To say enough is enough and we need to galvanise for a change in child maintenance laws

[Suliemantra]

I have just read the thread about the man training as a medical doctor in his 50s meaning the mother of his children works full time, is in debt and he pays nothing.

I have just read about the woman whose ex has 50 50, pays maintenance and does no parenting of their children while in his care.

I have read countless threads of men refusing to declare income to avoid child maintenance.

The family courts insist on 50 50 splits if the father wants it but makes no mandate for a father to be involved with children.

The financial and caring burden is disproportionately on women.

Our children are being damaged and our own ability to live outside of poverty considerably compromised.

Why is this allowed to happen? Why aren't we petitioning parliament? How can we do this?

Change needs to be rallied for - does anyone knows of existing campaigns or knows how to campaign in a unified and successful way for change??

But where both are genujnely equally parenting, can you explain to me why one parent should still be expected to subsidise the other?

Because it is frequently the case that one parent earns more than the other? If in marriage, a parent earning £100k demanded a 50/50 split of all child related costs with a partner earning £30k, there would be an uproar. It is utterly unacceptable that costs should be split evenly when there is such a disparity in income.

I have experience of 50/50. The reality was my ex gave our children a meal in the evenings and it was still me paying for everything and taking time off if they were ill. There is currently no legislation for such a situation and again, disproportionately places the cost of having children on one party with no recourse to the courts or CMS if one side refuses to pay their fair share. 50/50 is very much a means by which one party can abuse the other.

Interestingly, in America you can have income imputed to you. That is to say, the court can decide to act as if you have income even if you don't. This is generally only done when there seems to be voluntary unemployment: so, e.g., in a case where a father quits a job (rather than being fired) without clear cause, he might still be liable at the former rate. There have even been cases where fathers who don't take job offers are liable at the rate of the job offer they didn't take. It's all about whether it's done in good faith or not.

Money is also garnished from the paycheck, should fathers not pay.

Now, this leads to all sorts of other problems, including men falling behind on support, so losing their licenses, so unable to work/exist without a license, so driving illegally, so ending up in jail or with fines that keep them from paying. (In many parts of America, not being able to drive is non-negotiable--you really can't get around without a car.) And then they have a criminal record, if they haven't had one before, which makes employment more difficult.

Here's an advocacy group trying to overturn the license law: equaljusticeunderlaw.org/thejusticereport/driven-deeper-into-poverty

And the problem in Ohio:

www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/changes-sought-driver-suspensions-pile/80GFBrHxmpnP8aY5YqvDEM/

But it's a different system.

Agreed - if the law also say that if the father pays faithfully and on time, that unless there is a court ordered reason not to, it should be an offence to do anything to prevent the children seeing the father.

Some men would not pay on principle whatever the rules. My exh (unemployed with 100,000s in the bank) would spend the money or put it in cash under the mattress before I would see a penny. He doesn’t accept he should pay for his children.

I also think that when an NRP cannot pay the CMS that would be calculated against NMW (be that because of unemployment, studying - anything) then the difference in what is paid and that minimum should be calculated, and still owed to the RP.

It should then be paid back (plus interest set at the same amount above inflation as the government is happy to choose for student loans) when the NRP is earning more. Because the costs of he children didn’t just go away - the RP covered them. That should be seen as a loan. Once that debt reaches a set amount (say, £5K) the RP should be allowed to put a charge against a property for it.

Any outstanding debt at point of death should be settled by law from the estate before any instructions for inheritance are carried out.

NRPs who move abroad and don’t pay should have their passport confiscated on return to the UK, until their debt plus interest is settled.

And what about all the mums who use there maintenance for nights out for themselves and not clothes for their children ? Or going away with there new boyfriends instead of days out with there kids. Who will control this ? How can it be guaranteed that the maintenance is being solely spent on the children’s up keep ? How frustrating it must be for dads to see there children in clothes to small for them when the mothers wear Ted Baker.

I know for a fact that my ex is working. I have it in a court document. However the CMS say they have to work off the fact that he is still claiming benefits and cannot do anything. So he is committing benefit fraud as well. I therefore get £6.27 a week for our child, theoretically, and to be honest they amount seems to fluctuate wildly from £13 a month to £37 if I am very lucky. However, fortunately for us, after the systematic and sustained abuse we suffered at his hands, he is now no longer allowed contact (court ordered). But at the same time, you see this situation happening over and over again, as mentioned before, even when there is contact etc.

