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??

Bert Yes, and the children. But we know that won't (sadly) be the driver for change.

FWIW, (I'll say it again). I'm happy to pay what I'm told.

Don't castigate people for paying the minimum Less than the minimum yes. But not the minimum. I say this as someone who currently pays twice the minimum

My dp's ex left him. She took their child. In the divorce hearing she was awarded 75% of the house. She had already taken all the savings, plus dp gave her 22k (half of an inheritance he received) without being told to. She also took a lot of money from the joint account which was overdrawn. In total she got somewhere in the region of £150k. This money was to house and support her and their dd until dd was 18.

During the divorce dp had a serious accident which meant he was off work. He was seriously ill and it took me six long months to sort benefits. Now bearing in mind she'd already been awarded all this money and taking into account we had no income, she then made a claim for child maintenance. And somehow, I don't know how, it got taken from MY ESA.

She moved not long after, out of the area and into her bf's house. His house is mortgage free, she has a massive amount of money in the bank, a good job, decent pension and we are living in rented accomodation we are struggling to pay and she still wants more. She's also stopped all contact after us having his dd eow, plus holidays and extra days ad hoc. Of course she then told the CMS he doesn't have overnights any more and got the payment increased.

I have zero respect for this woman. She lied in Court, told them she needed that money to pay rent and then moved in with her boyfriend, had already made a school application for her dd in the new area (found out after) and has done everything in her power to remove dp from their dd's life.

It's all about the money for her. Dp was her third husband/long term partner and she's managed to gain money every time. I feel sorry for her current bf.

Don't get me started on this! I have around £7.5k of arrears and guess what, CMS have funnily enough written to me today saying they are considering legal action! Oh after the CSA failed attempts at this?! How are they going to do that then and if I don't reply within 7 days telling them any information I have (which they already had 100000 times) then they won't do it!!

What I don't understand is how they can't enforce a liability order already approved by a court?!

It's a very simple process for the court to issue a bench warrant. As I said in my previous post it's only 3 months in arrears you need to fall behind and you are going to be picked up. You would be SHOCKED at the effectiveness of this simple process....break the law (court issued order) and go to jail.

Just as you or I, or anyone on the street would go to jail for any other issue we had went to court for and the judge issued a sentence so to speak. Jail for almost all men and women is a huge deterrent. This only applies to the amount decided by the judge of course, not any overage.

But regarding a minimum living wage for children no matter the income of the parent, I mean that's a bit like everyone paying the same tax regardless of income, except your kids are more important than taxes. I'm pretty sure the guys making 10k pounds a year or whatever are not going to be very happy that the guys making 250k pounds a year have the exact same support payment. Would definitely cause social unrest and much more resistance from those in the working class already not paying or getting an increase.

And how would you decide what is the minimum living wage for a child? Would it be town by town, because cost of living can vary just based on a few streets over - as can food and transportation costs, daycare costs, clothing, fuel for the car etc. And as they get older their social activities, sports, camps etc really start to add up and I would call that a basic need - kids need physical and mental activity which they don't always get at school. Plus the food bills increase dramatically once they hit about 11-17. Would they factor in the average cost for each child to have a bedroom in the town/city they live in - because RP have to have extra bedrooms while NRP do not, and that is a huge living expense.

So it should be based off income although our structure is much different than yours....and I think along with the responsibility of paying a % of income, you should have the right to go to court and challenge the RP if you truly believe they are spending it on alcohol, gambling, drugs etc. things you can prove have no benefit to the child. In those cases the NRP gets at least temporary custody of the children and payments obviously stop. Then the NRP would have to pay the new RP.

(That's how it works here at least, and to the PP who said that parents who invest in their kids actually have more contact and interest in them, this is very true - the amount of men willing to go and take custody for the sake of the child increases a thousand-fold in these situations....if they had been absentee and skipped out on paying they would never care or even know if the children were being neglected)

I am really against witholding contact for non payment. My mum did this when I was a child. I didn't see my dad for 8 months. It was not fair on me, and I was basically being used as a pawn.

coffeeisnectar so you think that
A) because your DP is the injured party in the breakdown of his former relationship, he no longer has any financial obligation towards his children?
B) because your DP's ex was awarded a greater share of their joint assets, your DP no longer has any financial obligation towards his children?
C) because your DP isn't as well off as his ex, your DP no longer has any obligation towards his children?

IneedAdinosaurNickname - I get maintenance because the CSA take it straight from his benefits. Actually I think that's ended and I need to start a new claim via the CMS

I've just had to do this with my eldest's father. It cost me £20 to arrange. Go figure.

cannotlogin

of course I don't. But she knew we had no money, she knew we were living on the bare bones of benefits and I have my dc as well. She still decided to make a claim before he got back to work and basically made us worse off. We were still buying his dd clothes despite being absolutely broke. I just think she could have waited until dp was working. And he wasn't just 'not well'. He nearly bloody died. He was in the high dependency unit for four days and then four days on a ward and only kicked out of hospital because it was Christmas. We had NO income for six months. We survived on charity handouts and foodbanks. And as soon as we got the benefits they were reduced to pay her. You really have no idea of the stress we were under for two years struggling to pay for everything. And the weeks we offered to have his dd in the summer holidays, his ex suddenly decided to send her on a summer camp (costing hundreds) so we couldn't see her. So yes, I was seriously pissed off that a) we couldn't afford to buy any basics for ourselves and b) she used the money she got to keep her dd away from dp. Who is going to turn down a fun holiday for a fortnight at home with her dad?

