Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not understand why some parents refuse to pay proper maintenance?

389 replies

crunchymint · 14/05/2018 00:11

Yes I know, its because they are arseholes. I know that. But I still don't emotionally understand how someone cares so little about their own children that they refuse to pay maintenance, or pay as little as they can get away with. What this really means is you don't care if your child has everything they need.

OP posts:
Biologifemini · 14/05/2018 21:56

The non-payment of maintenance would stop if there were proper sanctions and massive fines.
I am sure suddenly men would discover condoms overnight if they thought for a minute they would be paying for the next 18 years.

DaisysStew · 14/05/2018 22:01

What Hmm? I never said you said that did I? That was the fellas reasoning for it. I think you’re just trying to draw me into an argument now because you’re taking offence at things no one has said.

And no, growing up where I did it was more uncommon for there to be 2 parents in the house than 1. Surprisingly not everyone has the same life experiences or backgrounds but just because you’ve been lucky enough to not come across it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. My poor mum weighed 7 stone when pregnant with my little brother as she couldn’t afford to feed herself and us, a tiny bit of maintenance off my dad would have prevented that and for this I will never forgive him or accept excuses from any parent for withholding maintenance.

Bottom line is that there’s no excuse for not paying maintenance and anyone who thinks otherwise is a shitty person. Last I’ll say on the matter.

flamingofridays · 14/05/2018 22:05

I'm not drawing you in to an argument. It's called a conversation. I know people have different backgrounds, maybe you should try to be less patronising.

I have never said it doesn't happen either I just said your particular experience was hard to believe.

Again I agree there is no excuse however some people are selfish shits and will never change.

DaisysStew · 14/05/2018 22:12

Maybe you should stop denying people’s life experiences because they differ from your own?

I grew up in an area where a majority of the families were single parents. Some were lucky and remarried and their new spouses took on the responsibility of providing for the children which lessened the effect on the children but the fact remains that most men I grew up around genuinely seemed to think that once their relationship ended their responsibility to their children did too.

And it’s not a new phenomenon- my own nana had a dad that not only didn’t pay a penny after my greatnan divorced him but also managed to spend the inheritance that he was supposed to keep safe until my nana turned 18. But yet again it was her mum and and step dad that picked up the pieces and provided for her (this was in the late 1940s).

flamingofridays · 14/05/2018 22:23

I didn't say it didn't happen I said it was hard to believe. Clearly you're unlucky enough to be surrounded by shit head men and I am lucky enough to know only 1.

cathf · 14/05/2018 22:33

Greenyogagirl, is a Section 7 the same as a CAFCAS report? My DH' s case was about 2003-2005 so hopefully things have changed.
The CAFCAS report recommendation to the court was that my DH be given unlimited and unsupervised contact with his children.
The report acknowledged the children had been alienated and said that his ex had tried to prevent the children seeing CAFCAS alone.
In the event, his ex put every obstacle up she could to prevent contact, but the judge was reluctant to sanction her as the children were totally dependent on her.
So no, the court did not block contact.

GrandTheftWalrus · 14/05/2018 22:39

People that say they wouldn't be with someone who didn't pay, how would you know if it's a new partner? Surely you'd just have their word that they paid?

bugaboop · 14/05/2018 23:14

When it leaves you so poor but she is living a life of luxury - sorry but it does happen.

ElChan03 · 14/05/2018 23:18

Cafcas report and section 7 are different things.
My dp a social worker did a section 7 which completed supported him to have full residency and then cafcas did a separate report... cafcas supported the ex because she was their mum. The section 7 report was pure fact which had all the evidence of what she had said and done- therefore supporting my dp.
The judge brought it back to court three because they took the side of the ex.
Funny how within 3 months she had thrown away all the hard work the judge put in to get her access.