It's an appalling system, it really is. But what can actually be done about it? That is the question.

I'm not convinced 50-50 care is in most children's best interests- I think it can leave children feeling rootless and without a stable home, which is not ideal for their mental health. I've also seen threads on here where parents with 50% of the care still aren't shouldering 50% of the financial burden.

It also has the disadvantage of tying both parents to living within a fairly small radius of each other- which is not always workable or practical.

I agree that there should be some kind of assumption in law that non-resident parents should still bear 50% of the cost of raising kids. I agree it's not easy to calculate but 50% of childcare, plus a set amount for clothing and food per child + plus a contribution towards bills and housing (worked out on a regional and age dependent basis) might be a good start.

This could easily be treated like council tax, or at least a commercial debt if it is not paid- with the implication that not paying could lead to CCJs, trashing your credit rating and so on. I believe this would incentivize many to pay, including business owners, who won't want CCJs etc against them! The onus should be on the NRP to work out how they are going to pay- e.g. by spending assets or not trashing their earning potential.

There would perhaps need to be some kind of system for those who truly cannot afford to pay e.g. through ill health or unemployment.

Mumlife200.... seriously???

Having used both the uk and us system both are rubbish.

My ex hasn't seen our 2 for over 10 years now. Hasn't paid in nearly 8. I had to fight to get that 2 years and each time it got to deduction of earnings he would quit the day he was paid which was when he found out it had happened because he kept binning all the letters.

He married an American girl and moved there. I went through their states child support system at great expense and time only to be told as the uk case was closed since he no longer resided there they couldn't enforce payment at their end but they also couldn't enforce payment if he was under CMS here which doesn't make sense.

Basically men who don't pay should face the full force of the law. Don't pay one month? Start charging interest and late payment fees. 2 months late? Freeze bank account. 3 months move onto repo cars/register interest in property. More than 4 and they are jailed till they bring their account up to date. If they can't the serve time in jail equal to how long they are delinquent on the account and then are made to do community service type work and the rp gets the pay minus an allowance for him to live off of if he doesn't have a job to come out to.

My DP has 50/50 care of his children. Both him and his ex work, he pays for the childcare used on his days, their swimming lessons, music lessons, more than half of trips, buys them new clothes and uniform, gets their hair cut, does birthday parties, takes them for days out and holidays, cooks great meals and packed lunches full of fresh fruit etc...

She gets all the CB and CTC on top of working, pays for no extras, doesn't turn up to their parties (despite telling the kids she will, leaving them heart broken), takes them home in his nice new clothes but returns them in clothes too small and full of holes, buys supermarket shoes which fall apart in a couple of weeks then demands it's his turn knowing he'll buy Clarks type that last months, leaves their hair to get full of split ends, feeds them all preprepared foods and packed lunches full of cakes etc, gives them sweets everyday, while spending tons of money on her own expensive hobby (remember she has a wage and all benefits) yet claims utter poverty.

And you want her to get maintainance too? Lol

Whereas my ex sees my kids once a month if he can be bothered, goes on lovely holidays without the kids, also has an expensive holidays, pays the absolute minimum maintainance (and I'll never see a penny of the arrears) and tells everyone that will listen that I constantly demand all his money and won't let him see the kids...

My ex might fit your stereotypes, but my DP certainly doesn't and I wouldn't be with him if he did. It needs to be fair to both men and women- there are crap parents on both sides, and great ones on both sides too.

Agree with Lemon- unpaid child maintenance should equal prison.

And child maintenance should be a sum, set by a court/professional tribunal based on an assessment of the overall circumstances, not just a formula based on % of income.

So if someone wants to change amount of maintenance payments, they need to apply to do so and the court/tribunal sits again.

So if the person has been made redundant against their will in a round of company redundancies, the court takes that into account sympathetically. If someone wants to quit a well paying job to to take years to retrain at the end of their working life, not so sympathetic. Someone wants to quit a minimum wage job to retrain for a couple of years to get a much better paying job, court is sympathetic if overall effect won’t be to plunge child into poverty. And so on.

