American man can’t go on honeymoon due to unpaid child maintenance

[SinkGirl]

Stumbled across this in a group on Facebook - newlyweds can’t go on honeymoon as he has $2500 of unpaid child support which in his state means he can’t get a passport.

I think this is bloody brilliant. And wonder why we don’t do it here. AIBU?

YABU - unpaid child support shouldn’t prevent you getting a passport
YANBU - if you owe lots of child maintenance, you shouldn’t be able to get a passport / driving license etc

Slightly concerned that his new bride is so unconcerned by the fact she’s marrying a deadbeat - good luck to her in the future, I think she will need it.
(apparently this person’s profile showed a very expensive wedding too!)

I agree this is great. It's definitely something the US does much better than us. I think we should look at how vigorously they chase down child support and look to do the same here.

@UhtredRagnarson

I think CM should be assessed as a minimum amount for every child- the way child benefit is calculated and that’s the minimum NRP owes, even if on benefits, adjusted for overnights, and on a sliding scale according to income and if it isn’t paid, the government pay it and the NRP owes the government. That way the RP would be guaranteed £X amount as a minimum every month in child support and then it could be counted in benefit applications.

Well, apart from the government paying, that is exactly what does happen.

NRPs who are unemployed have their child maintenance payments taken out of their UC payments before they receive them.

@Rummikub

I don’t know It makes me feel uneasy And I have an ex who hasnt paid maintenance

Why would it make you uneasy if your ex couldn't go on holiday until he paid you what he owes you

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

Why would you need a passport to get a job?

It's often asked for as ID to prove you are who you say you are

Yes. But if you don't have one there are other ways to prove it. I don't have a passport. Or a driving license. I have somehow miraculously managed to rent houses and get jobs. They are not essential.

Well, apart from the government paying, that is exactly what does happen.

No it isn’t.

I meant a minimum base that every child is entitled to from their NRP, (adjusted for overnights) calculated the same way child benefit is calculated- based on the cost of raising a child. So for example every child would be entitled to £30 per week minimum from their NRP and then it increases with increased income. None of this £7 nonsense. And it isn’t counted when the RP claims any benefits. So no, definitely not what currently happens. Far from it.

None of this £7 nonsense.

Why is £7 nonsense? - Serious question.

That will generally only apply when the NRP is unemployed and claiming UC.

At the moment, people on UC are getting a covid uplift of £20 per week and so are getting £95 per week. Outside of covid the standard rate is £75 per week.

They will also get help towards their rent and council tax up to a certain amount.

So an NRP who is unemployed and paying £7 per week is paying 10% of their £75 income to the RP.

Of course that is a smaller proportion than the standard rate of 12% of gross pay.

However, let's compare that with what the RP will receive if she does not work and is also on UC. With one child and not working the RP will receive £160 per week at the moment with covid (afterwards it'll go down to £140).

The RP will also receive more towards their rent as well.

I live in a pretty average cost of living area (eg not London etc) and here, a single person on UC under the age of 35 would be given up to £65.59 per week to help pay towards rent. A single person age 35+ would get up to £110.47 per week towards rent.

On the other hand, an RP with one child would get up to £136.93 per week towards rent.

When you have a look at the figures I really don't think that £7 per week out of £75 is unreasonable (ok they are getting £95 at the moment but that's only until October)

But the crucial difference is that the RP is hugely restricted in what they can do in terms of work, whereas the nrp is not. The RP would have to find a job that works round school hours, or pays well enough to cover childcare, not all of which is covered by benefits. They can't take shift work, or anything that finishes after about 6 unless they have willing family. The nrp can do all of that., plus overtime, extra random shifts if they come up, seek promotions etc. Not to say no RPs can do that but it's much much harder so you can't say that an RP on benefits is somehow just as 'bad' or worse than a nrp.

Why is £7 nonsense? - Serious question.

How on earth can that be a serious question?

so you can't say that an RP on benefits is somehow just as 'bad' or worse than a nrp.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make - I'm sorry if it came across like that.

The point I was trying to make is that £7 a week is not unreasonable for NRPs on universal credit.

This doesn't do a lot to solve the ones who keep income off the books though. From these boards it sounds like the more common problem.

@Rummikub

I don’t know It makes me feel uneasy And I have an ex who hasnt paid maintenance

Genuine question....what does it make you uneasy? ( it’s never been an issue for me as I’m still with the partner I had my children with ....but I would have thought it’s a good thing )

But it obviously IS a totally unreasonable amount to expect an RP to make up the difference between £7 and what it actually costs to give a child all they need. Regardless of whether the RPs income is from benefits or not, a far greater proportion of their income goes on the child than 10%. An NRP, outwith any other issues such as disability, can and should work 2/3 jobs in whatever hours or location needed to provide a non laughable amount, and if they can't, the Gov ought to contribute a meaningful amount in lieu of that to the RP that accrues as a debt, that represents the fact that children have two parents, not one.

I get £7 a week for 4 children. It’s so pathetic that I’m cancelling it , £7 a week is a joke. I wouldn’t even bother to claim £7, not worth it.

To those asking why it makes me feel uneasy.. it was touched on earlier in the the thread by pp.
My concern is that the govt then removes the safety net of benefits which are reliable. I am then left at the mercy of NRP. Whether he pays or not. Leading to hardship.

“Why would it make you uneasy if your ex couldn't go on holiday until he paid you what he owes you“

Because he then gains control of my life. Exerting pressure, threats.

I voted YABU because the American system doesn't bother to distinguish between won't pay and can't pay. About 50,000 Americans are in jail for non-payment of child support. Many are released only to be re-imprisoned a few months later because they don't earn enough money to pay support demands that ignore their actual earnings. And not all those 50,000 are men.

www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/sep/2/poor-parents-fail-pay-child-support-go-jail/

www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html

And for the most absurd result: A 20 year old woman paying "child support" on behalf of her mother, she is the child, because otherwise her mother would go to jail.

www.kiro7.com/news/trending/missouri-woman-20-pays-own-child-support-keep-her-mom-out-jail/TKZ62E7VGBB6BDCTACTUHH3GRA/

It's really not something Britain should copy.

Americans can go to court and apply for a variation

two other fun quirks of the American system.

If you find out that you are not the father of the child but have been financially responsible for them the system continues to hold you responsible for them.

Also the financial support costs do not stop when they are in prison. Meaning that they end up on a cycle of going in out out of prison as the amounts increase and employers will not give those with criminal records a job.

If you find out that you are not the father of the child but have been financially responsible for them the system continues to hold you responsible for them.

That is often true, especially for children born to married people. It's because the systems focus on protecting children, not the adults involved.

SenecaFallsRedux

Not so much protecting the child (leaving them with a liar, a cheat and someone that has committed fraud.) as the state refusing to take responsibility.

@FrippEnos

SenecaFallsRedux

Not so much protecting the child (leaving them with a liar, a cheat and someone that has committed fraud.) as the state refusing to take responsibility.

Under what circumstances do you think the state should take responsibility?

MissConductUS

I think that the state should be tracking down the real father and making him pay.

I got a mortgage without any photo ID it was more complicated but not much of a ball ache. The bank was horrible though when trying to transfer the deposit over. In USA they can also do jail time for not paying child support. I think its a great idea.