To be pissed off parents who don't pay child support STILL isn't a priority?

[daretodenim]

My friend just found out her ex is on the other side of the world, living in great town (brilliant weather, loads of things to do, good quality of life) on a salary that in pounds would be six figures (based on his salary history when together and his current job title).

After they divorced, he disappeared saying divorce means he's not a dad any more!

He's never paid child support. Friend has been financially struggling with two kids to support alone.

When I was a child, 40 years ago, my father fucked off abroad and paid some child support, if end when he decided he felt like it. My mother struggled massively.

Why is not ensuring that your children are fed, housed and clothed AT A MINIMUM, not considered child neglect? Never mind the fact that disappearing and ignoring your children is the definition of emotional neglect!

The issue is always about the mothers (or resident parent) struggling, and they do and it's not fair. But from the child's perspective, if the mother (resident parent) decided to behave in the same way as the father, she'd most likely end up prosecuted for neglect.

I know I'm suggesting it's mainly men who do the fucking off and I do recognise that some women do, but in every case bar one that I've come across, it's been the father.

AIBU to think in 40 years (plus) this should have been resolved by now? Why is neglect not neglect if a father does it? Why can resident parents not move abroad with their children because The Hague Convention will see them charged with kidnapping if the non-resident parent goes to the police (I agree with this btw), but a father actively neglecting his children, is free to carry on?

I'm sure someone will say that women are responsible for who they have children with. I'd suggest that a great many women don't have children with men they believe will neglect their children's basic needs.

[Whammyyammy]

My mother spent a lot of money and 2 years taking my father to court in the 80s to get child support. My father's boss had to attend, the judge awarded my mother a weekly amount and his boss was ordered to deduct it from my father's weekly pay and pay direct to my mother.

As my father walked out of court, he went up to his boss and quit his job right there.

Men that don't pay are shits.

[osbertthesyrianhamster]

YANBU

[Thatisnotwhatisaid]

Some men only contribute by paying the minimum amount of maintenance but don’t really do very much parenting. Probably justify it to themselves by thinking ‘well at least I pay my way’ except the minimum amount of CM in this country is laughable.

My friend gets less than £300 a month for three children from her ex and he barely sees them. Sees them for maybe 6 hours every other weekend, can’t have them overnight because his house is too small. He doesn’t really show much interest in how they’re doing and never does anything with them when he sees them, just let’s them sit playing games all day in another room really. Also doesn’t feed them very much when they’re there so they return home starving. He’s never even done a school run, just basically totally opted out of parenting but at least he sends less than £300 a month .

I don’t know how they sleep at night tbh. I stay up worrying about whether my DC are doing well enough at school sometimes never mind worrying about the fact I only see them for 12 hours a month, through choice...

[gabsdot45]

I totally agree, it's disgraceful and the tax payer ends up picking up the bill.
These men , (lets be fair it's usually men) should be ashamed of themselves

[BillMasen]

So, let me start by agreeing that NRPs who don’t pay are pretty shitty, it’s not on and yes it should be more societally unacceptable.

And yes I am NRP who pays more than CMS, has shared care, and ensures kids get clothes, shoes, anything they need here.

But, some of the reasons for being unhappy about paying I’ve heard/read are :

Sometimes a chunky CMS payment means the dad can’t afford a house big enough for kids to have rooms, or even overnights. I can see it’s tough to be in a bed sit, totally unsuitable for kids and to pay out, ensuring you’ll never afford anything bigger.

Mum doesn’t work and gets benefits, so effectively the cost of the kids is split between the dad and the state. Mum is not forced to contribute but dad is.

Access is restricted or refused. I understand it must feel unfair to pay for kids you can’t see (despite court orders). There feels like no sanctions for mums blocking access but CMS will deduct from earnings if you don’t pay.

These are just some things I have heard dads say. I have sympathy for the sentiment, if not the action of not paying.

[BillMasen]

@gabsdot45

I totally agree, it's disgraceful and the tax payer ends up picking up the bill.
These men , (lets be fair it's usually men) should be ashamed of themselves

Agree, but there’s no taxpayer bill. NRPs don’t get more if RPs don’t pay.

I’ve seen it argued that as NRPs get benefits regardless of CMS payments that must be enough to live off so the payments are just a bonus.

