To say I understand why some people don’t pay child maintenance? X

[princessmum1]

Just that really. It seems crazy that child maintenance is not means tested beyond anything other than income. It doesn’t matter if your mortgage/rent or your ex partners is £2000 a month or £300 a month you’ll b expected to pay the same amount. Seems odd when you compare it to benefits that are very much means tested based on everything.

That does not explaining paying no maintenance at all and what about the resident parents rent have the same costs as well as money to bring up a child.

Its simple. If you pay child maintenance you treated as an outgoing expense. Its irrelevant how much your rent is. If you can’t afford to rent a £2k property after paying child maintenance then don’t.

Paying for your child is more important than anything else.

Its the rent and luxuries that should be sacrificed not the childs needs. Simple

Failing to understand your point why some don’t pay.

Makes sense, a mortgage etc to a certain extent are “lifestyle choices”. A colleague of mine tried to argue this with regards to mat leave, that higher earners should get more from the government as they have higher outgoings

I guess the resident parent doesn’t have the capacity or willingness to do their kids wrong by not feeding, clothing and housing them. It is entirely appropriate that the non resident parent should cut their cloth once they have paid what they are required to pay to support their children. They’re not luxuries, they’re flesh and blood responsibilities.

Another who doesnt understand why your outgoings matter???? You sound like youre saying maintenance should be paid put of what is left after what you choose to spend, rather than a priority.

Because your responsibility to your children remains the same despite their other parents income. I have felt frustrated that DSDs mum has more disposable income than DH because of benefits and maintenance but he has a responsibility to his child and that’s all there is to it.

The non resident parent should only make financial commitments that they know they can afford to do, after paying towards the cost of raising their children. That includes their living costs like rent/mortgage. How is that crazy?

Surely using your rules NRP will just ensure their money is spent on high rents or big houses.
Food isn’t means tested, gas, etc hey still cost the same for the RP and NRP

Well it’s not a benefit is it? It’s a parent paying the bare minimum required to support their child. If child maintenance means you can’t afford £2000 a month rent then you have to move - the alternative being that your child does without. CMS do reduce if the non-resident parent lives with other children so it’s not just based on income.

OP I totally agree. I mean why pay towards feeding, clothing, housing your offspring when you could be paying for a better car a bigger house a luxury holiday for yourself.

Parents who don’t pay maintenance should be charged with child neglect frankly.

It can be catch 22 though.

If you’re a nrp paying housing costs suitable for your children so they can visit, stay overnight, have their own rooms, feed and entertain them etc can be impossible while also paying maintenance.

A separated couple on the same income as they were pre split are unlikely to be able to fund two suitable households. So one parent retains the home suitable for children while the other sacrifices their own living situation to continue funding the childrens home.

Not saying it’s right or wrong, for most normal income couples it’s how it is. I know several nrp living in shitholes so they can pay maintenance, which means they see less of their children as they have no where safe to see them, and can’t afford to take them out every weekend.

Of course it's not bloody means tested!! Children don't cost less just because you earn less. If you are the resident parent you still have to pay for them regardless of your income, why should it be different for a non resident parent?!?

Because putting a decent roof over your child’s head is more important than the roof over your own head? A nrp should live in a house share, drive a cosy coupe, holiday in Bognor and not have more children to ensure their existing child is well cared for if necessary.

What a goady, twatty thread to start...

YabVu - nrps should plan their lives according to how much they KNOW they are supposed to pay in cm (which is actually shameful LOW) just like RP's have to. The child is BOTH their responsibility.

The example you cited of varying mortgage/rent amounts is to a large degree a choice. As are many other expenses.

Maintenance should as pp say be a priority payment.

You also cite benefits being means tested - even this govt accepts there's a minimum amount people need to live on (though I'd love to see THEM try to live on it!) and so the means testing calculations are supposed to ensure people's income doesn't slip below that level.

I'm guessing you're either an nrp or the spouse/partner of one? Or a gf.

It's beyond despicable whatever your position, to try and argue LESS maintenance let alone no maintenance should be paid.

Currently there are far too many loopholes, the agencies set up supposedly to pursue non-payers have been pathetically ineffective.

It should imo (and many others) be a criminal offence not to pay maintenance regularly and in full.

It should also be better calculated to reflect the costs of raising a child rather than just a percentage of nrps salary (which many nrps already deliberately manipulate to appear lower than their actual income especially the self employed).

The nrps outgoings are largely irrelevant. Personally I'd prefer if the calculations were based on minimum income necessary to live on and then the remainder assessed for how much of that can be considered as available for maintenance calculations.

I’m only commenting based on what a friend is going through, and genuinely understand the other side.

But what about when the NRP lives in the cheapest possible home, has got a lodger to pay half the outgoings, and can’t possibly get anywhere cheaper to live because what they’re paying is far less than the going rate to live vaguely near enough to where they need to live to work. They now have around £50 a week to live on whilst the other parent is living rent free with family, claiming £200 a week universal credit, paying around £400 a month on a personal hobby, going to university and having family do all childcare free. Maybe it’s a very specific circumstance but I completely get why they struggle with paying the amount they do!

Well somebody didn't think through their point before broadcasting it. Are you my Ex? Because that's the justification he uses for paying zero child support.

Fucking. Hell.

It's bad enough that so many men (because it is mostly men) try their damned hardest to get out of making nominal, tiny payments towards their own children and then whinge about it without women being apologists for these weak, selfish men.

Children need food and clothes regardless of how much your mortgage costs and how much you might want a status car on hire purchase. Non resident parents need to budget their income, after paying for their children, LIKE RESIDENT PARENTS DO.

Child maintenance is a parent’s first responsibility - more than rent or any other outgoing. If you can’t afford your rent after paying maintenance, move somewhere cheaper. Maintenance isn’t what you have left after all your other expenses are met. Your children are more important than your rent, your car, and your social life.

How about you tell your friend tough shit for him and to get a second job?

Umm because means tested benefits are the bare minimum that the government pays out for individuals/families who are meant to be either temporarily unemployed or permantly unable to work. Means tested child maintenance for people who have 2k to spend on rent per month would just be a complete piss take.

And.... Your friend's child still needs shoes, food etc. Having a child you can't financially support is no reason not to financially support your child.

We get £340 a month when he makes £792 a week. Him and his ex wife have an informal agreement so he pays rent and schooling for his other daughter but I can totally see how me and DD have the better deal.