AIBU to think how men have got away with this for far to long

[Alex50]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53064741

Why don’t they pay for their children and think it’s ok?

@ProfessorSlocombe

I agree child support should be treated like any other debt and payment should be more strictly enforced.

The problem there is the men - and the women who like their money - simply won't go for it. Why do you think we have the system we have ?

Bad form to quote oneself I know, but it's an addendum to note why do people think the issue of maintenance and access was so quickly decoupled when the CSA were around ?

If anyone said "So men could have their cake, not pay for it and eat it too", then give yourselves a brownie point.

@Givenupno

Sorry but you sound exactly like one of those feckless twats, always some excuse not to pay for your kids so you don't and the old "too ill to work" nonsense.

I worked full time plus a second job to support my son and often felt like I was too ill to work but went to work anyway. The buck stopped with me to support my son because his father was equally as feckless as you are.

@ProfessorSlocombe I actually disagree with maintenance and contact not being linked. Why should someone have access to a child they care so little about that they are happy to see them in clothes too small, struggling to eat a decent meal etc?

I live in the US, I got child support regularly and a lot of it for 3 kids. I had to have it taken from his wages as he refused to pay or played silly buggers with it. I got $1700 a month.

When he changed jobs and stopped paying, I went back to court. By the time the case came up he owed my close to 5 grand. His credit had been hit twice, the license he needed for his job had been suspended and his drivers license was flagged. On the day we were in court he was told that if he didnt clear the balance that day he would be jailed. It was amazing. Another time he decided to retire at 52 on his state pension so took me back for a reduction. The judge told him to get another job, he couldnt retire at 52 with 3 kids about to go to college then he reviewed his w2 and upped the amount

I know someone here who was still working at 74 as he had dodged his child support for years but as soon as he was eligible for and started collecting his social security at 68 ( old age pension ) they started taking the child support owed. He had to go back to work. The " children" were in their 30s. He was being paid with a paper check and taking it to a check cashing place as he couldnt deposit it in his bank as that would have been taken too. It was glorious. They took every tax refund he was owed too.

We dont really have benefits as such and what we do have is very limited. If there is any way they can get that money they will. I fought tooth and nail to make sure he paid what he was supposed to. I never got a cent above the minimum and he refused to help with anything else, school trips, driving lessons etc. We were back in court every couple of years for 15 years as hed change tactics and try something new. It never worked though.

@Givenupno and the other posters who're defending the actions of this father.

You do realise it's the courts decision whom the child lives with?

It makes me wonder why this is,especially as the mother is 'mad'.

Personally I'd be mad as hell having to deal with this whining idiot for years on end

Maintenance and contact should not be linked - it turns the children into something akin to a gym membership that you can cancel paying if you don't get the use out of it.

Both parents should have access and both should pay (excusing any exceptional circumstances where it would not be in the child's best interests) but one (maintenance) should not rely on the other (access).

Couldn't agree more.

Whilst they're at it, please revise childcare options in the UK. It should be at least subsidised or preferably free, for all kids. It's women who suffer because of this.

@Givenupno

I would happily pay 50% of everything if my mad ex would let the kids live here half the time like they both want to.

But she won’t, and keeps prioritising her wants over theirs so every penny I have and more has gone on fighting her constant lies in court.

End result is I am too ill to work due to the stress and in massive debt because I am trying to achieve the result my children WANT.

Some men are twats and walk away from their kids and should pay their way.

Not all cases are equal, although she loves to tell everyone how I don’t contribute and how they need second hand clothes and the food bank while she leaves them with other people every weekend so she can comfort our with new hair, new nails, eat in restaurants, get pissed and spend £40 on a taxi home.

Two sides to every story

Feckless father alert. You’d rather spunk money on court fees than provide for your children.

OP, I have no idea how some men get away with it. It should be recognised like any other debt. As is often the case, women are expected to take the hit.

The problem there is the men - and the women who like their money - simply won't go for it.

^^
But they like sleeping with women don't they? Those men?

, especially the NY version where the higher earner still pays even if there is 50/50 care.

But that's just spousal maintenance. Why can't the lower earner be equally responsible for getting out and earning more where care is split 50/50?

Honestly I think there should be more 50/50 care as a cultural point, so that anyone having a child expects from day 1 that half the financial burden is, and will always be, theirs.

Dss mother refuses to pay despite happily accepting maintenance from dh for 10 years when dss live with her. He now lives with us.

