and uni well.. no responsibility there either.
Worse - stepfathers are expected to cover this. No! The child's actual father should do so
Most often, the RP goes without to make up the difference, so she ends up contributing to the "new" family. How can that possibly be right?
Exactly
CM should be calculated before salary sacrifice to stop people using this as a means to reduce their payments
Yes agree with this too
Cars clamped for non payment the clamp should read non payment of child support in big letters
Ohhhh I like this idea! Ex would have HATED This both the lack of his car AND the public shaming aspects it would absolutely have worked in motivating him to pay!
I discovered at one point that he'd told ow/new partner (a former friend of mine) and his parents that he was not only paying cm but more than he "had to" - he wasn't paying anything at all at this stage. This was a long time ago so paper bank statements still normal, I photocopied my bank statements and gave them to ow and his parents!
Funnily enough the next month he started paying SOMETHING
He never paid in full/consistently but in the early days my contacting his CO (while he was still in army) and his parents usually prompted at least some money coming my way
Lets not start on clothes - whihc seem to disappear all the time.
I had that crap too! Seems to be pretty common
@Orangello where is your home country?
@AlmostAJillSandwich can he have the children while his ex works?
When I first split from ex the rules at that time were unless you were fleeing dv - and could prove it - if you got benefits the amount of cm he was SUPPOSED to be paying was deducted whether he paid it or not. This was supposedly because "not enough single mums were claiming cm through Csa" when actually what was happening of course was nrps not PAYING
At this time my ex paid zero but was supposed to pay £40 a week - that meant I was £160 a month short and resulted in my needing to go without food, clothes etc so that my child didn't!
Needs must applies to Rps why shouldn't it apply to nrps too?
It's complex though because people have children... don't look after them and then go and start a new family! It's a vicous cycle.
Largely BECAUSE there are no consequences for abandoning the children from the earlier relationship/s
@Poll4 I see no reason why the lower earning nrp shouldn't still make a fair contribution yes based on their income BUT also based on the realistic minimum costs of raising a child- still their dc too. The child will benefit from having a higher earning rp but the nrp is still responsible too
Why should the rp subsidise their ex by the nrp not being expected to contribute
Surely the gov can cross reference and see that she was claiming as a single parent and he was paying bills elsewhere.
They could also check council tax data and electoral roll
That's slightly unfair. Exes new DP has no responsibility towards my dc. My new DP did.
It's very unfair
Why the double standards? - patriarchy! Especially under a Tory govt with a pm who's a deadbeat dad himself!!
He pulls his weight in other ways tho and as he's hardly in work these days does all the childcare.
That's fair enough if he's contributing in terms of time to the value of what he's not contributing in money - but most nrps won't do that
I can’t help feeling that children are not at the heart of the current way CM is calculated
Of course not - because children are an extension of women and men are prioritised in our society
@AndAsIfByMagic in a family where there's been no separation whether to have another child and therefore have less money for existing children is a JOINT decision by both of those responsible in a separated family unilateral decisions that negatively impact on the people with zero power to even influence those decisions shouldn't be rewarded
Having another child at all is a choice
To say an innocent child is less entitled to support than its sibling is vile
And you've failed to see your mistake/the irony here in that this is EXACTLY what happens to the INNOCENT child/ren from the earlier relationship under the current system - they are expected to receive A LOT LESS support than their new sibling - is that fair?
Of course not!
Oh - and my family is not "broken" thank you
The NRP needs to be looming at their finances, including the amount of child support and deciding if they can afford another child based in that
Exactly
the NRP's child support will get used on new children too.
Nonsense! Certainly not under the current system as it's rarely enough to cover 50% of 1st child's basics!
Why do people think it is ok for the first born children to have priority over subsequent children’s quality of life?
That's not what we're saying
We're saying the 1st born shouldn't be "demoted" to favour subsequent children - which is very much what happens now!
there are some (not all) women who lie about birth control.
If a man doesn't want to be a father he should be using condoms/get a vasectomy responsibility for contraception is on them BOTH
My dd was very much planned by us both, it's not stopped him being a deadbeat bastard!
The NRP should not be having more kids if they cannot do so without maintaining their existing obligations - you don't ring up the council and ask for a reduction in council tax, or mortgage or ask for % off your shopping at Tesco because you have to buy baby food now too.
Hear hear!
@IstayedForTheFeminism - but if he's already not paying you're not losing by him losing his job as a consequence of not paying!
And frankly if the consequences mean he'd lose his job then the likelihood is he would be motivated to pay!
too many NRPS, including my ex seem to be under the impression that 100% of an RPs income should be used up on the child and any evidence that the RP is spending on themselves is seen as wasting "their" money and that they don't "need" the CMS.
So true