To think men that don't pay child support should be arrested?

[HappyLoneParentDay]

Ok I'm not wanting a massive row. Just often thought (after yet another fruitless call to CMS and being told for the 137th time that after 3 years & yet another 'job-hopping' instance that I "have to give him a chance to pay") that despite the CMS being able to take them to Court etc, they very rarely do. Even multiple CMS supervisors have told me on a number of occasions that it's very, very rare that they actually take someone to Court.

Yet in the US, non payment of child support after 6 months, is a criminal offence. Resulting in an arrest warrant being issued.

AIBU to think there's no reason we can't do this?

FYI: He now pays child support on time every month and has done for a while. It is just something I've never been able to understand...

I think they should be forced to pay. And if they can’t the state should pay whatever they were going to pay. The the state can chase them for repayment directly. I’m sure they would be much less likely to get messed about than women are being now in all this.

I’d be happy with it on the condition that the father has to be in the birth certificate so had equal rights

So what happens if the father refuses to attend the registry office to have his name added?

Well it ain't ever going to happen. It's men who make these rules in govt. It's men who will be affected by these rules. It's a feminist issue.

I disagree with imprisonment, prisons would be over flowing with the amount of non paying parent.
They certainly should be taken to court, and handed a hefty fine.

I have 2 children with my ex, he now has 2 more and another on the way.
We have been divorced 10 years and I have done all the financial of bringing up my children, I am guilty for previously withholding contact because he’s a selfish twat that has never financially supported our children, and only gives a shit about his new ones.
Unfortunately my kids see him as dad, an amazing man who loves them - they don’t see what I see, a lazy dickhead dole dosser that won’t get a job purely so he can avoid maintenance and supporting his children.
My son called him the other day to ask if he will pay half towards his passport renewal for his school trip.... He told him he will see what he can do, but he has to save for the new baby 🤬🤬🤬 FFS she’s only just found out she’s pregnant, it’s about the size of a ping pong ball, if that.
concentrate on the child that’s already here.

So he sees them every other weekend, gets to have lots of fun with the kids without the worry of how stuff for them can be paid for.

I hope one day they will see what a lazy lay about he is, and will never want to follow his footsteps.

Anyway rant over

@hoof and the other parent gets to do the tattoo too.

Same crap different agency name. Csa were awful at this too my ex never updated. I found out a year after he moved jobs but they only back dated to when I told them. Said if happened again they would fine him. If happened 3 more times they did nothing. Cms are even more of a joke as we are paid based on what they earn last year so even if their wage is double that this year they do not have to notify them and pay more meaning the year a child turns 18 we get paid based on the year they turn 17 so the absent parent is always paying less than the current year's figure. Should have left it with Csa. Amount paid went down when it changed and at least they would try chasing payments unlike cms which we pay for using.

Prison should be an extreme option, however it should be an option.

At the moment it’s basically not an option as people know that CMS won’t even get into court options let alone the drastic ones.

If it was known that CMS wouldn’t just send 500 letters, but would use the powers they have without court then more people would pay.

If the percentage that didn’t pay then knew after CMS had done a DEO or raided their savings accounts they’d use the charge on the house/bailiffs then more would pay.

If it becomes known that each level of sanction will be used then more people will pay.

To send someone to prison the court has to be satisfied they’ve “wilfully refused or culpably neglect to pay” so it’s not just after five minutes. It’s a sanction that will only apply to a small number of people who will ignore all the other sanctions.

But until it’s actually going to be used all of the powers are as useful as a chocolate teapot.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

So what happens if the father refuses to attend the registry office to have his name added?

Then it gets added at the point a claim is made (or after DNA test if fatherhood is denied)

I’d be happy with it on the condition that the father has to be in the birth certificate so had equal rights. And no I don’t mean having to go to court to get it put on.

So my ex, who came with me for fertility appointments, who didn’t turn up at the registry office because a week after our twins were born he decided that “parenthood isn’t his thing” and therefore isn’t on the birth certificate shouldn’t have been chased by CMS?

B3ck89

for you

In your case I support a salary reduction

And yet your children love him . What can you do

I don't fully understand why enforcing child support payments isn't a bigger priority. I'd always assumed it was simply because it would mainly benefit women, to the detriment of mainly men, therefore low priority.
But surely it would also benefit society at large? Obviously it would lead to a better quality of life and adult outcomes for children of single parents, but it would also presumably reduce costs to the taxpayer significantly, even taking into account enforcement costs. How many children are being supported/supplemented by the taxpayer via tax credits, benefits etc because the NRP simply doesn't want to pay?

