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...

Maybe I have this back to front and it's the woman who should be able to apply to get paternal responsibility removed from a man who is refusing to pay.

I like how people assume that women who give up children for adoption think that they move on. 🙄 Most of them are completely heartbroken by the circumstances.

As it stands I agree with you OP. To many dads getting away with it and playing the system.

I like the sound of the US system though.

How do they apply that? Is it for anyone who is the genetic father.

What we have at the moment is a system where men don’t have to think about the risk because they can walk away

The mother, and tax payer if needed, will make up the financial care

^^This. Can you imagine if there were actual, real life serious consequences for a man or woman for not paying child maintenance? Not just meh, we can't find you etc, never mind off you go, the tax payer will pay for your child.

@Hooferdoofer37

The mother who gives the child up to adoption loses all parental rights to the child. The adoptive parents will have the responsibility but also the joy and happiness of caring for and providing for the child.

Mumsnet is full of fathers who like to take their kids on fun outings and be adored by then every couple of weeks whilst contributing little or nothing to their upbringing and leaving the woman and/or the state to make up the shortfall.

To stop the taxpayer having to pay for the children of these (mostly) men, their mothers having an immense burden of raising them and affording childcare costs alone, and to get a lot more children out of poverty, NRP’s should have to pay child support at a proper level. If they refuse, or job-hop, or don’t work then this should be paid directly by the government to the resident parent, and be owed to the government by the NRP. So it would be a loan, a bit like the student loan scheme. If he doesn’t meet his child-loan payments then government will be much more highly motivated to enforce action - this should start at perhaps removal of passport, then driving license, then community service or even jail. In the meantime the children and responsible parent will not suffer as a result of the NRP’s evasion.

There are mothers in prison for non payment of council tax, their children in care, who never received a penny from their child’s father, who often goes on to father more children he then ignores. Something is very wrong in our system.

At the moment it seems like a lot of men have got the right to see their children and make decisions about them but the mothers and often the taxpayer have the responsibility of caring for the child and paying for them.

I sometime think the best way to get to the truth is to have default 50:50 care. You don't just have the right to your child 50% of the time, you have the right to not have them more than that. If a man didn't want his child half the time, he'd have to persuade/pay the woman to take more than a half-share. (Of course in this fantasy there would have to be some way to ensure a reluctant father does a reasonable job of being a parent, which is where practicality suffers...)

@Somerville I agree with you

Mumsnet is full of fathers who like to take their kids on fun outings and be adored by then every couple of weeks whilst contributing little or nothing to their upbringing and leaving the woman and/or the state to make up the shortfall.

That’s because full respect is given, correctly, to the rights of the child.

What we need now is proper dealings with the responsibilities of the parent.

The two shouldn’t be linked as the rights of the child should never be removed, but the responsibilities of the parent should be a bigger thing socially and politically.

Also NRP’s who don’t pay/keep up their loan payments should be named and shamed in the press, like those people are who don’t pay their council tax. We need a culture change so that the absconding parent who leaves the rest of society to fund his children is shamed, not the hard-working lone resident parent (usually mother) who is doing her best under extremely tough circumstances.

@lyralalala Yes I think you are right. I am back to thinking a US style system where you have to pay is best.

There is still a bit of me though that thinks that an option for men to disassociate themselves at the very beginning would be good. But maybe it wouldn't for the reasons others have given.

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit
Apologies, I wasnt very clear in my comments about adoption.

I am in no way anti-adoption & am truly in awe of the wonderful people who adopt.

I was trying to point out to @PettyContractor that if as many women gave up responsibility & paying for their child as men did and just said "sod this, I'll put the kid up for adoption" who would raise (& pay for the raising of) all those children then?

There is not an endless supply of happy families willing & able to adopt a child and raise them with care.

@PettyContractor throws adoption out as if it's an easy option (easier than wearing a condom when having sex) it really isn't.

Whoever first argued that mothers can give children up for adoption so men should be allowed to disassociate themselves - actually in UK far more men have their children adopted than women. This takes the form of them being adopted by mother’s new spouse. It’s an option that may open up for many NRP’s who don’t establish relationships with their children, so a legal disassociation is possible - the difference being of course that the child’s right to having two parents isn’t being taken away, as one is being replaced by another person.

(It’s interesting to note, though, how many men who don’t pay child support and don’t see their children refuse to allow them to be adopted!)

Btw when my sons are older I will be reminding them that every time they have sex they run the risk of bringing a new human being into the world that they will be responsible for.

