Child maintenance

[Pankhurst09]

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.

That wouldnt happen in a family that lives together though would it? You have a second child and you spread the money that was prev being spent on 1 between 2.

I think its unfair that it should be any different when it comes to families that dont live together.

The rp could have more kids and have less to spend on the first kids but the nrp couldn't stop that.

I think it would just create futher inequality, more bitterness and probably damage sibling relationships in time.

But that's what I said.. In a 'together' family that a decision made jointly. What happens too frequently is that the 'first family' not only doesn't see the other parent much but is supported less by them. No one is saying the NRP can't have more, but not at the cost of the maintenance that the RP may well rely on. If the RP has more, they are making a decision about their own household, not someone else's.

They're making a decision that impacts on theur shared children but thats ok?

No. All children are equal and should be treated as such. There should be no president set that first families come before or are more important than second families.

I also tend to think this would drive the more morally ambiguous nrps to quit their jobs to look after new babies and have their partner work, which wouldnt benefit the children who maintenance is payable for.

I guarantee that rps make thousands of decisions that impact on their shared children without consulting the NRP every day. That's what happens when one parent is left with the responsibility. The problem with any of these discussions is that we can imagine a system that would be fair in an ideal world where everyone worked for the best interests of the child but we don't live in that world. So then we have to say well some people will cheat the system by doing x so let's make the system as least demanding or onerous as possible so people are less likely to cheat it. That doesn't work either does it. I don't really know what the answer is.

But its hypocritical to say the rp can have another 10 kids and spread their money further but the nrp cannot do that. Their first children are more important.

It's about households. If the RP has more kids she is making that decision that will impact her household, ability to pay for luxuries, activities, a new car whatever. It doesn't impact anyone else. If the NRP does and reduces maintenence that impacts on a household other than his own. The RP may already be working full time and doing all they can to maximise income within the limits of caring for the children so can't go and earn more to make up the difference. The NRP however, presumably has a partner who is having the baby and if they chose to, could do additional work to help cover the cost of the extra child, rather than passing that cost onto the ex.

So basically its ok for the rp to neglect their financial responsibility for their first children, but not ok for the nrp?

Its not passing the cost onto the ex by any stretch of the imagination. Its a parent being equally responsible for all their children.

What happens say if a man has a child who he pays cm for. He then goes on to have another child. That relationship breaks down so cm is due to that child.

Who gets what then? Is the 2nd child entitled to less or nothing?

I really don't think you're taking on board what I'm trying to say. You've suggested the RP has 10 kids.. She's unlikely to do that as she's the one parenting them. It's far more likely that an NRP will have multiple kids that he doesn't live with and yes. In that instance, he should provide a decent amount of maintenance to each one. Bearing in mind that maintenance is often v low and not close to 50% of the cost of a child, an NRP paying CMS only is getting off pretty bloody lightly.
An RP who goes on to have another child is not neglecting their first child because I guarantee you they are already paying more than 16% of their income toward that child. An NRP who has a second child elsewhere has 84% of their income to give to their second child. Plus presumably they are actually helping parent. So no, I don't think the 16% to the first child should go down. It is difficult if the 2nd relationship ends too, and there is a cap on the % that can be taken in total so it would probably have to go down in that instance but again, in an ideal world we wouldn't have lots of kids to one parent in numerous households.

I am taking it on board. Doesnt mean i have to agree with it.

No, but you're misrepresenting my point and then arguing against that representation. If an NRP reduces maintenance due to a 2nd child, the RP usually absolutely does pick up that extra cost if they are possibly able to so that the child doesn't have to miss out. So the first family 'suffers' at the expense of the new one. The RP has to find extra funds and / or try to shield the child, depending on age, from the fact that the NRP has prioritised a new family. The first child isn't more important but it already exists. A second child doesn't have to if the funds aren't there.

I have silently read this thread and others like it, and really bemoan the negative slant that is placed on NRP.

Firstly - the very fact that somebody has to be labelled a NRP - I absolutely hated that, and argued (successfully) in my separation agreement not to have that language included - but the CMS insist on that label. Best will in the world, 50/50 shared care is not practical / very disruptive for the kids - as it means a different routine every week no matter how it is split - or at least this was what my ex argued. As a result I ended up with the horrific NRP label, despite having the kids 3 nights a week - every week. The calculation the CMS applies at this stage is a woeful misrepresentation of the costs involved in virtually 50/50 shared care.

Yes I earn well, but on top of everything to provide a stable, loving and comfortable home while they live with me, I send £600+ a month, with around £150-£200 of “extras”, and half the wrap around care during school terms.

Now try telling me that the RP’s income shouldn’t be taken into account when calculating what each parent should contribute to their children. I believe this is the way it’s done in some other countries. Otherwise - effectively the NRP could be financially supporting the children full time.

I dont think spending money on a new child as well as existing children is prioritizing the new child at all. No "shielding" needs to happen really does it?

Youre basically saying men shouldnt have second families and if they do the new wife should fund the baby because the first kids mustnt receive a penny less because they existed first.

Saying you have to shield the kids is all a bit "hes got a new baby he doesnt love you anymore" isnt it.

I agree maintenance should not be lowered to account for step children. It is though.

