Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Child maintenance

224 replies

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 00:39

So after reading a Facebook blog from ‘single mum still standing’ and living under the threat of maintenance payments being used as a means of control, and hearing the same issues/grievances from all my resident parent circle, I’m keen to know if the majority feel the same, or just some constructive feedback before I lobby my MP. Thanks in advance.

*This is my experience within the Scottish system.

After reading the very insightful post about maintenance from “Single Mum Still Standing” and the fantastic top comment from Phil Dooner and receiving yet another threat about maintenance, it really angers and saddens me that this country does not have systems in place to allow a fair and adequate system of control for the care of, and fair maintenance payments towards children after separation and divorce.

I have been separated for four years but still after all this time it comes back to maintenance and threats, if I ‘step out of line’

Even if the non resident parent makes a very decent wage but works under a limited company any maintenance payments would only be based on what has been declared. I’ve had regular threats to stop payments and this has happened in the past.

This needs to stop! It’s not just about maintenance payments, it’s about fairness and decency and a just society and actually teaching our children accountability. You have a child, you care for them, regardless of any other factor, they should be priority, period.

What are we teaching children right now? The resident parent must provide all, be all, expect nothing, unless the non resident parent is honest, moral, decent enough, can be bothered to provide.

The system as it stands says;

Resident parent it’s YOUR child, BUT when it comes to rights and access, it’s both ‘YOUR’ child/children, therefore if the non resident parent decides not to pay for whatever reason they deem fit, there’s not one thing you can do about it.

Non resident parent wants 50/50 access ‘YOUR’ child could well be subject to this growing ‘trend’ in court systems. Non resident parent wants to return after many days, weeks, years of not being present ‘YOUR’ child most probably will be forced into contact. Non resident parent has committed a crime? even towards the resident parent! Still a good chance ‘YOUR’ child will still have to endure contact. ‘YOUR’ child has to move house, schools, quit groups, have less than they would have had, not have what their peers have, not participate in the same clubs, not have the same life chances and opportunities? because the non resident parent just decides not to pay towards ‘YOUR’ child, tough, it’s actually YOUR child, and they can walk away from every last bit of responsibility if they so choose.

Resident parent, ensure you have a safe place to stay, food on the table, school clothes, trip money, activities, transport, homework done, emotional care, hygiene, clean beds, clean clothes, good communication with schools, groups, non resident parents (in fact be their PA because it’s your fault if they’re not kept up to date), Keep your own calendar up to date, make play dates, read parenting information, discuss well being, attend events, parents evenings and plays and sports days, do school runs and drop offs, attend doctors and dentists, make Halloween costumes and complete projects, make packed lunches and diners, and of course WORK! But understand your work isn’t important, the non resident parent’s work is much more important and you also need to source childcare and that is your responsibility. Child is ill... that’s your responsibility, not the non resident parent, and there is absolutely, not one iota of responsibility that they need to take, and there is absolutely not one iota of accountability enforced.

Resident parent however, if you don’t/can’t be bothered to provide?. have another family and can’t be bothered with your children from your first relationship? lose your job and can’t feed your children, self employed and choose not to declare all of your earnings and spend the majority on yourself to the detriment of your child’s well being?decide not to care adequately or communicate about your child because of another partner,Just don’t bother to turn up for your child?... ABANDONMENT and NEGLECT. And we will not just advocate those rights for your child and non resident parent, we will enforce them.

So, what is this teaching OUR children? Future generations? And where is the fairness or balance in this system?

The government needs to take this seriously when it comes to enforcing adequate care of OUR children. They are keen to promote a country that is child centred. There is nothing child centred in this archaic, toothless system. Non resident parents are afforded all the rights of a resident parent with zero responsibility. A system that actually allows and fosters control and abuse.

Other countries such as America or Australia have powers to arrest wages. In our tax system that can quite easily persecute a single parent that hasn’t declared their exact earnings or who can wipe out a local business with investigations I find it very hard to understand how they can’t ensure EVERY non resident parent is paying the pitiful bare minimum that the government suggests.