And in this system, assets like cars, houses, savings, pension etc can be seized. Bankruptcy can be forced with preferential status given to child maintenance arrears.

@bingbangbosh yeah seriously, I have plenty of friends that brag how much money they receive in benefits and maintenance, one has even suggested I split up with my partner in order to get in a better financial position. I know lots of Dads that pay above and beyond what they should in maintenance. Dads are always given such a bad press and there are so many great Dads who would pay anything and do anything for their kids but we never talk about the bad mums.

I dont see why the Uk cant enforce it like Denmark does. If the absent parent doesnt pay then the state does. Then the absent parent's tax bill goes up the next year. If they cant pay then the debt to the state accumulates. Payments are automatically deducted from benefits if they are unemployed. If they deny the child is theirs thry are invited to a dna test. If they refuse then the police help them find their way.

Also there are more benefits available to single parents. You get more child benefit, even more subsidised childcare. So the financial impact is lessened.

But then men are much more involved in families from day 1. So fathers stay at the hospital, either in the room with the mother or at the attached patienthotel. Women are better paid so more men can afford to take paternity leave. Theres less toxic masculinity. Dont get me wrong theres a lot of sexism but less violence.

I remember reading that if all the absent fathers in the uk paid what they are supposed to then the number of children living in poverty would drop drastically.

Its simply down to a lack of political will.

My OHs son is 12 and we have him from Friday til Monday every week. OH also pays his ex maintenance at the rate set by the child maintenance site via bank transfer so she can’t turn round and say he hasn’t paid it.

He goes to school obviously during the week, and she doesn’t work. She gets full benefits being on her own, plus the maintenance. She has designer clothes, hair done, nails done, tan done, and then asks if we ‘wouldn’t mind’ putting some money towards his uniform, clubs etc.
He has a free school meal, and then has a sandwich at home.

We wash his school clothes, feed him all weekend obviously with decent food, he has his own room with stuff (telly, Xbox, tablet) and we probably spend more on him than what his mum does, not that it’s a competition but just an observation.

If ‘her money’ as she calls it is even a penny down, she’s straight on the phone to OH asking how she is expected to cope when the amount isn’t right. One month his pay was due on the Friday but a system error meant he didn’t get paid til the Monday, and she hit the roof saying he couldn’t have their son til he paid for hi,, she had bills, how could she cope etc etc. We had bills too due that day, and it was beyond his control. Needless to say she had plans to go out that weekend and even though she ‘had no money’ she still went out so we still got him!

I’d love for OH to be able to put his sons maintenance money into a pot specifically for his son, that his mum couldn’t touch, and he shares that view too but obviously she doesn’t.
It’s such a complicated thing, but even if the dad was just claiming basic benefits, some money should be forced to come out of that.

I understand where you're coming from @canileavenowplease. But child maintenance isn't there to redistribute income - it's not a tax. It's there to ensure the children are properly provided for. And requiring a higher earning parent to pay maintenance in 50/50 cases is equally open to abuse, because it means that all the burden of costs is likely to fall on that parent.

I'll give you an example. I have a 50/50 arrangement. I'm not legally required to pay any maintenance. I earn a lot more than my ex - not least because she chooses to work part time (it's not a necessity - both our daughters are at secondary school), but also because she has never had the drive to pursue a high earning career. That's her choice.

I choose to pay her maintenance, even though I don't have to. It's not vast - a couple of hundred a month. That's because I don't want to see my kids going without - even if that's a consequence of her choice not to maximise her earning potential. But I also end up paying all the big costs - she opts out of expenses such as uniform, school trips etc. I pay for all those costs, and she can opt out because she knows that I love my kids and will always pick up the tab. She rarely even gives them money for their school lunches when they're with her - I end up giving them enough when they're with me, for them to cover the whole week. Recently, I've even had the girls contact me in her days because they are going out with their friends, and she hasn't given them any money.

She never does anything with them - they spend their days at her house sitting in thir bedroom, warching YouTube. When they're with me, we are constantly out and about, having adventures, and doing things. That's where all my money goes - holidays, days out....memories. She does none of that.

