Divorced/moved out dads not paying for our children

[FloatyFairy18]

Do any of you have to go through the same as me here... my ex I caught having an affair so kicked him out and divorced him after giving him two chances, which he blew. He subsequently re-married and had another child to add to his now four kids from three different women, latest one already also having two kids of her own

In the Divorce Decree Nisi + Decree Absolut it was cited he had to pay a certain amount for both children until they were 18, he did this for a few years then stopped paying the full amount so I had to get the ludicrously outdated very sexist old fashioned still believing women stay at home being housewives men go out to work nonsense of the CSA at the time, now CMS - he then had a run in with his work and is refusing to work any more making out he can't due to a medical condition (which is all on show for when he leaves the house, but not any other time) and so is on benefits now = so that the CMS can't touch him

Morally he should be paying, he signed the Divorce papers to say so, but some lawyer told me because I had to get CMS involved that wipes out any Divorce payments he is supposed to make for the children

Is this right?

I have tried all sorts of means of getting this sorted but come to a blocked wall each and every time as the government seem blind to what is going on and just by thinking "oh we get child benefits, that will suffice" ... no no no!!! These dads should be paying for their kids no matter what

How can I get him to backpay what he owes (£23K) and going forward to pay monthly what he is meant to be paying without getting solicitors/greedy lawyers/courts involved

These are his children too, why is it expected by him and the government and CMS that I am to somehow find money to clothe, feed, keep them warm general day to day expenses, they live with me but see him every other weekend and 4 weeks holiday periods but he didn't even want that, it is only because child custody had to set things in stone that we had to go down this route thank you to his controlling money grabbing greedy wife, at his all he does is tell them he is paying for them when all he does is spending money on "treats" like sweets/toys/games for the Xbox rubbish etc, but point blankly refuses to pay towards raising them

I know of many "dads" who try to fiddle the system, either claiming they are on minimum wage, can't pay this or that, but paying themselves a lot more whilst living a very nice lifestyle without the CMS knowing, same as my ex who has been on three 10-day holidays abroad in the past 7 months and about to go on another one! I also know of millionaires who have done this to avoid paying for their own children, what is it with these guys that they have a grudge against paying their ex-wives/partners for their own children

I really believe a huge campaign needs to be started her - it needs a petition to go to The Houses of Parliament, we need a massive backing here, the Family Law needs to be changed, the Child Maintenance System NEEDS to be updated urgently and change to benefit us mums, they are so one-sided favouring the dads still, it is ludicrous and most importantly of all a minimum amount of money needs to be set by law that these dads MUST pay each month PLUS THEY MUST PAY IN A CERTAIN SHORT TIME-FRAME ALL THE MONEY THEY OWE IN BACK-PAYMENTS

Who is in to help me here???

It's £7 per week now.

Totally understand your frustration. Currently get £30 per month CMS because the deadbeat is on benefits. He can afford much more than this and was paying more before he disappeared. I've tried to get a petition going but didn't get enough signatures unfortunately. Gov deffo needs to overhaul this because they are basically allowing men to not pay for their kids. Disgusting

I don't know how that type of person excuses themselves.

It's disgusting.

I made a thread because my ex doesn’t pay anything at all, no maintenance, he is getting money on the side and I asked if I should report him as it’s unfair he doesn’t pay a penny and lots of people told me to just leave it, so basically just let him get away with not paying then 😏

if he's disabled then how much can he reasonably be expected to pay?

Same. Although I've got a very good job, so seemingly it doesn't matter.

Sorry, should have added, I don't even get the £30.

If he's disabled then how much can he reasonably be expected to pay?
Is he receiving DLA?
He'll be receiving a higher rate of income support than the average claimant without a disability fortnightly.

I agree with you OP, these men are wretched scum.

My EXDP tried to pay me £300 for our 2 DC. I asked him to pay £600, seeing as he pays £300 for his first DS. He said no. I took him to CMS, he told them he was self-employed, so didn't have to pay a penny...except he's been at the same employer for 10 years, and I just so happened to have a payslip copy I could send them. They've awarded our DC £610, so now he's refusing to contribute properly to nursery fees for our DC, leaving be to pay the £1k bill. I'm taking him to small claims to recover the money he owes as soon as DC finished at nursery.

It might be worth looking at if you can take your EXDH to small claims to recover what he owes. If he doesn't pay then, he could end up with a CCJ.

It would be PIP not DLA. The extra they may get is to help with the extra costs of having a disability. It isn't just random extra money.

The Government has enough on its plate with the alarming cost of living crisis, rising inflation, an escalating war in Europe that is threatening food supplies, and the prospect of a highly damaging rail strike to worry about root and branch reform to the CMS system. That is the reality of it.