[forinborin]

I’ve seen it argued that as NRPs get benefits regardless of CMS payments that must be enough to live off so the payments are just a bonus.
So what if the RP doesn't get benefits? As you are presenting this as an argument, could you explain it? The next deductive step is: they don't get benefits => they must have enough to live on from their own income => the father doesn't have to contribute as they have enough anyway, his payments are a bonus.
But why "enough" is considered good enough?

[wanteddeadoralive18]

@sandgrown thank you, that’s good to know. I only wish the CMS would tell me this rather than sending a generic letter each month!

I don’t have a bad job so don’t get anything from the state other than child benefit, I pay for all the essentials for the kids to keep a roof over their heads, feed and clothe them. The maintenance due from EXH would help towards all the sport my 15 year old likes to play and other extras ...... I don’t think it’s much to ask for a contribution whatever it would be spent on.🤷🏻‍♀️

[sandgrown]

I know what you mean! Unfortunately the processes are slow but it is an offence for an employer not to take a deduction from earnings . Good luck x

[BillMasen]

@forinborin

I’ve seen it argued that as NRPs get benefits regardless of CMS payments that must be enough to live off so the payments are just a bonus.
So what if the RP doesn't get benefits? As you are presenting this as an argument, could you explain it? The next deductive step is: they don't get benefits => they must have enough to live on from their own income => the father doesn't have to contribute as they have enough anyway, his payments are a bonus.
But why "enough" is considered good enough?

I’m presenting it as an argument I’ve heard made.

Yes that broadly it. If benefits are enough, and salary means no benefits that’s also enough, any payment is a top up, especially if nrp is also on benefits

Effectively if both parties receive just enough to live on, why make one have not enough and the other more?

[forinborin]

Yes that broadly it. If benefits are enough, and salary means no benefits that’s also enough, any payment is a top up, especially if nrp is also on benefits
So, effectively, in the case where neither party claims benefits, the fair split is where the RP is then spending 100% of their salary on themselves + joint children, and the NRP is spending 100% of their salary on themselves?

[Happycat1212]

It’s not even a priority in this country, my ex wasn’t working or claiming benefits for 3 years, Cms wouldn’t do anything AT ALL as they told me he “could” be living of a partner, not that they knew he was, just that he could be so they won’t investigate. When he did eventually claim benefits I got a letter saying he would be paying £7 per week for our 4 children, yet still no payment, when I contacted cms I was told get this, even though he IS claiming benefits, he doesn’t have to pay a penny in child maintenance because he has “priority debts” which come above child maintenance. So he still didn’t have to pay. I’ve given up on it tbh.

[themalamander]

@strivingtosucceed

The child maintenance service have many papers to force payment including removing driving licenses, imprisonment, a charging order against a property (so if it is every sold, the child support debt must be paid from the sale), they can also force the sale of property to recover child support payments and, as you suggested, they can contact credit reference agencies and have the debt added to that person's file.

The problem is they never use any of their powers, because there is no mandate from the government to do so. They arent pushed to use the powers, they have limited funding and dont want to spend it using those powers. They just dont do the job they were created for. The government were questioned on this a few years ago after being presented with a dossier of cases were men just didnt pay and nothing happened. The response from the government was a few sentences along the lines of, "child maintenance service was brought in to replace the child support agency and we have no intentioned of changing anything again".

[Bibidy]

The issue is always about the mothers (or resident parent) struggling, and they do and it's not fair. But from the child's perspective, if the mother (resident parent) decided to behave in the same way as the father, she'd most likely end up prosecuted for neglect.

Yes I agree with this. I think where fathers are working and earning and just refusing to pay there should be a process to forcibly take it from them. Obviously cases where they genuinely can't work are different, but 90% of the time it's a con just to avoid paying.

And you are so right that if both parents abdicated responsibility in the same way the one with custody would be arrested.

[Pandoraslastchance]

@IamtheDevilsAvocado

I think it ought to be tied to driving licenses & employment... You need a certificate to say all your child maintenance has been paid promptly and fully.

I would not want to employ someone who was very neglectful of their children

Completely agree!!!


It should also appear on your credit rating.

[themalamander]

@dattenboroughiskingoftheworld

The child maintenance service has the power to contact credit reference agencies and have the non payment of child maintenance added as a debt to the person's credit file. They have the power; they dont use.

All the things being suggested on this thread... they already have the power to do those things. The issue is that they dont use them and the government are quite happy with that.