I still think contact is more important than maintenance.
I happily put my own earnings in for those kids. I just wish she was bothered about seeing them

Whyarealltheusernamestaken · 15/05/2018 00:08

@graphisa “"Can I just point out this works both ways, my OH payed over the normal amount and yet ex demanded more and more. In the end we went to CSA to resolve it (mainly because child was not well kept) Turned out she had not been declaring receiving anything. So she now has to pay back £1 a week and what happened to the thousands she received, did not go on child’s wellbeing. Just pointing out that it’s not always one sided here" bull! The csa amount is a MINIMUM not a legal maximum. The only reason a RP would need to pay back is if they willingly deceived a man that a child was theirs when it wasn't - and even that's not clear cut it has to go through court.

and as always with 'and child was being neglected' claims on this subject IF that were true the DECENT thing to do is to involve SS and seek residency NOT seek to reduce maintenance payments.”

Actually the £1 a week repayments were not to us but to the government for benefit fraud. Until we went to the CSA after repeated demands for more money by threat of withdrawing contact it was a private arrangement. When we went to CSA so we had something legal in place them it became clear that she had not declared many years of payments and had been claiming as nil support. How is this our fault? As for the rest neglect etc, well social services have been involved and thankfully all is good now. But there are always two sides like I said, don’t always blame the dad

Graphista · 15/05/2018 02:32

Twofigs while not excusing the ex wife's poor behaviour, again the csa amount is a MINIMUM. It rarely comes close to 50% of the cost of raising those children which is what it SHOULD be!

"So you can see why the wider world gets pissed off with the welfare state, not to mention ex and new partners trying to have their own family." Nope! Because how much maintenance an NRP is required to pay is NOTHING to do with RP's income whether that comes from employment, benefits or the lottery!

"Maintenance is not included in the mums benefits calculations so she has a basic income plus then anything from NRP." Wrong

It USED to affect benefits but that was stopped BECAUSE it was leading to child poverty. The benefits system at that time worked such that if you got ANY maintenance it was assumed you'd received the full amount and this was happening regularly as it was supposed to. If it didn't there was a whole rigmarole to go through to prove you weren't receiving it. I was subject to this system when I first split from my ex.

NRP is responsible for 50% of the cost of raising THEIR child REGARDLESS of whether the nrp 'needs' it or not.

I will say though that equally I know that historically the nrp's new spouses income used to be included in calculations, I consider that wrong too because they have no responsibility to that child. However, subsequent children should not take from the older children from previous relationships which is what happens now. If an nrp can't afford to pay a proper amount of maintenance and have more children they shouldn't have more children.

"RPs get full benefits and are often far better off than the non RP who does not get HB, ChB, Tax Credits"
Also YivaMoon
bull! The RP's have the FULL cost of raising those children. I've never met a nrp for whom paying a decent amount of child maintenance would genuinely see them hard up. Usually the contrary.

My ex owns a 5 bed detached house with front and back gardens and double garage, he and wife 2 each have new cars, latest tech, several pets, 5 more DC, regular expensive holidays for the whole family, nicely clothed, kids go on all the school trips etc - he's NEVER paid regularly and never the full minimum amount required in one go. Based on what he should have paid (based on min) he owes over £20k. He is very much the higher earner. We were together over a decade, married almost 8 years and dd was very much planned.

"They still have to pay out for housing and some node of transport to go to work and other general living costs." The RP has to cover all these costs AND the additional costs of raising the child/ren.

I've NEVER seen anyone advised to withhold contact to enforce maintenance. In my case I tried everything I legally could to get my ex to SEE dd! I've kept all the paperwork so that dd can see what really happened if she chooses. All the emails, transcribed texts (mainly him cancelling contact at the last minute), solicitors letters full of his excuses and ridiculous demands... She has him on her social media, he has her phone number he's not blocked on her or my phone yet she's lucky IF he calls for 5 mins sometime around her birthday (because he can't remember when it is or how old she is).

"The truth is that as a society we don't really care that single parents, their children and ultimately the taxpayers are picking up the bill for these useless men. There is no uproar amongst the public over this issue. Time and time again you will see people make excuses for these men or turn a blind eye." Largely because as a pp said most RP's are women, used to being ignored and oppressed and too busy raising these children to organise proper protests.