Some people are just c and I'm not sure any system can fix that.

[quote SoVeryLost]@ProfessorSlocombe I actually disagree with maintenance and contact not being linked. Why should someone have access to a child they care so little about that they are happy to see them in clothes too small, struggling to eat a decent meal etc?[/quote]
Well you and I make two then.

Personally, I think it was an absolute stroke of genius to discover that a child not seeing their father is "bad" whereas a child living in poverty because of their father is "good" - if 1/100th of that power of thinking had been put towards improving life in the UK, we'd be Denmark by now.

But we are where we are. Fathers get free access to their kids, so absolutely no danger of ever being made to pay for them. Hurrah !

The sad thing is none of this would have been possible if it hadn't been gladhanded through parliament by woman voting for it. I grew out of the sisterhood (well, grew up) last millennium, but it still amazes me how easily women make it to shit on other women.

35 years of this tells me 2 generations have been happy enough with it to keep it going, so clearly the majority are happy. And as we know that's all that matters nowdays. Better 51% are happy than 99% better off.

@ProfessorSlocombe what do you mean, won’t go for it?

If it’s registered against you as a debt, as a CCJ for instance on your credit file, the only way you stop that happening is by paying what you owe.

I agree it should be like any other debt - if you don’t pay it there are consequences. I’ve read so many times on here of mums who have provided new addresses and phone numbers but the CMS won’t do anything if the dad just doesn’t respond.

There’s a lot about America I don’t like but I agree with the rules they have in place re child maintenance.

@dontdisturbmenow I’m not sure your case is relevant though. If you don’t register your case through CMS for whatever reason then your ex isn’t not paying you the expected amount. The women in the article have lodged cases with CMS that are not being pursued.

The system isn’t fit for purpose from either side tbh.

My partner has always paid and always would. They never come with anything, even a spare pair of knickers when staying for school holidays or a winter coat etc so we have double of everything here - that’s fine.

However he just lost his job, he still has another part time job so not totally without income, however he has tried to let CSA know for a recalculation - however it is just short of what they say they can change it for. I think like 25% reduction in wage. Otherwise it remains the same until the next year review.
So he can lose nigh on a quarter of his wage but no recalculation. Now if he were living full time with the kids then he’d have options to pull his belt in, make savings etc. But he doesn’t, so he can’t. The only thing he can do is ask ex if she has an issue with reducing whilst he looks for another job to top up his income. Otherwise he’s going to fall into debt.

Ex doesn’t work and has rent paid / benefits etc. So is not going to suffer extensively by knocking off a few quid a month for a short term. She’d have to if they lived together anyway!

Two people choose to have kids and two people should be responsible for the living costs of those kids. There is a huge amount of single mums not working and living on the benefit / maintenance wagon for years. It’s not sustainable. We need to enable them to work as much as we need to force men to pay. What if your ex dies or becomes completely unable to work through illness or accident???

My experience is purely anecdotal obvs.

Muthafunka61

It's quite widely known that UK courts default to the mother as primary care giver.

@ProfessorSlocombe what do you mean, won’t go for it? If it’s registered against you as a debt, as a CCJ for instance on your credit file, the only way you stop that happening is by paying what you owe.

But you can't claim child maintenance as a regular debt. It has to go through the CMS. By design. So, ask yourself cui bono ?

I do agree with a poster above that kids are not "pay per view". however there are many cases that I read about on some of the support groups I am on where the NRP doesn't pay CM because they use loopholes like being self employed and getting dividends, or they're on a DEO straight from their salary because they previously refused to pay but they're then asking for 50/50 residency of their children because they love them so much. Enough to see them go hungry yes? or make their mum work 2 jobs? Make them homeless as she cant pay her rent perhaps?

With holding CM is in my personal opinion a form of financial abuse. And any child court hearings should take into account whether the NRP is willingly and actively paying their CM. I also don't agree with the current policies within CMS that allow a paying parent to reduce their payments with no proof, and that they aren't chasing any missed payments at the moment either. Anyone on a Direct Pay arrangement must be scared witless of payments not arriving.

My ex is on a DEO for CM but it took 9 months to put it in place, and there were £2k of arrears when my first payment arrived. I couldn't not feed my children for those 9 months, or not buy them clothes or pay my mortgage.