The girls have come to me several times to complain that they needed clothing or somethig else for her house, and she told them she couldn't afford it, before promptly buying yet another pair of shoes (their words, not mine). So they come to me for it.

In practice, then, she is meeting hardly any expenses associated with being a parent. And she gets away with it.

If your proposal were enacted, I'd be legally required to pay her lots more money, purely because I've chosen to work hard and pursue a successful career (one where I've already compromised on any prospect of promotion since the split, to ensure I can accommodate 50/50). And...because I would still have them 50%, I'd still end up dealing with everything I'm already dealing with. Because she can get away with it.

This is the problem - both men and women take advantage. Your proposal that I should still pay because I earn more simply ensures that my ex has greater potential to asset strip me, without playing her part in supporting the kids. It replaces one form of abuse of the system with another. And the only people who lose are the kids.

Personally, I think the answer lies in social change. I'm damning about those fathers who don't step up. I'm equally damning about those mothers who trwat theirnkids as a meal ticket, and don't believe they have any personal financial responsibility, because it should all fall to the father. Societal attitudes need to change so that parents of either gender who don't step up are shunned.

Mumlife200 well that's great that you know so many dads who actually give a shit about their kids and actually recognise that they need to contribute to them. Just great. And yes I am sure there are some women out there who do behave badly.

Unfortunately, it is predominately the case where it's the men who fuck off, shirk their duties and will literally do anything (literally anything!!!) to avoid paying for their children. As sadly my own experience has been.

Plus statutory child benefit in the UK is around £82 a month. I can't imagine anyone who relies on that fully can afford many nights out or swanky holidays.

Some of us single mums work full time (simply to pay for childcare, isn't it ironic?) and buy their children clothes and shoes, and take them places and do their utmost best to insure that their children have the most fulfilled lives possible. Despite the deadbeat father.

CMS are shit although we've found the customer services in the phone much more agreeable than the dragons that ran CSA.

We're on the other side. My dh paid maintenance to his ex until last year ( dsd now 19 at uni and we send her some money directly.)

Twice he was contacted by csa to say he owed money (£7k) even though he had paid everything they told him to. Both times he had to provide evidence (ie several years worth of bank statements!) Then when his case switched to cms they said the same again. Thankfully much nicer when he told them the previous situation (woman at csa told him he should have just been paying and wouldn't listen when he said he had!)

The cms still have a record that he owes £600. But they couldn't tell him why as they didn't have all the records from csa. We ordered records from csa, no trace of any money owed!!! He hasn't paid it and noones chased him!

At one point they said they'd go through his employer even though he'd already had long conversations with the same person about his calculation as he's self employed lol

It's a fucking farce!!

Yes and it needs to be extended until 25 years old if at university as they are expected to be supported by parents until then (according to government rules), also low paying apprenticeship and if they have sn without having to plead with a judge to award it

It drives me potty that this is a thing. I think all parents should be equally contributing for their children.
In my case it's a non paying mother, but I pick up the slack financially and emotionally where she isn't involved much.

I think the changes need to be for both parents not just one. I saw the thread re being a student again but plenty of resident parents study and don't work so any changes have to be for both.

Starting point should be 50/50 residency. Both should be providing financially themselves, not the state, with harsh penalties when they fail to do so like community service, removal of passport, driving licence etc.

@bingbangbosh my point was that there should be some control over the maintenance that does get paid by the responsible Dads and that it is being spent on the correct things as @Diamondbean has also said. I was obviously not talking about your personal situation and saying that there are fathers out there who pay.

Slightly

Why do you characterize your inability to get promoted as being down to the compromises associated with having 50/50 custody, but insist your ex’s career situation is down to laziness?

The NRP’s full household income should be used. If that means they can’t have the financial benefit of house-sharing? Tough shit

no, the only people responsible for children are the childs parents. Nobody else.

Yes and it needs to be extended until 25 years old if at university as they are expected to be supported by parents until then (according to government rules), also low paying apprenticeship and if they have sn without having to plead with a judge to award it

extended to 25? give over. 25yos are adults. If you choose to go to university you should choose to do that off your own back, not expecting your parents to fund it. If you choose to take a low paying apprenticeship - that is on you, not your parents. 25yos are not children.