On the whole I agree with everyone on this thread that dads should pay for their dc. But my dp would happily have his dd live with us. He wouldn't even want maintenance from his ex. He just wants to have time with his dd. But by withdrawing contact to ensure she gets the maximum amount of money (after stating in court that contact was ongoing and no court order was needed) I think some women use their children to screw over their exes.

FWIW I don't claim for my dc. I wanted my kids and I don't want my ex to pay for them because he can't be bothered being in their lives. If he wants to go and live child free he can crack on but I'm quite happy knowing I've brought my dc up on my own, that I've gone without to provide for them and they are just fine. Without him and without his money.

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

Do you think this will result in children also doing away with the "notion" they may have in their individual lives of a primary carer?

What this thread has taught me is:

1. Children really do suffer from divorce

1. I would not (and did not) have a child unless I could support it myself because you can't rely on another human being to be decent even about something as visceral as rearing a child.

1. In divorce people talk "best interests of the child" but they very rarely mean it. They usually mean "things change, children have to deal with it - it is all part of growing up isn't it" (really want to add Fuckers after this one)

1. Many adults are incredibly selfish.

1. The desire to stop your ex benefitting from your money often outweighs the instinct to feed your children. (this is the one I find most baffling)

1. The reality/statistics don't matter to anyone who has a story of "ex wife took him to the cleaners"

The whole system is rotten. My children live with their father who has an income nudging 100 thousand per annum. For punitive reasons he decided to claim maintenence just because he can. He doesn't need it at all. I send him nearly 17 percent of my annual income of 19 thousand. We have the same type of bills ( the children live with him term time for school, not because I'm a bad Mother I have them school hols and every other weekend.) Giving him this money every month has now become almost impossible. But still I do because if I'm late he phones them and then they threaten me with collect and pay. The banding system is so massively unfair as well. If I could prove I have my children a few more nights a year I would get further reduction in the maintenence. But I can't because the CMO take the word of the receiving parent. I have offered a diary but they won't accept it as proof.

Ps I left him the marital home, cleared the debts and promised not to take a portion of his pensions in leiu of maintence. CMO not interested in what he earns ( they don't even ask) or his generous divorce settlement. More fool me I hear you say. I had no idea he would pursue the maintenence just to spite me. Oh, and he refuses to send clothing with them. They come in one set of clothes, cheap shoes, not even a clean set of PJs / coats/ trainers. I supply everything they need to wear here.... called the CMO and asked what they can do to ensure he sends them appropriately equipped clothes wise and they say there is nothing they can do.

Very unfair. I cry every time I see the money go as I would rather be spending it on them myself.

Totally wrong. He's using the system to inflict as much pain as possible because I left him. He does not struggle with child care either as his partner and parents are there 24 / 7.

God now I am depressed.goodnight.

If fathers go to jail for not paying, mothers should have to contribute financially and that shouldn't include child benefits.

Ah yes, whattodo. the non working single mother.....you know that by far the majority of single parents work?

And how would that work when either parent went on to have another child?

When I was 22 and had just had my first child my father told me that he had been forced to raise his other two children, aged then 8 and 5 in 'poverty' because my mother (and the courts) wouldn't reduce his maintenance payments of £240 pm when he had had further children, with his new wife who also worked FT.

He added that he was still having to work at the age of 49 (!) because he was making up the shortfall. Presumably he should have been retired by this point (police officer) and instead was having to continue to work to support his two DS even though he hadn't paid maintenance since I'd gone to uni at 18, so four years by this point.

The galling thing for me was that my father lived in a very MC area with his new wife and children, they had foreign holidays, new cars, latest technological gadgets etc so the cry of poverty was an insult to my intelligence (and recent memory).

I told him that my mother and DStepdad didn't have any more children as they couldn't afford it and had taken the view that their responsibility was to their existing child (me) and so I found his claims laughable if not decidedly insulting.

I no longer have contact with my father. I think the fact that he resented financially supporting me had something to do with this.

He obviously wanted to discard me as easily as he had my mother (for his new wife) when his new DC were born. Unfortunately I don't consider men of his ilk to be a rarity.
So to those saying that these men will have to answer to their DC one day; that is true.
To think that this 'day of reckoning' will amount to anything other than hollow excuses, self pity and tales of financial woe is extremely optimistic at best and most likely, absolutely futile.

what and those that don't work, or work too few hours or in jobs requiring benefit top ups, are often in that position because they have all or most of the childcare responsibilities, and are the one who took the career hit in becoming a parent. Which is why all nrp's should also pay for the rp's time if they aren't doing 50% of the work.