As I get older I increasing think that the stakes being so high it would be much better to wait to start a sexual relationship until both parties are sure that they love and care about one another.

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit

We don’t need a US system. We have a perfectly adequate system of sanctions, as I posted earlier in the thread. We can do anything from deducting from earnings, to taking money from savings accounts, putting charges on houses, removing driving licenses and prison in the most extreme wilfully neglectful cases.

What we don’t have is a social or political will to use it.

We need men and women to see not paying for your child as shameful. We need to drop Billy as a mate when he brags about not paying his ex. We need to tell Paul the reason we won’t go on date three with him is that we don’t find his decision to “not fund her life” unattractive. We need more people to be like my ex’s parents and tell their son he’s an embarrassment when they discovered he wasn’t paying anything toward his kids.

Once it’s socially unacceptable it’ll become politically popular and we’ll get governments actually doing something about it to be seen as the party best at dealing with it.

Until then men can stick their sperm where they like and know they won’t have to pay if they don’t want too.

I'd love there to be a serious consequence to not paying. Maybe not prison because we just don't have the space or the money, but a criminal record perhaps, that could be removed after several years of regular payments. I can't feel sorry for people who could lose their jobs over that as others have said

@lyralalala we don't have the same system here though do we? Only income not assets or the actual cost of raising the child come into play. So people become self employed or unemployed (but work cash in hand) or students and just get out of paying.

I liked the US case up thread where the guy decided to take early retirement and the judge wasnt having any of it.

you do realise that if the woman puts the child up for adoption then neither parent is paying to raise the child they created.

So what? Even if it meant the taxpayer paying, we live in a country where half of all households are net recipients of state money anyway, and we know the number of mothers choosing to give up their children is tiny, it's hardly a going to make a significant difference to social spending. Even if I did care, I'd guess adoptive parents are more likely to be net contributors to the state than the single mother of a newborn.

I didn't realise the idea of fathers having a moral responsibility to pay was taken so literally, I always translated in my head into "you have to help me support the child only I want or I will shame you." I see it more as manipulation that something inexplicably left out of the ten commandments.

There should absolutely be a penalty attached to any parent who doesn't financially support their child. I think they lose their driving license in USA which sounds ideal to me

(It’s interesting to note, though, how many men who don’t pay child support and don’t see their children refuse to allow them to be adopted!)

That's the situation in our case. I'd happily adopt my step kids in a heartbeat but he wouldn't allow it.

He owes £20,000+ in arrears and sporadically (once a year ish) sees just one of the children.

He like so many others on here is self employed, now to be fair to CMS they investigated and found he'd been lying about his income for years, hence the arrears.

He doesn't have to pay it though, I'm loathe to even put this in text but the CMS will not try to enforce arrears payments against someone who is on benefits. (MN HQ, you can take this post down if you feel this is information that some NRP's may use to dodge payments) which he went on immediately once the liability order was put in place.

He's appealing the arrears, what he likely doesn't realise is that the judge can put his payments up as well as down. CMS didn't take into account cash deposits into his accounts when calculating his income.

He's still working, I've seen it with my own eyes, but he's on benefits so there's nothing they will do.

But you know what, it isn't about the money, we're pretty comfortable, I love those kids and they have a very settled and loving home life. Sometimes they have to go without but in general they have a good life.

It is about his responsibility as their father though, you can't just forget about your kids and say "not my problem"

Unfortunately he hates my wife more than he loves his kids and she had the audacity to leave the abusive bastard so he'll punish her any way he can.

Try explaining to children that daddy does love them but he's just not very good at being a daddy. It fucking sucks to see their faces or comfort them when he's emotionally hurt them yet again.

Side note
On the steparenting board it boils my blood when people get up in arms about Bio Mum/Dad. Being part of the reproductive process does not make you their parent. I pay for, raise, comfort, do homework with, discipline, laugh with, cry with and everything else that's required as their father. You try telling them that I'm not their dad, see what they say.

As for the comment about men being able to decide, we absolutely can, I split up with someone I was seeing solely on the reason that we were having (protected) sex and I realised I didn't want her to be the mother of my potential children. It hit me like a ton of bricks, what happens if she gets pregnant? I finished it that day.

In short, the entire enforcement system needs to start using its teeth, it's got them but they refuse to bite.

Sorry that got a little ranty but non payment affects the children above everything else and that's why it needs sorting out.

"Plenty of resident parents don't support their children financially either, the state does. That's just as equal to a NRP not paying hcild support."