This bare minimum (if you’re lucky, equates to pounds a day) let’s see any of you non resident parents bring up well rounded, well adjusted individuals that deserve all the life chances that any child deserves whether their parents remained together or not, on a few pounds a day.

And this is where the Adverse Childhood Experiences really kick in, although the separation is traumatic, it’s the prolonged control and negativity this backward system allows.

It should be very simple, make non resident parents accountable just like resident parents. Have laws to enforce this, have a system with teeth, arrest wages, have a fair standard amount awarded to the resident parent at time of separation that is not controlled by the non resident parent, that does not allow any form of control, don’t allow abandonment, neglect, or abuse from either parent. It really shouldn’t be this difficult.

Us resident parents are tired, we’re tired of fighting a fight we shouldn’t have to. The majority want the best for our children, we want laws in place to protect our children and us and ultimately our country’s future.

This is a much bigger debate but to kick it off I’m asking for a petition to award an initial standard amount to the resident parent at the time of separation (in the exact same manner as government child tax payments would be awarded) that comes directly from the non resident parents wages/benefits/income. A payment that cannot be controlled or adjusted by the non resident parent and is not ‘means based’ on the non resident parent, what an utterly preposterous system in the first place. We have an actual living, little human being here, who needs care and food and much more, not a ridiculous tiny little percentage of an often made up income. Because at the moment you can have a situation where the non resident parent is required to pay nothing, so by this logic ‘their’ child should have nothing? How can this be right?
(*taking into consideration that many non resident parents are pushing for extra nights access only because this backward system then reduces the amount they have to pay, many are self employed and only declaring a little while their lifestyle tells a very different story, many straight up just don’t pay, many just pay when they want, many use maintenance payments as means of control for years and years and years, it should be a fair, standard amount in line with the cost of living and inflation, and bringing up a child in line with costs such as weekly/monthly food, childcare, health, activities, clothes, shoes, housing, utility bills, phone contracts, prior commitments etc... the list could go on) a fairer, further amount should then be based on what was a prior lifestyle for the children, house, area, clubs, activities, bills, and also future clubs, activities, needs, college/university etc... (not the now made up wage of the non resident parent).

The funny (or not so funny) thing is, I instantly imagined an outcry at that above list! “Phone contracts”?! And that is exactly where the problem lies...

The percentage of female judges in Scotland and the rest of the UK was sitting at an all time low when a study was conducted in 2016 (24% in Scotland and only 30% in England and Wales while the continent wide average was 51%)

Women struggle to get above 30% in the Scottish Parliament and 20% in the House of Lords...

Taken from gingerbread.org ...

In the UK “There are around 1.8 million single parents – they make up nearly a quarter of families with dependent children (i)”

“Around 90 per cent of single parents are women.”

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from these statistics.

I’m proposing a standard amount at time of separation that is paid directly into the resident parents bank account at time of separation that comes directly from the non resident parents income without any penalty to the resident parent/child (as is the current system) and this must be enforceable by law with the same penalties as not paying your council tax etc... (again highlighting the importance being placed on our children in this current system)

It’s still not morally right or fair but it’s a start.

OP posts:
HirplesWithHaggis · 21/07/2019 01:19

And if the NRP doesn't have/earn your "standard amount", what then?

kamelo · 21/07/2019 01:31

I get where you are coming from however I also believe laws made either in haste or based on emotion are usually bad and your post is clearly full of emotions.

What if your base amount is more than they earn or is so much of their earnings it leaves them without rent/food?
How far do you go when the NRP is not compliant as doing so would leave them homeless? Ultimately it's prison, is that how far you are happy to go?

There are so many things wrong with the current system however your suggestions are no improvement.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 01:36

But where does that leave the child? The child is their responsibility? Yes? What if the resident parent is struggling? This system is completely one sided and not child Centred and your reply just demonstrates that. Your main focus was the non resident parent, what about the innocent child that didn’t ask for this unjust situation. If I sounded emotional about this topic, it’s because I am.

