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??

It's so biased towards men in this country. My db had custody of his dc from 3-16 yrs. He lived with our DPs till dc was 12/13 & worked fulltime evenings & weekends. My DPs practically brought up his dc & he paid £20 to them for their keep! He is treated as a saint by all family when hi a ex-wife is vilified for not having dc live with her. She had/has mental health issues but had dc every weekend & most holidays. No maintenance paid though. Such double standard's are rife in UK. DB wasn't a great parent & he choose his new girlfriend over the dc who went to live with their DM at nrly16 as couldnt get on with dads new gf. People think he is amazing for taking on his own child while women are just expected to as its part of being a parent. Gives me the rage

Aye I sort of get what you're saying, but kids can and do adapt. Circumstances change for all sorts of reasons.

I know that talking about specifics isn't always especially helpful, but the friend I mentioned previously was in the position whereby his ex-wife decided that she didn't want to be married to him anymore (fair enough) but that she quite liked the lifestyle she was afforded when they were together - big house, 2-3 holidays a year, mini-breaks, German cars.

He had to go to court to get his own daughter's passport because his ex-wife thought it unfair that he could take the children on holiday overseas(one was a step-son) , yet she couldn't.

The NRP will be answerable to his/her children at some point.

Sorry haven't RTFT so someone may have already mentioned this, but the state I live in has child support system in place where you pay to the court (generally directly taken out of your paycheck) and if you get only three months behind the courts issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested you aren't let out until you pay the full three months (or however much) of arrears. Also some cases are worked out in court if you can prove why you didn't pay and how you plan to pay - breaking this agreement lands you back in jail. (Not having a job does not mean you don't have to pay, they calculate a payment regardless as the system says if you can manage to keep yourself fed the you should be able to do so for your children)

It may seem like a very strict system, but as the OP said, if a mother did this and failed to provide support for her children for three months she would be in jail for years for child neglect and lose custody. It's been this way since my state was founded so it's not really a new system....it's more about the culture of the place in many places and if the men hold other men to a high standard. No one is exempted from this, so you can't be wealthy or well connected and skate through without paying.

Once a year the local newspapers take out a full front page with a story called "Lost Dogs" with pictures and names of the men who have the highest in unpaid child support and have gone MIA. I know many other states/cities across the country do their own version of this. Public shaming is a very powerful motivator.

Perhaps a charity or woman's group could pool resources and do the same thing in UK cities? No doubt the men would cry their human rights were being violated by abandoning their children and not supporting them and then being called out on it.

I have a private arrangement with my ex and he pays over the CSA suggested amount.

I know I'm lucky, he also pays for other stuff to dance, clubs etc

My best friends ex husband earns £120,000 a year but works abroad and will only give her £200 a month for two kids! He comes home and they idolise him as he flashes the cash, iPods, iPhones etc and she's struggling to pay the bills

I feel for you all that get nothing, I just don't understand why more cant be done.

and what i can't get over is it is calculated at 16% (less I think percentages off if they have them for for X overnight stays)!!!

It's disgusting 16% for the children and 84% for the NRP!!

Like to see how many RP only spend 16% of their salary on bringing up their children.

Some people will do anything to get out of paying, say they are self employed, students or whatever whilst driving around in a range rover and having 8 holidays in a year (my ex!!) and pay nothing for their children.

thank god we live in a country that does offer some financial support in hard times!

Yes - but other countries/states with less social welfare just make sure that NRP DO pay. Which actually seems like the best system. It really does seem fair that parents are the first people to step up and support their kids, not the govt.

also - and I know this won't apply to every NRP - but people are more likely to stay in contact and build a good relationship with their kids if they are paying. I know it's seen as a weakness of humanity. but people often invest more emotion when they've paid in money. It must benefit the kids emotionally as well as practically to know that both parents support them and have contact with them.

Tbh I used to be so bitter about my ex not paying but to be honest after seeing my friend having to take on a seconed job after her exs stops paying when she dose somthing he dosent like

He agreed to pay for gymnastics and dancing she could only afford this with his help every time she is "naughty" he punishes her her by not paying I couldn't be arsed to be blackmailed like this

all childrens basic needs are the same - if you want a better education and want to pay for it that is a choice not a need. if you want to feed them food from a 5 restaurant that is a choice not a need. if you want to give them a gold plated bedroom with a shiny ball in it that's a choice not a need.*

Fair enough Peggy. lovely description of difference between choices and needs. Any man who has plenty of money, spends it on his children while married but refuses to do so once he is divorced is a shit. And any legal system that facilitates that is anti-child and will definitely ensure that children are both materially and emotionally affected very badly by divorce.

Needs I'm not sure it is. If the basic needs weren't being met, then yes. But if they were

a household where children are being maintained at basic need levels but the parent has a significantly disproportionate lifestyle is considered to be a big issue.

Canyou I absolutely see your point; however, the couple of men I know that are relative high earners, have both paid maintenance at the required level. In one instance, the maintenance was sufficient to enable the mother to continue to be a SAHM post-divorce. She complains that the maintenance isn't sufficient so as to enable her to provide the same standard of living as the ExH does (trips to Florida, activities, etc.).

That's why I think that there's more merit in my initial suggestion than first appeared. It would (to my mind) fix so many of the issues surrounding maintenance.