Ignored your earlier offensive statement like this.

Suspect you are a certain well known poster under yet another name change who is vehemently anti benefits.

It is NOT the same at all because it is not leaving children going without, it is not done out of selfishness or greed.

In an ideal world yes all parents would be able to provide for their children and all children would be supported to adulthood by their parents.

But we don't live in an ideal world. Unplanned pregnancies happen and peoples circumstances change after they become parents.

I had dd as a planned child, in a marriage of almost 6 years standing with a man I'd been with for almost 9 years. I could not have predicted he'd cheat and the marriage breakdown, I couldn't have predicted that dd would be disabled, nor that I myself would become ill and then also disabled due to an unpredictable, not my fault (I was stationary at red light) car accident. All of which ultimately led me to where I am now which is unfortunately currently unable to work.

So yes I've partly raised dd with welfare benefits, I've worked full time as much as I've been able but I could not have prevented my ill health.

My ex has worked full time the majority of that time bar a short spell after he left the army before he found and started his civilian job, he had a very steady income for most of dds childhood and yet begrudged paying the very minimal amount required by law on child maintenance.

He's never even given an excuse let alone a reason.

"If a man wants to start a 2nd family great, but he has to pay everything that's due to his existing DC before that happens." Agree with this too. Ex has had 5 more DC with wife 2 (who was OW) each time the first 3 were born he was quick to get this recognised in order to reduce what he owed dd, yet dd didn't need less food, clothes, heating etc just because he had more kids!

"Also, debt owed should never be cancelled" this too. Ex easily owes over £20k I've had to resign myself to the fact dd will never see that money.

"It’s socially acceptable to walk away from your child completely. It’s socially acceptable to see your child but not pay" exactly and that needs to change

"Only income not assets or the actual cost of raising the child come into play" yes. I know of 4 cases where the nrps new partner/spouse is the higher earner/wealthy and the nrp has quit work partly in order to avoid child maintenance payments. No, child maintenance had to always be paid, from assets if not earnings, the loopholes used for this need to be closed as much as possible (I realise it's be impossible to close them all).

@Graphista one solution is that you always owe the child maintenance whatever the circumstances. If you become sick or disabled or unemployed then you can apply for a state benefit to cover your costs while you are unable to. You don't just get to opt out

My ex paid £50 per month for our 2 sons
Then he met a much younger partner
Who clearly thought he shouldn’t be paying for his children and it stopped.

They then had 2 children together. Eldest son has realised the kind of person his dad is and is pretty much NC. Younger (14 in July) son goes once or twice a week. Dad doesn’t clothe him etc he is fed that’s just about it tbh.

I pay for school trips, hair cuts, clothes, outings etc as well as my bills on a part time wage and I do get annoyed he doesn’t offer half of shoes/clothes. He is self employed and she is at home with their kids. I just feel if you can’t support your own kids don’t have more elsewhere but he seems to think he can do whatever he wants. Just feel sad for my boys who have gone without because their dad doesn’t give a shit

I don't think CMS need more powers, I think they need to use the ones they have far more effectively.

No, I don't think debtor's prisons should be brought back for parents who don't pay child support or that the US system is a beacon for how to deal with said people.

All the shite and bias in the rest of the US justice system and prisons that plenty of people are happy to point out equally applies to this. I think one would have to ignore a lot to think this is working well or justly in the US or that it would work well here. If it is meant to be a deterrent, it's not working very well and there is no great benefit to having a family member in jail or having a felony (which means not only not being able to hold many types of jobs, access many types of support, but also in many US states, losing the right to vote) over a debt. I honestly cannot think of a single benefit that I would have gained if my father has pushed for child support from my mother when he could even the financial and debt situation he was in.

I grew up in US, and this system certainly didn't stop my mother from not paying anything or taking any parental responsibility once she decided she was done. Unlike it seems to be believed, not all mother abandonment involves going into care or being adopted - many of us are shuffled off to friends or other family members. This rarely involves child support or the abandoning parent having any further consequences - and I think this happens way more than people think and it's not going to be in any statistics because it's purposefully not involving the state. This is true both for parents not supporting their kids or child support arrangements between adults. Trust in the state is very low in a lot of places and many people don't actually want other people to get arrested over this.

I think the US laws and stats on state-mandated child support show only a tiny fraction of what is going on with this and I don't think can be separated from the wider issues in American systems for children, justice, or prisons or many cultural attitudes. I think arrest and jail is an oversimple hammer smashing a broken system.