"My point is that it’s not just dads." I certainly haven't said it is, as I've mentioned on previous threads on this subject I have personal knowledge of nrp mum's who are just as bad.

"It amazes me that councils are capable of sending bailiffs around if you neglect to pay council tax in warp speed - but don't pay for your children and not much happens." It pisses me off! There are supposed sanctions available to csa/cms yet I've NEVER heard of anything beyond aoe actually being enforced and even THAT takes years! This includes prison sentence. In my opinion if they start actually sending the worst offenders to prison then other offenders will start paying. The govt needs to stop fucking about over this!

Feckitall while I sympathise to a degree, it's also true there are many RP's also with serious mh issues who have also had to raise their DC and pay for them in spite of their own ill health. Not being paid regular consistent maintenance adds to our stress.

"Also when people mention dads buying extras instead of paying proper maintenance, this really annoys me. These are dads that will buy nice presents for their kids like electronics, but refuse to pay for the boring day to day costs like childcare, afterschool clubs, bills and rent/mortgage. It is simply a variation of Disney dad." Totally agree with this too. So manipulative.

Tawanda - your husband will have agreed to his exw being a sahm and therefore entitled to spousal maintenance as it suited him too. Re 'people should be more careful who they have children with' in addition to abuse, rape, contraceptive failure there's people like me who chose someone who before our divorce slated deadbeat dads, even falling out with friends on the subject of non payment of child maintenance, total turnabout after our split - so much so his own mother doesn't recognise him! He's no longer friends with anyone he was before our split, everyone that knew him then completely shocked both by the cheating and the deadbeat behaviour. Both his parents utterly ashamed of him.

"Tawanda Spousal maintenance is not given in this country in that circumstance. So there is something more you are not telling us." Agreed.

"I don't understand why ex h's partner (who he is buying a house with) income isn't counted when if I were to move a man into my home (never going to happen) his income would be included in any calculations." No it wouldn't not for cm. Your exh income with deductions for children he lives with are all that's taken into account. Neither your new partner's nor his incomes are part of the calculations.

"Especially when they have a second family." They shouldn't have a second family if they can't afford to do so without it causing a financial loss to the children of the first family.

"Yes some seem to think all maintenance should be used for kids clothes and extras. Anyone who has kids living with them needs a bigger house than if they didn't have kids. This means rent/mortgage, bigger council tax, water rates, heat and light, food. These all need to be paid for, and maintenance goes towards these costs. Then there are clubs, childcare, school trips, school lunches, all the extras for school, school uniforms. It all adds up." Exactly, so often nrp's think if they can't touch what the money's been spent on its not been spent on the DC. But basic living costs are rarely tangible.

"what if they themselves do not reproduce but have step children to support." Step children shouldn't even be a factor in calculating cm. Their OWN parents are responsible for supporting them financially NOT an nrp who has responsibilities to their OWN children. Not compulsory to move in with a new partner if doing so means not paying maintenance or hardship for any children involved the adults should decide not to.

"From what he's been telling me" so often the case too - you ONLY know his side of it.

"Because his ex-wife tried every trick in the book to alienate him from his sons and succeeded in the end." That's NO excuse! He is still responsible financially for HIS children.

"No. That life is messy and never simple, and that people. Not just children suffer." But the children have NO choice in the matter. Are vulnerable too. It's as complicated or as simple as the adults' conscience makes it. It's actually very simple - an nrps step children are NOT their financial responsibility and should not be used as an excuse for not paying cm or not paying a reasonable amount of cm to their OWN children.

"Don't forget not only do these deadbeat parents refuse to pay child support or see their children, they always expect their children at 16/17 or 18 suddenly want to see them and see how 'wonderful' they are. And when they don't the mother MUST have bad mouthed them rather then said child realising of their own back how useless the NRP is." Yep! As if their children are too stupid to see them for who they really are.

"People can make excuses but its a choice to lower payments" exactly.