I honestly think that there would be very few men who wouldn't go above and beyond the minimum if they were able to.

i dont get it my exs excuse for not paying a fucking thing is that he doesnt think i would spend it on dd well thats stupid because i always spend money on her she fucking eats sleeps and has clothing doesnt she?

his wife thinks my ex husband should pay for her because i married him therefore she is his responsibility

i was single till she turned 7 what about the other six years of non payment?

MaliceInWonderland78 you obviously get what I'm on about, canyou needs to take her blinkers off.

It's so annoying! My sister is constantly battling with her ex over maintenance...... His answer is always if you are skint then you should claim more benefits!!!
When she said she couldn't afford to look after her he told her he would take her full time then.... Sh asked how he would afford that when he can't even afford maintenance and he said well I'll get all the benefits!!
I think he thinks they just hand out as much as you fancy!!

I am owed over £32,500 in maintenance and will never see a penny. He has no contact, never sends a card or gift yet every few years sends me a message demanding 'his right to contact' but nothing more. The children are now teen/pre teen, they don't know him - this was his doing!

smiley

Sounds like my ex. When I mentioned that what he was paying wasn't enough he told me to give him custody. Ha as if!

I wish people would stop coming on here with one or two examples of men who pay above the minimum!

The figures for the lack of payment are astronomical. We're not talking about a small %%. The gov. agencies themselves report huge amounts of non payment (that means NOTHING - NRP being willing to let their kids starve to death rather than pay a fiver even). There are even more NRP not being reported or chased up because the RP knows it is pointless and/or will open the door to abuse.

Given the gov. figures, and what is known about the numbers of unreported non-payers, we're talking about 50% of NRP give no money at all to support their kids.

That doesn't even begin to cover the NRP who pay the minimum, or around that, but could afford to pay more but choose not to. What kind of a shit person thinks that giving their kids the most basic form of support is OK? Who doesn't love their kids enough to want them to have the best they can afford?

And we haven't even begun to discuss how so often the RP gave up a job (and they may have wanted that, but it doesn't change the financial situation) to bring up kids. The NRP then has all the money, and suddenly it becomes just for them, instead of family money, and the RP and kids are left completely at their mercy, or relying on benefits.

The problem is KickAss is the relative nature of the current arrangements. I pay the 'minimum' ignoring the fact that I'm also paying the mortgage at the moment and a couple of direct debits for insurance and AA membership and the like which I (and the govt. presumably) believe is sufficient. This should be the minimum. Most right thinking parents want to do more than that for their kids (as do I) but I don't necessarily believe that paying additional maintenance is the way to do it.

This should be the minimum. Most right thinking parents want to do more than that for their kids (as do I) but I don't necessarily believe that paying additional maintenance is the way to do it.

Uh huh, except that 50% of NRP fathers pay NOTHING. The vast majority of the rest pay the minimum. So while it's nice that you think so highly of your fellow men that they would pay more, the evidence suggests the opposite it true.

MaliceInWonderland78 you obviously get what I'm on about

I do too actually. You are on about women using their ex's money to fund their lifestyle.

I am on about a child's right to be maintained by her father.

I am on about a child's right to be maintained by her father.

a child can be maintained by the NRP but that doesn't mean the NRP needs to give more money to their exP. I'm sure many NRPs can think for themselves and work out what their children need, they don't need someone else making all the decisions for them then holding them to ransome and getting lots of hostility from the RP.

I spend £32 pounds a month on myself, plus occasional clothes. By virtue of having a DS, virtually all the rest of my (perfectly reasonable) income goes on him. If I were childless, I would be able to work longer hours and earn more, would eat differently, would be able to live in shared accommodation, would not spend £££ on childcare every month, and so on. The maintenance I get from DS dad covers our collective food for the month. It does not cover anything else of the day to day (though he does pay for flights when needed).

A German friend told me recently that a kindergarten in Germany would cost about 1/4 of what it does here. About time this was sorted out in the UK.

I agree with criminal sentences for Wastrel parents who don't pay, and/or public derision.

Frankly, it amazes me that such an important social issue hasn't been solved yet. The cost to the exchequer/taxpayer must be huge.

I don't think there's a magic bullet, but there are a number of simple things that could be done:

1. Move towards a default 50:50 (thereby doing away with the notion of primary carer)

1. Make better use of HMRC systems to deduct from source any payments that are due (where parents mutually agree not to do 50:50)

1. Allow arrears to accrue with amounts owed (to the State) never written off. Passports not renewable whilst arrears are outstanding

1. Tougher sanctions for wilful paternity fraud

1. Public naming and shaming of errant parents

1. Fixed maintenance due regardless of income.

Not everyone will agree with those, but it's at least a suggestion/start.

So after all this discussion Malice you still think high earning men should only have to contribute the bear minimum to keep their children alive.

Cool.

"The cost to the exchequer/taxpayer must be huge."

And the children. You know, the ones who are struggling because their NRP wants to twist the rules or make new ones so that they can pay as little as possible.

My point Aye was that meeting the needs of children is broadly fixed. I no more agree with low earners paying derisory amounts (hence my suggestion that the State should pay and that arrears should accrue) than I do with high earners paying more than is required to meet the needs of their offspring.

I'm prepared to be persuaded, but I think a legal requirement to do the minimum is reasonable. A moral obligation beyond that? Absolutely!

I just do not believe that paying maintenance (over and above the minimum requirements) is the only way of ensuring that your children benefit from your higher income.