Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
TeachesOfPeaches · 21/07/2019 10:25

@Musereader shocking that you believe maintenance should be means tested depending on the earnings of the RP.

ALL nrp should pay for their children Hmm

CanILeavenowplease · 21/07/2019 10:27

I’m actually quite shocked at the number of women that don’t see the inequality in the current system

It is shocking although usually the negativity comes from women who have never faced the issues you are facing. I also think that when your relationship is generally OK, you can’t possibly imagine that your lovely partner will behave in the way that many do should the relationship breaks down. So many ‘I know my husband would pay’ comments on these kinds of threads. I used to think that too! The assumption is always that we are at fault for having had children with useless lumps rather than laying the blame where it really lies.

The added complication is the social situation of the ‘single mother’ which is always lowest of the low and assumptions made about levels of education, working status etc. We are expected to carry the can and if we struggle in doing so, that’s our fault because benefits are ‘generous’ and we should have never have had children with the useless lump in the first place.

If you add to that, the ‘you don’t know what goes on behind closed doors’ approach to relationships, the acceptance that children are a woman’s responsibility, the stereotype of ‘greedy, vodka-swilling bitch’ and that ultimately, child maintenance is, like all things family, a private matter, we have a society set up to vilify and abuse the one parent doing all the work whilst the other walks away a hero for posting Facebook memes about his little,princess.

We all know men who openly boast about the abandonment of children, the only paying £5 a week, the passive aggressive designer clothes and nails comments and at best we nod and smile and at worst, we buy into it. What we need is for the non payment of maintenance to become as socially unacceptable as drink driving or smoking in pregnancy. But unfortunately, it has no political will behind it because it is feared it will promote single-parenting rather than family which will upset too many of the electorate rather than recognise that we have moved on and family means different things to different people and we can have family and support children all at the same time.

CanILeavenowplease · 21/07/2019 10:29

Then the parents who are earning over the threshold can afford the child without help from nrp?

You’re a single parent and you subscribe to this kind of shit? Really?

HollyGoLoudly1 · 21/07/2019 10:37

We all know men who openly boast about the abandonment of children

Hand on heart, I don't know a one single divorced dad like this. And if I did hear someone I know saying that I certainly wouldn't be nodding and smiling, let alone buying into it!

A few posts here say thing like single mums are seen as 'the lowest of the low' (not my wording!) and drains on society etc. To be honest, and it might just be the single parents that I happen to know, but I've never, ever, heard anyone describe single mums in this horribly negative way.

Soontobe60 · 21/07/2019 10:39

Bloody hell, there's some disgruntled parents on here!
The problem is that everyone brings their own experiences, good or bad, to the table and cannot see it without emotion. The only reason a child should stay with it's mother is if she is breastfeeding. Women are doing themselves a huge disservice if they believe they are the best sex to bring up a child. Society has made it the norm that women bring up children, not science. This is compounded by the belief that 50/50 shared care won't work. There's no reason, apart from physical living distance, why it won't.
In my experience, children are used by both parents as a weapon. NRP Withholding maintenance payments, RP refusing to send children to NRP, one parent insidiously influencing the child against the other parent. It's probably human nature to do this. And of course some children will not like visiting the NRP if it means sleeping in cramped bedrooms, not having their things around them, not being able to play with their friends. It's very rarely because they don't actually want to be with their other parent.
OP, your suggestion is unworkable and would cause even more conflict between parents.
The only real answer is that there is NOT a workable solution. However, both parents should always put the child first.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 10:44

Canileavenowplease that was so brilliantly put. That’s everything I was trying to say put in a much more eloquent and concise way.

OP posts:
YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 10:46

Your OP is way too long and quite hard to follow so I’m not even sure which side you’re on?!

My take on maintenance is this: I did not climb on top of myself and get pregnant, I had help. So my ex should pay (and he does- the CMS amount). The CMS amount is the minimum payment expected. Very rarely in my circles does it cover half the cost of raising a child/children. So if the NRP can pay more or contribute more then they should.