OP posts:
RubbingHimSourly · 21/07/2019 01:41

Your threads far too long. 💁

kamelo · 21/07/2019 01:52

My main focus was how it was in any way an improvement to have a NRP imprisoned for non payment. As a law that has to be the ultimate sanction, is that how far you think it should go? I don't.

The system as it stands is flawed, I agree, however I don't see how this is any better. The current system ultimately tries to be fair to all but will always have cracks that people fall into, the particular example regarding company directors is well known, not just for maintenance payments but taxes and benefit entitlements too.
I'd much rather try to fix that loophole around dividend payouts for example than completely overhaul the system which would inevitably create new unintended consequences.

HirplesWithHaggis · 21/07/2019 01:56

I agree that enforcement of child maintenance should be more effective, absolutely. But you can't just pick a number and say NRP must provide £xxx, because NRP may not be able to afford that sum. Which is why a set % is used.

There should be ways to chase a self employed NRP more effectively, and those who live off investments or "family money", those who get massive bonuses or lottery wins.

SD1978 · 21/07/2019 02:00

Children don't 'belong' to either parent- that's probably the biggest error I see. Money and access are two seperate issues- as I've seen written here- children aren't and shouldn't be pay per view commodities- the two issues should be kept seperate. It's crap when you rely on CSM and it's withheld, fudged or used as control- absolutely. But that's nothing to do with a father spending time with his kids regularly. It doesn't make him a 'good' dad that he is spending time with kids he helped to create- it juts makes him a parent. If he parents and had contact with the kids- money as an issue should be kept seperate and between the adults.

NotBeingRobbed · 21/07/2019 02:15

Yes, the resident parent has to provide all while the NRP can get off Scott free. As you said - all rights and no responsibilities. So if, for example, the RP saves for a holiday the NRP can block that out of spite.

Tartypants · 21/07/2019 02:42

I agree it should be based on the actual costs. Probably a lot of NRPS couldn’t afford this. So NRPs could be given loans in the same way as students are (paid to RP direct, with an added amount to cover any childcare work over half time which is actually NRPS responsibility). As for prison being the last resort for NRP - it’s not any worse than it being the last resort for RP, as it is as the RP has to at least cover the basics as if they don’t find the money it’s neglect. Why should iit be different for NRP?

Kpo58 · 21/07/2019 03:02

It should be that the government gives the RP the agreed amount of child maintenance and then bills the NRP for it. Until it hurts the government, they will never adequately chase the non paying NRP for it.

araiwa · 21/07/2019 04:16

Get rid of the whole rp/nrp

50/50 care of kids except in extreme circumstances then we dont need maintence at all.

Thhe patriarchy usually give the children to the women curtailing their lives. Give the dads equal care responsibilities

Gingerkittykat · 21/07/2019 04:57

They already have powers to enforce payment but never use them. I eventually got a DEO order, but amounts still vary widely and many months I get 0.

www.gov.uk/child-maintenance/nonpayment-what-happens

They can send in bailiffs, send NRP to prison, sell houses but that is never done so the non payers know they can get away from it,

Yes, I would use prison as the ultimate sanction for the deadbeats who wilfully don't pay for years.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 06:29

SD1978- children should not be “pay for view commodities” but my point is that this is the case for resident parents, if we didn’t provide it would be neglect and we wouldn’t see our children. The consequences of treating children in a certain way, not turning up for them, letting them down, not paying for them need to have the same consequences or else it’s an unfair and unbalanced system that does not place the child at the centre.

OP posts:
Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 06:32

Gingerlittykat sorry to hear that, it’s shit. Completely agree, I haven’t heard one person say that the system has ‘worked’ for them. I know plenty of people with teenagers and grown up children and they haven’t had one bit of support from the NRP. It’s so wrong.