It would just be so hard to take them all to prison. There’s too bloody many

If you want to go down that route then there has also got to be some equivalent punishment for the women who use access to their children in the battle with their partner, women can't have it both ways.

HMRC chase you fast enough - and send people round - if you don't pay tax. Even small amounts of tax. You end up in court and with crim record for 2k or so.

Same rules should apply. Strangely, it's only men defaulting - funny, that.

With you 100%, OP.

It’s precisely because it’s a woman’s issue that it’s not politically popular.

If the system was changed and maintenance was calculated in benefits, but benefits were paid to the RP and the money from the NRP owed to the government in a way that made the NRP benefit fraudsters if they avoiding paying it would be seen in a very, very different light...

I think that after 2 months , the government should pay the RP then pursue the NRP. They have ways to pursue people who dodge Council Tax, VAT ... so why not Child Maintenance?

I don't know how thins would work. Men have no rights when it comes to abortion. And so they shouldn't. But what if a condom broke. What if a woman said she was on the pill. I don't think I'm that instance a man should have to pay.

@funinthesun19
I believe that is the case in sSouth Africa, a country without the broader social welfare network of the UK without nhs and were schools demand school fees. Leaving single mom's in a worse quandary.

My mother in law was threatened with just such a thing after her husband died and she inherited a modest sum. All because her wayward son was unable to pay.

In order to do so though you must prove that the father of the child is utterly unable to pay. Not just that he refused.

Good plan. Other countries manage child maintenance payments just fine - the UK's deadbeat dad policy is an international shame.

In Denmark, for instance, the starting point for both parents is 50 per cent residency for each. You'd be surprised how fast dads cough up then.

I think that after 2 months , the government should pay the RP then pursue the NRP. They have ways to pursue people who dodge Council Tax, VAT ... so why not Child Maintenance?

They tried that when people were only allowed to keep £20 if on benefits and it cost too much.

There’s just no political will to chase non payers because a) they are mostly men and b) it’s socially acceptable not to pay because of the “she spends it on shoes and haircuts not the kids” attitude

I get £6.72 a week from dc's father. With the cms direct pay or whatever it is called when it's taken directly from his 'benefits'. I emailed them the court documents that stated that he is now working (obviously he quit his job as soon as we split up - might add here that the reason we split up was because he smacked me in the face whilst I was holding our eight week old...)

Some men are beyond redemption.i am paying £75 a day of nursery fees, and I have had to go back to work full time, and I still don't even break even. I am basically paying to be at work.

I had a letter last week from CMS re the 1000's of pounds my ex owes me in child support, letter said do I want them to chase it or drop my claim, funny thing is my daughter is now in her 30's, could have really used that money 20 yrs ago! Deadbeat dads really need a prison sentence, youd only have to jail a couple of them and the rest would start paying up. I nominate my ex deadbeat as the first one. My daughter wont entertain him at all, hes getting old, fat, drink problem, health issues, reaching out to her but she will not have anything to do with him, he resorts to downloading photos of her on my SM and sharing them on his FB page with captions like "my beautiful daughter" then messages me trying to get me to intervene, not likely pal. You blew it

If you think about how much is paid to support families through tax credits and other benefits, then it's truly criminal that no government is willing to make it harder for men to dodge paying for their own children. It seems like the govt isn't willing to chase the big offenders such as men who don't support their children, and companies that don't pay tax, but do make life hard for single parents, people with disabilities, etc. In other words, why make the more secure people pay out, when the vulnerable can be victimized and blamed?

The laws already exist that would make men pay to support their children, but govt are deliberately turning a blind eye and would rather pay out millions per year in benefits than risk losing the votes of men.

Child maintenance is paid for the child, not to these hordes of women who 'trick' men or whose 'condom broke' (I thought even the Alt-right admitted men wore condoms - sweetpea777 perhaps you could enlighten us).

Demonising women with barmy theories doesn't change the fact that child maintenance is for the child. And that men probably don't want to bring the child up, so a small sum of maintenance is a teeny price to pay.

Also they don't give a flying monkeys that I have a court document stating that he is now working, and keep telling me that it's my responsibility to report it to inland revenue... great