When they created the child maintenance service and granted these powers and passed the legislation allowing those powers to be used, they were just doing it for a show. Now they can wash their hands of it and ignore the women complaining, despite the fact that these powers are not actually used. Because patriarchy.

[Bibidy]

@Theunamedcat

The reason child maintenance is so toothless is because nrp killed themselves in a few high profile cases there was a huge outcry and nothing has been enforced since

I think that also in order to enforce the claim no matter what, a figure would need to be put on what it 'costs' to raise a child each month. As long as it's based on the NRP's income, if the NRP isn't earning there is nothing to claim.

If they changed it to a set amount per child, no matter the circumstances, that would then mean that the argument was there for higher earners not to pay as much as the figure is likely to be far less than the % of their income they pay currently.

Either way some people will lose out.

[themalamander]

@Pandoraslastchance

Read above. CMS can have your driving license revoked and add your debt to credit reports. They just dont do it and the government wont bring in any new measures to ensure these paths are followed every time people dont pay.

There is no appetite in government to sort this out or ensure these powers are being used, and CMS doesnt get enough funding to do it all.

[DeltaFlyer]

My nrp upped and left one day, never paid a penny toward mine and siblings upkeep,, was (and still is) on benefits but has money spare to smoke/drink, gamble and has 2 -3 holidays a year.
Never contested the custody arrangements, rarely showed up for visitation. Would sell our things if we did make contact, take our pocket money, stole from our bank accounts. Wouldnt even pay toward school trips so we never went.
So i would fully support something to force parents to pay for their kids. Not sure about taking away driving privileges as might need a car for work though but it definitely should be recognised as a proper debt and not an optional payment as some nrps think.

[Pandoraslastchance]

[quote themalamander]@Pandoraslastchance

Read above. CMS can have your driving license revoked and add your debt to credit reports. They just dont do it and the government wont bring in any new measures to ensure these paths are followed every time people dont pay.

There is no appetite in government to sort this out or ensure these powers are being used, and CMS doesnt get enough funding to do it all.[/quote]
Ooops that will teach me to skim read.

It's disgusting that they have all these powers yet children are being left cold and hungry. What can be done to get cms functioning, short of a miracle?


I was raised by a single parent who never saw a bloody penny from my feckless father. He buggered off and started another family. If I'm correct he has 7 or 8 children at least and probably doesn't pay for any of them.

[themalamander]

@Pandoraslastchance

I'm actually putting together a FOI request asking how many paying parents are in arrears, how many have been reported as just not paying and then asking how many times each of their individual powers have been used (so how many driving licenses revoked, how many prison sentences, how many credit reports made, deductions of earnings orders, forced hours sales or charges made against future house sales etc).

I'm just struggling with the wording, and whether to ask for the information from a 5 year period or a 1 year period.

I'm not even sure if they'd provide the information, as I think they can maybe say no if it woood require too much admin work. I'm not sure.

It's for a blog post/twitter but I'm working on it! We cant really do much without having the information in black and white infront of us.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Actually, a non-resident mother could just go abroad if they wanted to and also not pay child support.

But anyway, the reason why these divorcees go abroad is because U.K. courts have no power to force them to pay child support. It’s international law. That’s the reason why.

Many people also do this to avoid paying their student loan as well. Many retire outside the UK to avoid paying inheritance tax.
And other things I just can’t think of right now.....

[PlanDeRaccordement]

the mother (resident parent) decided to behave in the same way as the father, she'd most likely end up prosecuted for neglect.

Not sure about this. It is more likely the resident parent would simply call social services and have them come and take the children to put in the foster system. Or just leave them at a park or hospital and walk away. Very few parents are prosecuted for child abandonment.

Neglect isn’t abandoning your children. It’s keeping them but in horrible conditions, not feeding or cleaning them, locking them up in closets and basements.

[Glitterandglow]

YANBU!! I am in the same situation as your friend and my ex is in a non REMO country and with a non UK company so CMS can do absolutely nothing! They are useless anyway.
I’m absolutely fuming that these men get away with it!! I’m struggling as are many other parents and they just bloody well get away with neglecting their children!! I’m so angry I have nothing much more to say apart from HOW CAN WE CHANGE THIS?!

[Mojoj]

YANBU. Men who shirk on child support are the lowest of the low. And yes, it's a national disgrace that this has not been addressed. Maybe because it's still mainly men in charge....