I agree with parents paying for their children. But I dont agree with them taking 40% of wages to cover arrears when on a zero hours contract etc.

Earnings of 180 and being left with 108 and being unable to pay rent isnt very fair. Means the nrp could be made homeless and then the child has nowhere to stay on contact nights.

I agree they shouldn't have arrears but due to circumstances they do. They also are in the process of getting a better job.

tryinghard: The RP’s income is irrelevant, as a NRP you’re not contributing towards the RP’s expenses.

That’s one thing I was astounded to discover. It’s not really about the child, or the money, it’s about getting one over the ex. Punishment for ‘misbehaviour’. Tit for tat.

What seems to be lost pretty quick is the most impprtant aspect: it’s all about the children.

I earn x3 times over what exH does. He contributes £40 a week in maintenance. In spite of that, DD and I are doing fine, I pay for extra tuition, school expenses, trips, she does not go without.

Now, if I earned enough but didn’t use my income to support my child, or if I just matched his contribution, DD would starve under a bridge. £80 a week would not cover her accomodation and food.
Rather than being grateful and supportive towards me, exH is absolutely seething I earn so much more, why do I want his maintenance, I am comfortable off. He is fuming we have a cleaner. I work 60-70h a week.
So it’s not about DD, it’s about his anger towards me. I am not paying the cleaner with his £40 a week. Hell, she costs more than that anyway.

Far too simplistic. 50/50 isnt in the best interests of most children and its supposed to be about them not the NRPs rights. Far too many abusive deadbeat fathers are using their rights and claims of faux parental alienation to continue their abuse and control of their exes through maintenance. I see it professionally and personally.

Children's wishes are ignored and paid lip service to. They are forced into contact they dont want even as teenagers. My ex attacked my dd and we got a non mol order. It expired and shes now forced into contact twice a month despite clearly telling the judge she doesnt want to see him.
I have a court order for maintenance which he ignores. He pleads poverty whilst buying new cars and exotic holidays.

If single mums were black and nrps white then the injustice would be addressed. But misogyny is so entrenched and deep rooted in our society that deadbeat fathers get away with murder.

There should be a complete overhaul of the system. Community service and removal of driving licences for non payers as a bare minimum.

And I was married for 20 years before he started to hit me so please stop with the victim blaming nonsense that women should choose their partners more carefully.

Someone will come along and jump on that I'm directing this at men and there are good fathers out there. Yes but imo they are few and far between. The stats back me up. Its about time men were called to account.

There are a couple of things that I don't understand about the British child maintenance service.

1. How the amount was calculated? My award was £51 / week for two children for a long time, as the agency could not verify ex's income. It was a set amount, but no one could explain to me what is the basis of calculation - is it supposed to cover 50% of all costs, or is it just a token contribution?

2. At the same time he got a mortgage for a £700K house, how come that the bank could see where the income is coming from, but the child support agency couldn't? I wonder if they just don't have sufficient legal powers to investigate.

3. Why, if my ex moves in with someone who already has children, his obligations to support his own materially reduce? In this way, the children in the new family are supported by three people - their mother, their father and the new stepfather.

4. Why second, third etc. children are "worth" less? The marginal increase in child maintenance for the third child is only 3%, but surely they cost almost the same as the first one, bar any hand downs and sibling fee discounts?

I hope they don't do shared care.

I couldn't handle the DS for more then his sundays visits.

The money issue yes they should pay but not enforce 50:50

Someone will come along and jump on that I'm directing this at men and there are good fathers out there. Yes but imo they are few and far between. The stats back me up. Its about time men were called to account

that is utter utter bullshit if ever I heard it. You REALLY believe that good fathers are few and far between? Christ. What stats exactly back you up hmm?

The RP’s income is irrelevant, as a NRP you’re not contributing towards the RP’s expenses

well, you are because children don't pay rent, bills or mortgages do they?

ofc you're contributing, you're contributing to the household (which is fine) but it seems absolutely daft for the NRP to be completely on their arse, unable to rent a home big enough to have their child overnight because they're paying however much to their ex who is absolutely rolling in it.

It isn't about the child in that case, because the child doesn't actually need extra money, its about "its your child you should pay" and whilst in the vast majority of cases, that makes sense but in the one I have used as an example above, it doesn't, at all.

I think a lot of RPS hide behind the guise of "for the kids" when it isn't always that way at all.

never get with a partner who has kids from a previous relationship(especially one who has three/four kids with three/four partners...never have children with someone who has kids from a previous relationship....never have children with out being married....be self sufficient (work, dont rely on a partner)...be very picky on a partner (good work history, no habits that cause 'problems')etc. Read things on here all the time, people just settle for any old rubbish and put up with crap cos 'i love him/her' while said person is out all night, doesnt work, treats them like shit...etc...etc

SeaSidePebbles. You have simply stated a convenient truth without addressing the challenge that was laid down.

Why should a NRP - especially one that is providing shared care approaching 50/50 contribute financially for the full week, and the RP only contribute for part of the week? Imo, the calculation should be based on both household incomes, and adjusted proportionally for the care split. That way, both parents are contributing as much as they can, all the time.

This could even work for exactly 50/50 where there is an income disparity so that the children have an equal lifestyle in both houses.

Now actually address the challenge and tell me why this shouldn’t be the case.