For those who don’t pay despite being in employment I think the penalties should be harsher: it should affect their credit rating, they should have to surrender their passport and for the real arseholes their should be the threat of prison or at least a tag and curfew.

Pankhurst09 · 21/07/2019 10:48

Yousaypotatoesisayvodka I’m on the side of the child.

OP posts:
YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 10:49

Also it doesn’t matter how much money the resident parent has, both parents should be financially contributing to their child.

InTheHeatofLisbon · 21/07/2019 10:49

Hand on heart, I don't know a one single divorced dad like this

Then you've never met my XH.

He has a total of 7, 1 is mine, 1 I knew about when I met him, 2 popped up while I was married to him and 3 were born in the same year as DS1.

He supports none of them. Sees DS1 once a fortnight because that's his "right" and he took me to court which didn't consider the DV aspect of the case at all.

CSA worse than fucking useless so I stopped trying because it became another means of control.

Thankfully, DS1 has never gone without, but that's because of me and my parents in the early years, and DP and me since he was 4.

There is nothing preventing NRPs who have no morals (not all NRPs I know) from screwing the system to avoid their responsibilities.

I think the system does need an overhaul, but I wouldn't know where to start.

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 10:50

Of course, so am I. I am always on my children’s side sadly their father is not. Yes he does pay child support but I don’t think he should be getting a clap on the back for that just because others do not. It’s the least he can do, literally.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 21/07/2019 10:52

All parents yoursay or only NRPs? Plenty of RP don’t pay either.

There are too many parents who don’t put the child first. Many use the children as a weapon, many think only women can care for children, many refuse to work or do a few hours to ensure full benefits, have second families without thinking of the impact etc. It’s not just child support that needs to change but a whole host of things.

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 10:54

I’ve met a few dads like that too InTheHeat and the ones who simply try and wriggle out of it. And the ones like my ex who think they pay “too much” and bitch to their children about how mummy takes all their money so they have none, despite driving a nice new car, smoking like a chimney and burning through money at an alarming rate. They’re all cunts.

InTheHeatofLisbon · 21/07/2019 10:58

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka you could be describing my XH! This is the so called father who, last October, suggested we consider high schools for DS1 and was promptly told he had started high school that August!!!

I should also clarify I have no patience with RPs who limit access to children out of spite, they're as bad as the NRPs who dodge supporting their children.

The children should be of paramount importance, but they aren't. Not in the family courts, or with the CSA. It's all a series of loopholes and bullshit.

XH likes to lord his "parental rights" over me, as a means of control. I've given up telling him that it's parental rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES!

If, as a parent, either RP or NRP, you aren't putting your child/children's needs first, you're a waste of space.

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 11:00

I’m talking about CMS. But no, I don’t deserve a medal either for always putting my children first. It’s what parents do. I know a few parents who astound me with their selfishness in all sorts of ways including my own. I just get on doing my own thing and I think I’m doing an ok job so far.

And yes dads can care for their children too but of all the parents I know who have children with an ex I only know 1 who has them 50/50 and the rest appear happy with every weekend/EOW/contact whenever is convenient for dad with no thought for the children while mums/other relatives pick up the slack the rest of the time.

HollyGoLoudly1 · 21/07/2019 11:03

The CMS amount is the minimum payment expected. Very rarely in my circles does it cover half the cost of raising a child/children.

I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm not sure there should be an expectation that it covers half of the mum's bills. Please hear me out! I can only speak from my/DH experience.

Once upon a time, they were a couple and had a set amount of money to run 1 house. The marriage ended and he moved out. Now that same amount of money has to cover not 1, but 2 houses. He needs his own house with a bedroom for DD, furniture, clothes, toys, his own car to pick his DD up (he left the family car with DDs mum - as he should have of course). It is financially impossible for him to cover half the bills at mum's house plus all his own bills for an entire other house.

The maintenance he pays is not the only financial cost to him for his DD. Yes, she's not in his house full time, but he still needs a house for her. He still has to pay the bills whether she is there 2 nights a week or 7 nights a week. He still needs clothes, toys, books, bike etc. It's not like he pays his maintenance and then skips off into the sunset with no other financial responsiblities.