Understandably my circumstances do mean I have little sympathy for people who wont support their children financially. In my case he doesn't see them either which means 100% of their parenting is down to me. But he did try and have me arrested for causing him emotional harm by using the CMS. Its apparently traumatising to pay for your own children when you earn £30k+ per year.

Unfortunately money is the root of all evil and this what happens.

Feckless fathers who do not pay for child maintenance should indeed be enforced to pay however woman who also play games with access to the childs father should also be reprimanded.

@haretodaygonetomorrow - how insensitive why should a man have to go to court to have access to his children. I bet woman would soon stop this action if they were going to have there maintenance stopped.

Maybe also child maintenance also should be reviewed and not just "chucked into the pot".

@Givenupno

I would happily pay 50% of everything if my mad ex would let the kids live here half the time like they both want to.

But she won’t, and keeps prioritising her wants over theirs so every penny I have and more has gone on fighting her constant lies in court.

End result is I am too ill to work due to the stress and in massive debt because I am trying to achieve the result my children WANT.

Some men are twats and walk away from their kids and should pay their way.

Not all cases are equal, although she loves to tell everyone how I don’t contribute and how they need second hand clothes and the food bank while she leaves them with other people every weekend so she can comfort our with new hair, new nails, eat in restaurants, get pissed and spend £40 on a taxi home.

Two sides to every story

If it was really in the child's best interests and if the children were REALLY saying they want more time with you to cafcass then you would get that

Now you have the illness they will be reluctant to put the children in your care

And no you don't have to pay child maintenance on disability benefits so it's a good dodge

My dad never paid a penny, and intentionally lost jobs when he thought that he might be forced to pay.
He saw it as a fight against my mum. But I dont care how he saw it, what he did was make sure his kids lived in poverty.
We're not in contact.

Kids need paying for. And it's too easy to get away with doing nothing for them.

Sorry but you sound exactly like one of those feckless twats, always some excuse not to pay for your kids so you don't and the old "too ill to work" nonsense.

Maybe you should take that up with my cardiologist. I am seeing him again tomorrow so feel free to offer any advice as to how you know better than he does how the stress of seeing my kids upset at being kept from me is impacting my health.

I buy all their school uniforms, pay for school trips and activities, buy clothes (as she regularly sends them in filthy clothes that don’t fit, pay for all their haircuts as otherwise they would never get done, pay for their phones, and recently just purchased them each a laptop to help with home schooling and fees them the only decent meals they get all week when they are with me.

But feel free to judge all fathers who ex’s chose to use the kids as weapons as feckless

Unfortunately money is the root of all evil and this what happens.

It's for the love of money is the root of all evil.

For a Christian country, the UK really doesn't come out very well at people knowing much about it. (Except when it comes to criticising other religions. Then everyones an expert)

I have never received a penny in maintenance for either of my children. If other mothers are going to take action against CSA and CMS (prior to that I think it was called Liable Relatives) I would be due a fair bit of money.
The worst thing is though that despite being absent throughout the children's lives the "debtor" reappeared after both became adults and is now plying them with the story that he had paid CSA/CMS lots of money and that is why he could not afford birthday and Christmas presents for them. What annoys me the most is that my DC are believing this rubbish.

Why can't @Givenupno post his opinion on here, there are plenty of mums whose Ex(male) partner HAS been given access or joint custody by the courts and the ex treats the children badly or is even a threat to them - so how come we are suddenly saying oh no the courts are always right? If this dad can't see his children and the children want to live with him, why shouldn't he try to change the situation? And women on here describe their ex partners as much worse than "mad". You are basically suggesting as he is male he must be a liar.

Of course most men don't avoid CMS because they are being wrongly denied access to their children but I thought the OP was inviting discussion about the BBC article and the issue it raises - now one dad has piped up it seems like aiming vitriol towards that poster is more entertaining. If he hadn't come on to post, what on earth would we be talking about?

I know you can’t, but what you said is that people won’t go for it. Presumably people don’t ‘go for’ a CCJ when they stop paying their credit card bill but they still get the CCJ.

I’m saying the system is wrong and should be changed so it is claimed as a debt, and that shouldn’t hinge on an agreement by the parent.

@DrivingMissHazy I find your comparison to a gym membership amusing - because a gym will absolutely pursue you for your membership fees if you stop paying!

Maybe that’s what it should be - a contract. A legally binding contract that says as the NRP I pay x amount which is x% of my salary per child until x date, to be revised if circumstances change. Clearly I’m not a lawyer, just musing, but at least contracts can be held up.