Where did I say that I don't think NRPs should contribute to bring up their children? Of course I think they should, but it should be fair, equitable, efficient and properly administered, which it is not. The staff should be properly trained and their systems updated to deal with the actual policy and procedure.
Those who do not pay and do not engage should be dealt with appropriately, but what I am trying to explain is that those who are willing, are treated extremely poorly in a lot of cases. They aren't always involved with CMS because they are unwilling to pay. They are there because maybe their ex refuses to contribute at all to the upbringing of their children, or wants to create problems for their ex, or thinks they can get more money out of their ex's new partner. They can lie about contact, earnings etc. to affect payments and there are absolutely no repercussions for them, but significant ones for the NRP. Some people are bitter and will take every opportunity to ruin someone's life, just because they can.
You would agree the system is broken? But you can't agree it's broken for both RPs and NRPs in different circumstances? People have different experiences and reasons for their opinions and I appreciate that. I understand some children have parents that don't pay and live in poverty and that is heartbreaking, but the OP wasn't talking about that situation and neither was I. I honestly don't think a lot of those statistical children would be lifted out of poverty by CMS payments. For a start, it doesn't count as household income so wouldn't affect official poverty statistics.
In your argument, where is the resident parents obligation to meet their children's needs? Or don't they have any? Can they solely rely on the state and their ex so they never have to work? Surely if a resident parents refuses to work, that contributes significantly to the poverty these children face and you can't put the responsibility on the one parent who may not be non-resident through choice?
My children wouldn't be classed as living in poverty if I was a single parent with no maintenance and I would try my best to keep it that way.
The child maintenance system has changed. You don't get to pick to stay on the old system as that's what you worked out whether you could afford a child on. So do you give the DC away you had under the old system when you factored the payment amount in to your 'household bills'? Life isn't black and white and situations change, as did the child maintenance system. At least twice that I know of. The calculation methods have altered dramatically.
There is also a lot of evidence to suggest strong links between non-resident parent (usually male) suicide and the child maintenance service, but for obvious reasons, this isn't advertised and money is not put into research in this area.
There are quite a few staff at the CMS who treat NRPs like criminals and a few reasonable and knowledgeable members of staff who actually get matters resolved. It is pot luck who you get on the end of the phone and allocated as a caseworker.
The aim is supposedly to support children, but all of you who have criticised my post, seem happy to see subsequent children suffer in poverty because their parents should have calculated their 'household bills' better.
My issues with the CMS are differences in the 'value' or 'cost' of children in different homes, the sole burden of proof on NRPs, the incorrect application of their own policy and procedures and the abrasiveness, threats, harassment and rudeness of SOME of the staff. There are a vast amount of maladministration cases ongoing with the CMS, because of some of the above. Tens of thousands of successful ones which result in compensation every year in fact and many don't get to that stage that should, as it's nigh on impossible to make a complaint, as this has to be made through a caseworker who you are likely to be complaining about (apparently). Many also can't afford legal representation for obvious reasons.