Nothing is ever straight forward when a marriage or relationship ends and there will always be arguments to be made for both sides. That why I believe there will NEVER be a fair/equitable/workable/one-size-fits-all CMS system that works for every family. They should be supporting families on an individual level to work out finances/contact etc. but this will never be affordable for the government so will never happen.

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 11:04

If, as a parent, either RP or NRP, you aren't putting your child/children's needs first, you're a waste of space.

That’s basically what I should have just said Grin

HollyGoLoudly1 · 21/07/2019 11:05

@InTheHeatofLisbon

That's awful, I'm so sorry. I didn't meant to imply I don't believe there aren't guys like that out there - I totally accept that there are. I just (perhaps naively) hope it's not as common as some of the posters make out.

CanILeavenowplease · 21/07/2019 11:07

many refuse to work or do a few hours to ensure full benefits

Always trotted out when discussing single parents with no regard whatsoever for circumstance, availability of childcare, earning potential, transport etc. Plenty of women who are married work part time and the family claims benefits but they are referred to in a positive ‘working family’ way as opposed to work refusal or minimisation,

Musereader · 21/07/2019 11:09

@TeachesOfPeaches don't know where you got that idea from. Nrp should pay and should pay what nrp can and i will aways say someone should get cms regardless of what pwc earns. If she doesnt need it she socks it away and if she does then she does and it is simply paying her back for her expenses

It should not be relied upon, it is not reliable and i am the type of pwc who will spend any money coming in fron nrp on myself, because i have already paid out of pocket for everything Dd cost and until my ex pays more than the 150 pcm over and above my single lifestyle that my Dd costs me no one will convice me that that money is not for me.

There are two ways to look at it dd costs 700 childcare 150 rent 150 food 50 utilities and 200 clothes and 100 toys totalling 1300 per month (approx figures amortised) So he should pay half.

Or i get an extra 1k per month benefits to defray the costs of child and so she costs me 300 out of my wages over what i had on the same wage while i was single.

Of course she costs me more if i earn more and get less benefits but the more i earn the more i can afford it.

Working for cms for 2 years from 2012 taught me i should never rely on the money from him and so when i had dd in 2016 i never have , i rely on me, my wages and my benefits.

InTheHeatofLisbon · 21/07/2019 11:13

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka Grin

HollyGoLoudly1 it's ok, I didn't mean to have a go at you. Thankfully I don't know many who are as scummy as my XH. Most NRPs I know step up and put their kids first. Just as most RPs I know do the same.

I do hope that the ones who don't are the exception rather than the rule.

YouSayPotatoesISayVodka · 21/07/2019 11:16

Holly I won’t flame you and you make a good point but I am just referring to the child’s costs still, not my own still.

Ex MIL insists her son is paying for my holidays/getting my nails done/hair appointments. I am a single mum to 2, 1 child is disabled and because of this I am on benefits. I can’t afford that stuff 😂 anyway I have never been interested in hair or nails. And my son hates being away from home and always has so holidays are a nightmare Hmm I know she says these things because she rants to my children about what a freeloader I am.

HollyGoLoudly1 · 21/07/2019 11:18

@YouSayPotatoesISayVodka

Jesus wept, she actually says that to your kids Shock

hsegfiugseskufh · 21/07/2019 11:26

Every child costs a different amount though dont they. A child in ft nursery is more expensive than one at school etc. Some children go to expensive clubs, others dont etc etc

Saying "pay half" causes more problems because one parent might be happy spending £30 on horse riding lessons whilst the others not. One might want a cheaper nusery whilst the other prefers the fancy one down the road.

Paying half exactly will never be possible unless youre extremely amicable in which case you'd probably not have this problem in the first place.

AnneLovesGilbert · 21/07/2019 11:31

We all know men who openly boast about the abandonment of children, the only paying £5 a week

No we don’t. You should keep better company.