of what they spend the CM on, my kids are fed, clothed and attending school so I'd say I am spending a hell of a lot money of my DC & not so much on buying myself diamond shoes. 🙄

Maintenance should be tax deductible

Would that work for couples who are still together? I completely agree that paying less tax would be very helpful for all parents, but not sure that could work.

I couldn't respect a man who didn't pay maintenance for his kids.

We'rely now in the odd position of having the kids 4/5 nights out of 7, but still paying maintenance. His ex is still RP because she gets the child benefit, but also she doesn't have a great job and the kids still need a roof over their head when they are with her.
We also cover extra curricular, clothes and uniform.
We can afford it, and it's the right thing to do. I have a great relationship with the kids and would not deny them things that will improve their lives just because we pay maintenance. It's a minimum, which most people seem to forget.

Shark ad what do you mean? If they were together then they wouldn't pay maintenance?

no, of course you don't call it maintenance, but you still pay for your child? You can't make it cheaper for separated parents to raise their child than for married ones, that's all I meant, nothing more. I am not against tax deductible child costs at all, just not sure how realistic.

Oh I see. I suggested tax deductible as the payee will be covering contributions to two households in most cases.

I agree op. My son is 18mo and I've had the grand total of 20 quid. Ex lives 250 miles away now with his mother who pays for everything so he doesn't work or claim benefits. She doesn't even know she has a grandson and I've never met her.

He's never met ds and never once asked about my son's wellbeing. He asked me not to send any photos as he finds it upsetting so he's got one newborn photo and one of his first birthday. So he's pretty useless on every level!

Zuccarelli - I still think someone like that should be paying child maintenance. We really, really, should have a culture where anyone who has consensual sex is 100% liable for supporting the child. Doesn't matter if they didn't want/expect a child. If someone over 16 has sex without coercion, then they should be aware that they could become a parent, and be expected to support that child.

Even if someone doesn't claim benefits, I think they should be making a contribution (both to the child and by paying tax). They already pay tax when they buy certain goods, and they should contribute towards their kid.

Why should I pay higher tax to support children that are nothing to do with me when they have living parents to do that?

kickass you're right. It angers me that he won't pay and there's nothing I can do about it. It's just awful that so many people let their children struggle.

Peggy you clearly have no idea , do you have children? An extra bedroom for the child increases the mortgage and of course dc use extra electricity and food. Also you would put the heating on and use gas for s child when you wouldn't bother for yourself.

yes I do have kids and yes I do have an idea - I would like to see a fairer system because the system isn't close to being fair at the moment. the NRP needs all those things as well - not everything can or should be focussed on what the RP wants.. the NRP has a life as well.

gettingtherequickly

I guess the key words in your post are We can afford it what about those that cant?

The amount of women who crib about the maintance men pay to their ex is astounding.

Oh yes. Every time a thread about maintenance pops up, you'll get women griping that their 'D'H is forced to pay £££, even though his ex spends it on getting her hair and nails done, leaving the poster to work 97 hours a week to keep food on the table. And they always think 'D'H is a saint for paying the legal minimum.

*I don't really agree with the system and the way it is. I don't get that CM is a sliding amount which depends on what a person gets paid. Children don't need more money spent on them just because one parent gets paid more. If one parent decides to be a sahp the other should not have to pay for this decision - each parent should stand on their own feet so to speak.

I think all arrangements for parenting should be 50/50 by default unless there are extreme circumstances which mean this isn't possible. If one parent doesn't want to do 50/50 then they should make appropriate payments to the other person.*

Peggy* I can't imagine a system less likely to promote the best interests of the child.

Children don't need more money spent on them just because one parent gets paid more. This is simply fatuous. Nobody needs more than minimum food, a bare roof, access to state school, and a few cheap clothes. Is that what we should be providing for our children while we loll around in luxury ourselves? My husband is a high earner. Our children have access to experiences and a way of living because of that. If he leaves me, is it right that they now have to give up extra curricular activities, holidays, tutoring, schools, clothes, quality of food, internet access etc? Even though their father hasn't lost any income? And the mantra of divorce is "parents are getting divorced, not the children from the parents"

And starting off at 50/50 might not be in the best interest of the child. If a man moves away 100 miles - should the children now have to bilocate simply to facilitate 50/50 access? How do they get to school? Keep friendships? What if one parent has moved in with another partner immediately? Is it fine to have children move right in 50/50 as well?

Things are bad enough as it is, but these suggestions would guarantee that divorce harms children.

It's crap when they don't pay but a lot are not like that. You tend to hear the bad stories. My ex paid me £450 a months for 13 years and even after he didn't have to when my DD suddenly left college and got a jobs he carried on for 4 months to let me sort myself out financially.

But mytown, even if it's a minority who aren't paying, it's a significant enough amount of money which is being subsidized by the mothers and/or taxes.

the biggest benefits fraud in this country is the amount of non-paying nrp.
From separated dads (a website supporting dads, so likely to downplay figures, not exaggerate them)
"By late 2008, the CSA calculated the figure of those not paying to be 31% – that’s still over 172,000 cases"

Those are cases that the CSA knew about. They don't include people who know it's pointless trying to pursue support, or ones where the CSA didn't get as far as finding the dad to get income & make a calculation. Those are KNOWN cases.

That's 172,000 families (don't know how many children) struggling for money, or being subsidized by benefits when there is a dad who should be paying money.

It should be a matter of national shame that so many children are being financially abandoned by their fathers, who are getting away with it. 172,000 fathers are refusing to pay money that they owe to make sure that their kids have enough food, clothing and shelter.

Peggy can't afford to pay 25% of their income to support their kids?

Cut out a non-essential. Do without. If you choose to have a child you choose to support them.

can't afford to pay 25% of their income to support their kids?

you obviously have no idea what some people live on. what if you have a part time job earning nmw? some people I know have less than £100 a month to live on - do you think they can afford to give away 25% of that? some people are in this position through no fault of their own - its circumstance - lost a job, health issues etc. etc. seriously your absolutely fucking deluded.