Out of interest do your thoughts on benefit top ups also apply to couples, or is it just single parents you vilify for them? I also presume you were fit to go back to work, even in a physically demanding role, within hours of giving birth yourself, given that's what you're suggesting some single parents should do.

I have been a single mother since my son was born 18 years ago and have never received a penny! That is a little lie he did receive £70 cash in two cards for his 2nd Christmas which I returned explaining he didn't need cash he needed contact ! It's been tough but I'm very proud of my darling boy

Which is why all nrp's should also pay for the rp's time

your having a laugh aren't you? I think ive heard it all now...

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

this is what they are trying to do in Scotland, most people who end up in front of a family court are persuaded to take their children 50:50

He's using the system to inflict as much pain as possible because I left him. He does not struggle with child care either as his partner and parents are there 24 / 7.

its interesting you think this about your ex DH - do you think lots of men feel the same about the majority of woman who are in your ex DHs position?

I too think the system is heavily rigged against the RP - read women.

It's a national disgrace that NRPs, overwhelmingly male, shirk and avoid their legal and moral responsibilities.

I feel the entire system needs a complete overhaul. Complete with punitive sanctions like removal of driving licenses etc.

My own ex dh of over 20 years hasn't paid a penny since last year and his family continue to enable this behaviour. If the shoe was on the other foot I would be fed to the wolves so I feel very strongly that attitudes to CM are deeply rooted in misogyny.

Whattodo and Peggy crackers.

Agree on both points. Sadly for me I had to leave my husband of 17 years. Won't go into detail but its along the lines of the current Archers story line.Staying was not an option any longer. And I have worked and contributed to my children financially and emotionally just like any Mum would. My point is when I left. I had no fight left in me. I was broken down. I left the house the furniture the money the cars the lot. I still don't miss any of it. My ex husband has no reason to carry on punishing me because he made it clear he hated me every day.

But now he can exact a very pointed revenge on taking money from me so that I can't spend it on our children myself. He thinks he morally in the right.

I can say mind you is my children love the freedom they share with me during the holidays and weekends and they have a happy Mum back. There, I cheered myself up. I will look after my childrens wellbeing emotionally and finicially till the day I die. I just resent subsidising his expensive taste in wine cars etc just because the law says I have to. It's an abuse of the system.

But regarding a minimum living wage for children no matter the income of the parent, I mean that's a bit like everyone paying the same tax regardless of income, except your kids are more important than taxes. I'm pretty sure the guys making 10k pounds a year or whatever are not going to be very happy that the guys making 250k pounds a year have the exact same support payment. Would definitely cause social unrest and much more resistance from those in the working class already not paying or getting an increase.

We have a personal responsibility to our kids. We rightly have a degree of progressiveness built into the welfare/tax system - so that those of us with the broadest shoulders bear the most burden. Men (and it typically is men) need to make sure that they continue to provide for their children in the event of a relationship/marriage break-up. I'm not sure that we need a system that says: You were fortunate enough (or had the good sense) to get knocked up by a high-earner. You will now receive maintenance which is excess of that required to provide for your child. Vs. You were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to get knocked up by a crack-addict round the back of Lidl. You will now receive maintenance of £5 per week.

Where there is not 50:50 let the State determine the amount required (by reference to a sliding scale) and where necessary, let benefits top-up the rest. Thereby ensuring that those with the deepest pockets contribute the most.

Wow.

stupid enough to get knocked up by a crack addict round the back of Lidl

No actually I was stupid enough to get knocked up (twice!) by my business owner husband who now conveniently claims ESA on the grounds of depression whilst working cash in hand for over 650 quid a week as a plumber.

(I spend my tenner a fortnight on a nice bottle of Oyster Bay if you're at all interested)

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. I was making a point. I accept that most people will fall in between those two entirely made up scenarios.

I find it telling that you found the need to be derogatory, irrespective of the placement of your tongue, only regarding the woman receiving the derisory fiver.

I concede that you were making a point.

I consider your manner of doing so to have been in poor taste.

So, do I understand right, someone here is advocating a form a "equality in poverty" but only for the children of separated parents? To save these high earners from having to pay more than a man on the dole.

Because I'd said earlier that we're looking at this through the lens of mothers being the RP - which is usual.

All joking aside, it is tragic that women (and again it's typically women) have been unable to crack this issue; which is possibly the single biggest social issue facing this country. If I'm being brutally honest, I'd have to conclude that for most (of those not receiving any maintenance) they're happy to strike an uneasy truce for as long as the taxpayer is prepared to foot the bill. That maybe well wide of the mark, but apart from on here, I NEVER see this issue raised.

Write to you MP all you like (why has there been no private members bill that I'm aware of?) but just contrast it with F4J - which could almost be seen as the other side of the same coin. I'm almost angry on your behalf