Exactly, I’m a mother who would of benefited greatly if had received all the maintenance due over the years, would never had had to tell child he couldn’t go on the residential etc and if a dad is earning x amount then yes the fair proportion should be pursued. However I’m aghast at the ruthlessness of some MNs, the ex should have exactly the same freedoms you yourself have as a mother, single PWC parents aren’t fined for not earning enough so why on earth should NRP be.
Sorry as a woman I wouldn’t be supporting such a petition or any party which supported such measures. Some of these mothers might find the tables are turned when their kids go and live with their fathers as teenagers (as kids often do) and then they find perhaps their well paying jobs become intolerable, they want to have more children with someone else or Ill health causes them to give up work, would they want to be pursued with the same ruthlessness for failing to be the cash cow expected.

I just fail to understand your logic, no one would be penalising me as a single parent if I didn’t earn anything. Mine and friends children were not neglected due to a lack of maintenance as taxes are paid by everyone to ensure there are benefits to make sure this doesn’t happen. To be honest we were more upset about the impact of the lack of interest shown by fathers than the lack of money. At the end of the day you could have put children up for adoption if you really didn’t want them so in effect you were not forced to keep them. However like the rest of us I doubt that’s what you would of wanted to do in a million years. We’ve been blessed enough with beautiful children, a society that gives us that safety net, the availability of childcare for those who are earning good salaries. Basically what my children receive in maintenance pays for the extras like them having their own rooms, pocket money, days out, puddings with meals, nicer clothes etc, just a more comfortable standard of living for them. That’s not because we are rich but even when was a single mother on benefits, like everyone else I knew on benefits, we budgeted so our children would never go without the essentials. Over egging your points claiming the ex is causing their children to be neglected etc just comes across as you being bitter for not being maintained to the standard of living you had got used to

I bet if driving licences were withdrawn for non-payers like the man concerned, or even if it was an option, then there would be far less instances of this.

Yes it was wrong of him to hide his earnings and good that your receiving what your entitled to (although sounds like you already were depending on what he was contributing to nursery fees) but he had no obligation to pay CMS rate and nursery fees! I really can’t get over how greedy some PWC are, honestly can totally understand why so many men don’t want to commit or have children these days when they risk ending up becoming embroiled with women like you.

Surely the huge difference between an RP not working and an NRP not working is the reason for it? If an NRP is not working due to genuine ill health or disability, then no, unfortunately, their contribution will be very little and they can't be helped and should not be penalised. If however, they are job hopping, hiding assets, living off another partner etc and not paying, then absolutely they should be chased. If an RP is partially or solely relying on benefits BECAUSE they are raising the children and childcare costs are beyond their earning power, or the hours don't work (eg shift work) then that is an understandable restriction. An NRP, without health issues, COULD do more hours, a more stressful job, two jobs, seek promotion, take on a longer commute or overtime to earn more if they are not making a sensible contribution to their children. An RP cannot do that with the same freedoms. I just turned down an opportunity that would allow me to earn 15k more per year because I couldn't commit to the hours - its not just about having a responsible adult in the house, I could pay a babysitters or ask family, but my kids need a parent actually there with them, taking an interest, spending time.

My ex chooses to spend 4 days a month (actually less now) than that with them, so damn straight he could work more and contribute something closer to 50% of their costs. OR, as other pps have suggested, do 50% of care, but many don't want that - which is an uncomfortable truth that many defenders of poor NRPs choose to overlook. I would LOVE my ex to do 50/50 care and pay me nothing, but he doesn't want to and again, this is true of many of my single parent friends' exes. As it stands he does pay CMS but not a penny more and it is absolutely not a fair contribution with regards to their costs.

@Pippainthegarden if the nursery bill is over 1k and the NRP pays £610, that leaves £110 pm to contribute to the child after half of the nursery bill which allows BOTH parents to work. Hardly "greedy" to want more than that. I absolutely agree that any childcare bill AFTER any contributions from UC or tax credits are taken into account should be split if the NRP has been offered 50/50 and refused it.

I don’t think it is the CMS that needs to be abolished, they have their hands tied and perhaps not enough resources to deal with irresponsible resourceful parents.

What I think needs to change is those rules that protect business owners and self employed, particularly rich ones, the CSA doesn’t have the same power as the tax office to get them to pay, and they should. If IR can track a candle maker making pennies for missed taxes why the CSA cannot be benefit from same powers or at least same access to the information they gather?

I also think that that child at home discount should disappear when that child at home is or is meant to be receiving CM from another parent.

I have found that the most important thing when leaving a marriage is not photocopying all business and personal accounts. The most important thing is to get their National Insurance number, if you provide it, the CMS can track any changes to income without your or their intervention. You can also report them for fraud if claiming benefits or underpaying taxes (just a tip and IR does tge work for you, that doesn’t help though if they are hiding their money as “company assets”

