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

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

181 replies

Oreosaretasty · 10/07/2016 09:25

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??

OP posts:
MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/07/2016 12:21

Atenco No, I was saying that the man on the dole should have his contributions accrue - regardless of his ability to pay at any given time - so as to stop their children suffering as a result of their father's (or mother's) circumstances.

peggyundercrackers · 14/07/2016 12:22

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.

I don think the NRP would care what other people were paying for their kids because whatever someone else pays doesn't affect them. CM isn't like benefits in that there should be a sliding scale and you pay more because the NRP has more money.

EllenDegenerate · 14/07/2016 12:29

FWIW Malice I command a high salary, so I don't strike any kind of truce with my husband at the expense of the tax payer.

I have been to my local MPs surgery more than once to raise this very issue to absolutely no avail. My MP is Angela Eagle which may be why my efforts appear to have been so woefully ineffectual.

Lurkedforever1 · 14/07/2016 13:40

Why not peggy? I've done 100% of everything related to my childs life and upbringing. My share and her fathers. Why shouldn't he have to contribute for that too? Half the cost of a cleaner, half the cost of childcare, my lost income etc as he isn't fit or willing to do his half himself? As well as 50% of the cost of raising her. Instead of the fuck all I've had for her, or the measly legal maintainance that dd is highly unlikely to ever see.

Kikibanana86 · 14/07/2016 16:03

My ex husband pays me 1500 a month which pays for my rent and car insurance, we have 5 children and we have them pretty much 50/50, although I have them more during the day as he works. He is only supposed to pay around 500 a month because of how much he has them.

If he didn't do this I would be seriously fucked. I get the max amount of benefits I can get but if I didn't have maintenance I'd have next to nothing left for food once I'd paid for rent,council tax,car insurance and tax, gas and electric. Plus 5 children need clothes and shoes etc!

And before anyone gets angry I am studying and will be working in two years time when my youngest starts school!

peggyundercrackers · 14/07/2016 20:27

Why not peggy?

Because no parent gets paid to bring their own children up - anyone who thinks they should get CM for looking after their own child, having a cleaner etc. Etc. Is absolutely deluded.

cannotlogin · 14/07/2016 20:32

Gosh yes, children have only one parent, don't they Confused

whatyouseeiswhatyouget · 14/07/2016 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lurkedforever1 · 14/07/2016 20:55

Where did I say I want paying to raise my child? I said if a father isn't doing his half then he should also pay for that.

My dd has missed out on some things, not just financial, because there is only me to do it all. Therefore why shouldn't she at least have the money for a deposit, university, a car etc by way of compensation? Why shouldn't he be financially responsible for the half he doesn't physically do? How much extra do you think I've spent on childcare over the years than I would have with someone to split it with? How much money did I lose because my career is pretty much on hold?

It takes two to make a child, and if one of them isn't fit to do their share of raising him/her, they should have to contribute towards any loss that causes.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 14/07/2016 21:58

Wrennie

It's not a punishment to have to pay the legally required amount to support none resident children.

You are also required to meet the needs of the children whilst they are in your care.

And it does not matter how much the resident parent earns because children have a right to financial support from both parents

KickAssAngel · 15/07/2016 01:09

Even if the RP does just 'strike a deal' and then expect benefits to support them, I still don't see that as being their fault.

If the NRP is being so stubborn & selfish that the RP parent would rather claim benefits than ask the other parent to make a decent contribution, then surely it's the RP who's at fault for that?

OK - there probably are a very very small number of people who think 'I'll just have a kid and live off benefits without expecting the other parent to help out' but I'm pretty sure that it won't be as many as the 50% of NRP who pay nothing towards their children, even if chased by the gov. agency.

Just5minswithDacre · 15/07/2016 09:06

AIBU to think people shouldn't get away with this??

We need a cultural shift urgently.

There are powers to suspend the driving licences and passports of non-payers, but they're not used for fear of bad press.

IneedAdinosaurNickname · 15/07/2016 10:32

Suspending driving licenses and passports wouldn't always be a deterrent anyway.
My ex doesn't have a passport and if he lost his driving licence he'd a) stop seeing the dc
And b) use it as a further excuse as to why he can't get a job.