OP posts:
blackcat86 · 21/07/2019 06:48

I dont think that the system works for RP or NRP so most people I know have private arrangements but they are frought with emotion and issues to. DH is a NRP. His ex seemed to think she was being underpaid in their private arrangement to went to CMS but after 6 months of both parties complying they hadn't got anywhere, seemingly telling both different things and dragging their feet. They are back to a private arrangement now. The only issue I see with your proposal is that that RP have a lot more support from benefits (as they should) for times of financial hardship, low wages, or to help with part time working. What happens if the NRP loses their job or is in financial hardship? Prior to MN I probably would have paid for DH but now I would kindly suggest to DH and is ex that they sort it out between them. However, now me and DH have a baby and the marriage is a bit rocky. What do you propose happens if we split? My baby would still need to have their living expenses paid for by me and I couldn't reduce that simply because DH has another child, she still costs me the same. If he were to fairly contribute to both he would be destitute so there does need to be a system that accounts for people with children in different families (I appreciate I could have not had a child with him but I went into our marriage genuinely believing it would be forever). I can see the appeal of having a set amount but if the NRP wages go up drastically over the child's lifetime they could be under paying by a significant amount.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 07:08

Black cat I agree, many could be underpaying by a significant amount that’s why I would propose that there is an initial standard, fair amount and then another amount that is based on different factors.

OP posts:
Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 07:09

Kpo58 agreed.

OP posts:
Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 07:10

Tartypants sounds like a reasonable way to ensure fair and consistent payments.

OP posts:
Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 07:12

Notbeingeobbed very true. I find it’s the last means of control therefore I never know when it’s going to be used against me (ultimately my children).

OP posts:
megletthesecond · 21/07/2019 07:14

50/50 care might not suit the dc's though. They're entitled to a stable home and not having to chop and change mid week.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 07:20

Megletthesecond. I’m not a fan of 50/50 care. Personally I think one stable home works better for the child, but there are always exceptions. I think it’s worrying that this seems to be a go to decision for Judges and the outcome for families who find themselves in the court system at the moment.

OP posts:
BitchQueen90 · 21/07/2019 07:23

50/50 is often NOT in the best interest of the child though. The children I know who do 50/50 often resent being shipped from one home to the other, not having a real "base" home, missing out on things from one home when they are at the other parent's house. I'm not saying that's true for all children but I certainly don't want it for my DS, especially as his dad works shifts including nights. I'm divorced and exh and I BOTH feel that me being the resident parent and DS having weekends/overnights with his dad is the best thing for DS.

More needs to be done to enforce maintenance payments, I fully agree. But I don't agree with having a set amount at separation, I would not have expected that from my exh. Regular payments based on NRP's income need to be enforced.

hsegfiugseskufh · 21/07/2019 07:25

Not all nrps are total shit heads op and youre assuming they are.

Equally not all rps are badly done to either, and by the same ticket some rps are shit heads when youre assuming theyre all not.

I agree their needs to be a better system in place which works for both parents and the child. However there are so many variables i imagine this is near impossible to achieve.

Pinktinker · 21/07/2019 07:27

Didn’t read the full post, only skimmed it.

I don’t think it should be a set amount from the time you separate and never change. The NRP May earn 20k when you first separate but get a new job a few years later and earn double. The percentage it’s set at right now is far too low though, I agree it should be increased.

Example. My exh earns approx 1.6k per month post tax. He pays me £200 a month for three children so he’s coming away with 1.4k to pay his bills. He has no other children but he does live with his GF and her two children. Because he lives with her two children, he gets to pay me less? I’ve never personally understood this rule. The man can move in with any randomer with children and subsequently pay less towards his own children’s upbringing. It’s unfair. £50 per week for three children will never be enough even though I earn twice as much as him. It grates on me because he doesn’t provide for them in any other way either.

Access is a sticky situation. 50:50 access would not always work, my DC would be miserable with that set up. They hated visiting his house enough one day a week so I stopped over nights which has improved their overall well-being, now they only see him for a few hours one day at the weekend which they can’t even be bothered with.

hsegfiugseskufh · 21/07/2019 07:28

Yes, the resident parent has to provide all while the NRP can get off Scott free. As you said - all rights and no responsibilities. So if, for example, the RP saves for a holiday the NRP can block that out of spite

The rp can do that to the nrp as well you know