CMS is calculated on the NRP income, just as a single parent PWC top ups are assessed on their income. It’s irrelevant what the childcare costs are. Anyway she doesn’t need him to ‘enable’ her to work, if she’s low income she’ll get 85% of her childcare costs paid through UC and if she’s out of that threshold she clearly earns enough to pay them herself.
This matter is about fairness balanced with freedom. If a NRP does actually earn x amount then it is fair that he pays the CMS determined portion as clearly it would be unfair if she’s got a significant burden on her salary while he hasn’t. So yes is not fair he hides the income etc. However they both also have the option to earn a minimal amount of they are happy enough to live on that. Couples often can and do that also, friend’s dh works in a minimal wage job as he’s happier doing that but with both salaries they are outside threshold for UC so they just live a thrifty (bit happy) lifestyle as a family.
I would roll my eyes up at a parent who didn’t at least want to do 50/50 childcare if they want to not contribute financially so that is more the issue than the money but then I don’t think it’s worth getting hung up on it as a PWC (I’ll admit to feeling myself that way at one stage but it’s just not worth it in the scheme of things as actually you get the better deal in the end of memories with your kids and their appreciation once they are adults).
I’d have much more sympathy if we lived in a country that had no benefits system but the reality isn’t they these children are going to go without essentials. It’s more a case of PWC being frustrated that they feel the financial burden has fallen on them which I do have sympathy with but I don’t think it over rides individual freedom to not be obligated to earn x amount. The PWC that get most angry about this tend to be ones that think their dc are entitled to a standard of living way in excess of what is essential for a happy and healthy upbringing so they are the ones often putting the financial burden on themselves

@Pippainthegarden I don't think its wrong for a parent to want their children to have more than the essentials and for both parents to have a role in providing that. I absolutely understand that parents will disagree on the definition of essential and therein lies the problem - but excluding extreme ends of the spectrum, its not especially outrageous to want your child to have the opportunity to learn an instrument, join a couple of sports clubs, have a decent bike, go on some school trips. None of these are "essentials" and therefore not factored into CMS but I would argue that they are marks of a good, solid, supportive and aspirational childhood that BOTH parents should support where possible and the CMS % rarely results in the NRP contributing equally to the children.

I completely disagree with you re childcare. I said whatever costs remain after any UC contributions for a start, which can still be very high and should be split. It DOES allow both parents to work, as the NRP is enabled to work by the RP providing care for their children, usually on a 24/7 basis so they can work extended or anti-social hours etc. The RP, even with paid childcare on some days is still limited, unless we are talking live-in nannies or au-pairs and as I said above, that can't be a substitute for a present parent anyway. The paid childcare directly allows the RP to work, but their RP status allow the NRP far greater autonomy in ALL areas of their life and the NRP should acknowledge that by contributing fairly. OR, having a 50/50 arrangement and each pay for childcare on their days. Most RPs I know would love to have that arrangement and it's not them that's standing in the way of it.

In the same boat, wealthy self employed ex who according to CSA earns too little to pay any maintenance. Massive house, no other kids, multiple cars and holidays. I must have also missed out on the ‘free’ house and have to pay mortgage and bills alone. I work full-time and do not get any benefits at all. So the kids are being raised solely on my wage.
I think when self employed on universal credit there is a minimum income floor which they take you to be earning and deduct from entitlement even if it hasn’t been earned. I think a similar thing should be put in place for self-employed fathers where the amount to pay is based on NMW X 40 hours and if they say they do not earn that much then they can get a job elsewhere. So at the very least some payment is made.

I agree it’s rubbish and unfair on the PWC when NRP don’t want to take the option of 50/50 care (if feasible) instead of paying maintenance. However just like if a mother wanted to put her children in care it is really sad I don’t see what is achieved by imposing draconian punishments. If anything putting such pressure on parents it would more likely cause harm to the children.
Re: CMS - I think a lot of misunderstanding is caused by the belief that the rate is calculated on a child’s needs, if that were the case then every maintenance award would be the same. The award is actually a ‘contribution’ towards living costs based on the NRP earnings. Sometimes that award would cover 100% or more of a child’s living costs and extras and sometimes it wouldn’t cover a fraction. It’s the same for PWC, if their earnings would only cover a fraction or none of their child’s living costs after their own basic expenses then they are entitled to top ups. In other circumstances their contribution works out as 100% and more just like CMS awards.
As for the extras, yes most of us aspire to be able to give our children these extras but if the family income doesn’t stretch then no point getting angry about it. It’s not a reasonable society which mandates that every parent goes out and earns enough money to facilitate this if they possibly can any more than we can insist every parent reads their child a bedtime story. Some kids get these things, some parents just have to be a bit more creative. Council and voluntary organisations that provide opportunities are great. Personally I found even on benefits I could afford extras such as music lessons and school trips and so can many others I know of still on UC but obviously be more of a struggle if have a mortgage or live housing not covered by LHA.

Your ex is clearly being unfair as there is money there that should be going to you so as for the burden to not be all on you and hope they find away to get the portion your entitled to you. I don’t agree with the expectation they should have to earn 40 hours at NMW equivalent, what are you planning to do, put them in prison if they don’t? Someone earning 40 hours ok NMW wouldn’t be paying much anyway so it’s unlikely to have much impact on you anyway

Men need to pay for their children and women need to stop having children with men who are CLEARLY deadbeats from day one. Yes some men put on a front and then change once the children come along but I have personal experience of far too many women who live in cloud cuckoo land and expect fatherhood to change their useless man. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't.

Why isn't it treated like other debts?
Court, put on credit record, county court bailiffs can seize property and cars etc.