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??

In Mexico if I a parent doesn't do the right thing and are able to avoid responsibility, their own parents are next in line (on paper at least).

It is all well and good to say it should be 50/50 or whatever but the court takes into account what is best for the child. In many instances the child does not want any contact with a NRP. Growing up I went to live with my father as did my younger sister after she was out of what the courts call here "the tender years".

I'm sure there is something in the UK where the child gets input once they are at a capable age? And to answer someone above - yes women who are NRP do also have to pay the same percentage as men, there is no difference. It is all based on the CHILD'S welfare - not what the parent feels is fair or unfair.

Atenco - many men here who get behind on child support also have their family stump up the money so they don't go to jail, or once they are in jail to get out. I've seen several guys over the years put their families through this and it can get quite expensive for them when they may not be in a position to do so, but they recognize it's best for the child in question.

yoga

Stupid people can learn things, by the time someone has a child it would be fair to say that it would be a significant issue if they believed they didn't need feeding and keeping safe and clothing.

Why does someone require a list from a none stupid person to work that out

It is all well and good to say it should be 50/50 or whatever but the court takes into account what is best for the child. In many instances the child does not want any contact with a NRP.

but children don't know whats best for them - they aren't adult enough to know whats best for them or to make adult decisions. courts in the uk tend to take a childs view into consideration from about 8 but its only forms part of what they take into account whereas when they are 12 they are deemed capable of making a choice.

Children's wishes aren't taken into account until around age 12.

Sadly this means that abusive partners still have regular contact with their children, and indirectly their ex, because there is a very strong belief that ANY contact with a parent, even an abusive one, is better than none. This is really a different issue, but it explains why so often partner A stays with abusive partner B, because they believe that they are protecting the children. They know that if there's a divorce then abusive partner B will have unsupervised control over the children for significant periods of time. If abuse has been reported and proved (and emotional, financial abuse is really hard to prove) then contact centres can be used,but these are frequently phased out fairly quickly, as if an abusive person suddenly stops trying to be controlling, or children suddenly learn how to protect themselves.

It does affect maintenance though. Because, ideally, one parent should be able to say 'I was abused' and protect the children by having them almost 100% of the time, no overnights etc. Which would then leave the abusive parent having to pay a whole load more maintenance.