Just5minswithDacre · 15/07/2016 10:33

It would be a pretty strong tone-setting 'we will not accept CM dodging' move though.

IneedAdinosaurNickname · 15/07/2016 10:40

Yes it would.

Kikibanana86 · 15/07/2016 11:18

But if you took away their license that could affect then being able to see the children?

Just5minswithDacre · 15/07/2016 11:20

I think it needs a judge to action it, so these individual circs could be put forward.

AyeAmarok · 15/07/2016 12:01

Kiki, I don't see why it should. Not everyone drives. There is public transport, or taxis. They could move.

Yes, some will go "oh well, now I won't see the children anymore and it's all your fault", but this isn't the fault of the RP, it's that the deadbeat NRP dad/mum is a fuckwit who is incapable of putting his children first.

For many, it will be a deterrent. As is losing your passport. As is jail.

Kikibanana86 · 15/07/2016 12:15

I live rurally, there's no bus services nearby and no pavements, their dad only lives a few miles away but he wouldn't be able to get himself and all 5 kids from mine to his without someone getting run-over! I can't be the only one. I definitely agree there's needs to be deterrents and agree with prison,fines etc but I don't think taking away licences would help, in some cases like my own it would make it worse ( my ex does pay so doesn't really apply to me but just putting myself in someone else's shoes)

AyeAmarok · 15/07/2016 12:21

Well in that case, he could avoid losing his licence by, I dunno, paying child support! (I know you say yours does, I mean generally).

It's meant to be a deterrent. To make people not just casually decide not to pay the money to feed, clothe and house their offspring.

Just5minswithDacre · 15/07/2016 12:22

So in a case like yours, maybe target the passport instead of the driving licence, initially Kiki?

Kikibanana86 · 15/07/2016 12:30

Yeah well I guess if they knew they wouldn't be able to see their kids if they couldn't drive then you would think that they'd make sure they paid? If they're a good dad! I get your point Smile

KickAssAngel · 15/07/2016 15:52

See, I know some families where the parents have divorced but the NRP gives a very generous amount of support. To the point that kids are in private school, RP works part time, kids get great holidays and lots of electronics etc. Why? Because the NRP loves their kids and is happy to see them having a comfortable lifestyle. They want to give their kids gifts and good experiences just as much as they would do if still married. They know that the RP gets a bit of a bonus from this, but that doesn't really matter because they care more about seeing their kids being happy and thriving.

Then there are the NRP who refuse to pay, or do everything in their power to minimize payments.

Guess which kids are happier? Not because of the money (although kids can be shallow like that) but because both parents love and support them. The NRP also spends as much time as possible with their kids.

This shouldn't be about the RP and their life - it is about NRP and whether they are actually committed enough to their own kids to see them living in the best circumstances possible.

YogaDrone · 15/07/2016 16:29

Why not turn it on it's head? The baseline expectation should be that all contact should be 50/50 with neither party paying the other anything.

I think part of the problem is that the NRP's who don't pay for their children don't see it as not paying for their children, but see it as not paying for the ex. They seem to think children are free and cost nothing to bring up Confused

So it probably would probably be illuminating for an NRP if an RP did do a full record of expenditure once in a while!

Being more open about where the maintenance money goes might help the NRP see that the ex isn't spending the money on shoes and alcohol. And yet I know that whenever and NRP asks what their money is spent on there is a huge rush of outrage and it gets cried down as "none of their business what I spend it on" so both sides are as belligerent and intractable as the other and no-one moves forward.

Kikibanana86 · 15/07/2016 16:47

50/50 and no maintenance night work if you only have one child and both parents earn enough but I have 5 and have been out if work since I had my first, my ex gas then almost 50 per cent if the time and still pats maintenance, as he should, he's a high earner, and I'm not.

It's bit unusual for this to be the case either, most women leave work or go part time,or just generally put their career on hold after having kids while the man progresses in his, I wish I hadn't but it's common.

Swipe left for the next trending thread