"So what if you have a child with someone who has children, is it right that you continue paying the same amount of maintenance and your child together potentially has a worse life than your previous kids?" 1 highly unlikely subsequent children worse off 2 irresponsible to have more children if it means you can't afford the maintenance due to the already existing children. If you can't afford more children don't have them.

Worridmum it is true - partly due to most rapes not being reported let alone convicted. Just because they aren't convicted doesn't mean it didn't happen. I personally know of cases where the father has raped the CHILDREN and still get unsupervised access - and that was even with convictions and prison sentences served!

Hotstepper you're no better than the deadbeat men. Your son is living with his dad so his dad has to pay more for housing, council tax, heating, water, furniture and household equipment plus feed and clothe (somehow don't believe you buy ALL his clothes and shoes) your son, pay for school equipment, uniform, trips, hobbies etc etc

"Are we really arguing over this sort of amount?" £6 when you're on the bones of your arse can make a big difference.

Re how much should it be - Theres an amount benefits say a child needs to live on - should be half that at least - it very rarely is. Personally I think it should be minimum 50% of what was spent on the child, difference in rent etc when the couple were still together. Easy to calculate from bank statements and bills from that time.

But from where we are at the moment FIRST we need to tackle those paying nothing - with no nonsense tactics. It needs to become socially unacceptable to be a deadbeat parent.

Cathf the RP being shitty doesn't excuse the nrp not paying maintenance which is FOR THE CHILD. It's petty and childish. There IS NO justification for not paying. NONE. If the RP is being shitty over contact that is addressed separately. Just as RP cannot use non payment of maintenance as justification for obstructing contact.

"I legit don't know anyone else who doesn't pay for their kids." Yea cos nrps NEVER lie about this eh? You see any proof they're paying?

flamingofridays · 15/05/2018 09:58

"They still have to pay out for housing and some node of transport to go to work and other general living costs." The RP has to cover all these costs AND the additional costs of raising the child/ren

yes but a lot of RP's will get child benefit and tax credits too which NRPS don't get, maybe even housing benefit too so they're not actually much worse off it at all than the NRP who has to house clothe and feed themselves on usually only their wage, plus pay maintenance.

and when you say the CMS amount is a minimum - they clearly base it on something. It is obviously the lowest you can pay, but its obviously based on something, so who are we to say actually you should be paying x amount

I would be a lot of posters on here have never had to be in the NRP position and work, house themselves, pay all bills on their own etc and pay out maintenance and all the other extras. Its actually not that easy at all.

crunchymint · 15/05/2018 10:12

NRPs need to make sacrifices for their children, just like most RPs do. Many don't.

OP posts:
crunchymint · 15/05/2018 10:13

And yes it would make sense to deduct maintenance payments from benefit payments. But so many NRPs don't pay, so that system was scrapped.

OP posts:
flamingofridays · 15/05/2018 10:21

sorry do you not think that not living with them is one big fucking sacrifice?

do you not think that working all the hours to be able to look after themselves and pay maintenance as well is not a sacrifice

Crunchy you only seem to be able to see this from your perspective and aren't willing to see it from anyone elses.

cathf · 15/05/2018 12:19

As this thread illustrates at times, I think it is very often the case that a blind eye is turned to the behaviour of the RP, but it is very easy to be sanctimonious about there NEVER being an excuse to withhold maintenance. In the real world, people are people and I think most NRPs would react in the same way as my DH has when faced with such intransigence from his ex.
I am not surprised to see the comments disbelieving our story - there always are, as a lot of people seem incapable of considering that occasionally the RP may be the one being unreasonable in a given scenario.
So, to summerise, RP can act as they wish and use the children as pawns to alienate the father BUT there is never any excuse for the father to retaliate and withhold money, EVER.
To clarify, in our case, the children were not going without - mum had managed to build up a nice little buffer from the £1500 a month my husband paid for three years - 2/3 of his salary - before she decided that was not enough and went to the then-CSA.

Frequency · 15/05/2018 14:39

sorry do you not think that not living with them is one big fucking sacrifice?

To a lot of the men who don't pay, no it is not. Not living with them and having to parent them is a big fucking bonus in their eyes. Men who are actively involved with their children's lives tend to stay as actively involved in their children's lives if the relationship with their mother dissolves. Those are the ones who pay. The ones who don't pay tend to be the ones who don't give a shiny shit and never see them or view their children as accessories to be paraded in front of relatives at parties and then put back in their box until next time or they see them as a weapon to punish the mother with.

My ex would rather eat his own shit than slightly cut his hours to have his DD more (and thus pay less maintenance than he already does). I know because I asked him about the possibility of shared custody when I was looking for more work because we couldn't afford to eat. As I said up thread, he has to bills to pay and is not willing to work less and see her more or pay more and see her the same. He did send a half eaten packet of sausages and some out of date broccoli when I told him I couldn't afford to feed us that week, which was nice of him Hmm

Helpmeplan · 15/05/2018 15:19

I think a lot of you have put up with dreadful exps and awful fathers for your children, and that had coloured your view, as it would mine. I have seen both sides, where the rp has behaved dreadfully and another where the nrp has. These situations are rarely black and white which is why a 'one size fits all' solution is simply not possible.

Frequency · 15/05/2018 15:26

Of course resident parents can be unreasonable and withholding access is and rightly so a punishable offense. Social Services are there to deal with neglect by resident parents if the NRP feels the children's needs are not being met.

What an unreasonable resident parent is not is an excuse to not provide for children you claim to love.

And no offense to Cath but I can't ever imagine getting to a point where I'd stop fighting if my children were taken from me and access stopped even if that did mean punishing the resident parent. It's not like they'd be sent to prison and their kids would never see them again. The max sentence is six weeks.

Helpmeplan · 15/05/2018 15:32

Then I hope you are never in that situation Frequency

flamingofridays · 15/05/2018 15:38

Social Services are there to deal with neglect by resident parents if the NRP feels the children's needs are not being met. social services don't deal with parental alienation, or things like telling the kids how awful daddy is and how much he must not love them etc etc,.

but that's ok right? because its not neglect, and it doesn't involve money

flamingofridays · 15/05/2018 15:38

oh and presumably RPs who don't work and rely on benefits and maintenance aren't providing for children they "claim to love" then frequency?

ohreallyohreallyoh · 15/05/2018 17:27

RPs get full benefits and are often far better off than the non RP who does not get HB, ChB, Tax Credits

This is my most favourite myth. The existence of the ‘single parent benefit’ and the dis relief that any RP could a) actually work for a living and b) earn more than minimum wage and not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever.

I would be a lot of posters on here have never had to be in the NRP position and work, house themselves, pay all bills on their own etc and pay out maintenance and all the other extras. Its actually not that easy at all

If you look at any statistics on single parents, you will see that the majority work. Therefore we are paying our bills, housing and childcare. Some may do that with the support of benefits, plenty more do it without as they earn too much. We pay all the extras as well, and again statistically, we are more likely to be doing it without maintenance than with.

But don’t let a bit of truth get in the way of your stereotyped misogyny, eh?!

perfectstorm · 15/05/2018 17:32

social services don't deal with parental alienation, or things like telling the kids how awful daddy is and how much he must not love them etc etc,.

So your belief is that emotionally abused children will fare better if they're impoverished, too? And that knowing that the NRP really, truly and provably dgaf because they'd rather spend their children's money on themselves is somehow justified if the RP is an asshole, too?

That position is wholly devoid of logic. Not to mention common decency.

Arian1 · 15/05/2018 17:41

I think it's the same reason a divorce has occurred in the first place.
One party has finally discovered the other party cares more about themselves and nothing for anyone else.
That unfortunately applies to the children of the marriage as well as the x partner. No matter what you believe, to deprive a child financially is actually an act against the child because they cant control every penny that's spent on that child.
So you will get the x partner lavish money on a child when they are around them but refuse to give that money over to the x partner in maintenance.

That why (we, you, they) divorced the control freak in the first place.

Swipe left for the next trending thread