Aibu to think not paying maintenance should be grounds for blocking contact

[Whypaymumwillsavetheday]

I’ve always gone along with ‘the child’s right to contact with their parent comes before any disputes over money’, ‘maintenance isn’t linked to contact’ ‘it’s not pay per view’. I’m now starting to think it is not in the best interests of a child to have a relationship with a parent who is unwilling and/or unable to provide the basic necessities. If I was to disregard my child’s needs in the same way, there would likely be serious intervention from social services. What is the difference?

So if a parent is unable to pay maintenance because they're unable to work, due to illness or disability or caring responsibilities, they don't get to see their child? Lose your job, lose your kids? Sounds fucking barbaric to me.

Yes, you are being unreasonable.

Thanks for your reply, upon consideration I would like to change it to ‘unwilling’ rather than including unable. If there is a genuine reason such as disability, that is not what I’m concerned about here. Even on benefits an amount is deducted.

Terriblethirtytwos, thanks for your thought provoking response

I think the previous posters were aware of the general sentiment of what you meant - you unfortunately fell foul of the AIBU rule that if there's a perceived weakness in a post, let's jump all over it rather than look at the overall point made..

...which I think originally was a good one. If you have an employed parent, with means, who is refusing to pay child support, then I don't believe that person should have a moral right to see their child.

That's just my personal view, and it's not one that's popular or enforceable or realistic. but seeing women I have known pay every last penny they have to make their children's lives comfortable, while the father is conspicuously not contributing...it's not right.

SavoirFlair, you made the point I was trying to make, thank you!

And to add to the original point, even whilst unable to work (temporarily or otherwise) for the reasons mentioned e.g. disability, providing for your own child is still surely the number one priority of any parent? If I lost my job tomorrow can I just stop buying food then? Since I’ve lost my job. A gross oversimplification, I’m aware but can you really argue that point?

Yes i think you're right, they lose the right to see their child.

On a black and white level, ignoring the impact that the loss of contact could/would have on the child, and only looking at the behaviour of the absent parent then you're not being unreasonable. But it's not black and white and the continued contact is more about the child's emotional well-being so YABU.

Sadly.

Sellthesizzle this is where I have stood until recently, so I can absolutely understand your point of view. Recently my thoughts have become more along the lines of ‘no contact with a neglectful parent is better than contact with a neglectful parent’. What do you think is the benefit to a child’s emotional wellbeing with an unfit parent, to put it bluntly?

The penalties for none payment of child support should be harder but I don’t think should be linked to contact.

If the main carer of a child gets ill yes they need still need to feed their child. If on a low enough income they may get more tax credits if already claiming or claim or increase in universal credit. That is not available for the other parent.

The way I reason it, if I provided the same level of input and support to my daughter’s life as her dad does, she would likely be removed from my care. But when he provides this lack of care, it’s in her best interests to keep up contact. This is where I’m growing frustrated and feel confused about what is right.

CPandme, I appreciate your answer but this isn’t really about the minority of my parents who are truly unable to provide anything. It’s about those who choose to provide nothing or far less than they could. And even those who truly have nothing extra, surely you feed your child before feeding yourself. It’s just not right

Weaponising contact is sick

I don't think bring a dick financially makes someone automatically an unfit parent. And lost contact has a significant and life long impact on a child but (generally) a lesser impact on the parent. They've done studies on it. I also speak as someone who lost contact with a parent who wouldn't pay maintenance, when I was quite young and as someone whose ex is a dick about money. But still think yabu.

Funnyface, but ‘weaponising’ support for your child is fine?

True, being a dick financially doesn’t always mean you’re an unfit parent but there’s definitely a correlation in my opinion. I also have an unfit, non paying father who I finally cut contact with as an adult and honestly don’t see how that ongoing contact benefited me either as a child or now as an adult. Do you have any links to studies about this because I am genuinely interested

Its an interesting concept and I have given it a bit of thought lately. Where I think the trouble is, is the system makes it appear the residential parent is financially benefiting from the financial contribution the non resident parent pays... and in some cases, it does, and in some cases, it doesn't go far enough.

I have known the residential parent fight to refuse additional access to the children by the non resident parent because it was going to change the financial sum they receive if they have the children ''less''.

and I know of a case where the non residential parent wanted to buy the food for child concerned, and not pay a % based on their income, but that isn't acceptable either.

I don't know what the answer is, but something has to change that benefits the children.

Loads of books on the impact of an absent father or mother. Google it there are dozens.
Sorry not trying to be unhelpful but the stuff I read was years ago when I was having counselling.

Expat, I understand exactly what you’re saying and I do also know of a situation where contact is being maliciously reduced to maximise maintenance. This is equally disgusting as the situation I’ve described. I agree there isn’t one right answer. I’m getting increasingly infuriated by blanket statements though. Most of us can agree each situation has nuances, such as those you’ve described. Therefore why is contact seen as a weapon but financial support is often seen as optional

Because contact and financial support are deliberately separated by the law as removing contact damages the child - always.

removing contact damaged the child sometimes/often, I can agree. There must be circumstances where removing contact is for the best though, this cannot be a hard and fast rule. Parents who wilfully withhold support would fall into the category in a majority of cases, in my opinion.

If they were unable to work the amount of maintenence required would be tiny, isn't it something like £7 per week. They do many allowances for those unable to work, but OP is talking about those who do work but don't pay maintenance

If not contributing financially = neglect what does that mean for SAHP?

(Playing devil's advocate here, I'm a staunch supporter of child support.)

It certainly isn’t a back and white issue. I see your point, OP, and I think I agree (sort of) in principle if not in practicality.

I think a better approach would be to criminalise the non-payment of child support (as happens in other countries) and for the non-payer to be imprisoned and lose contact that way. It would certainly concentrate the minds of some financially neglectful parents!

There are flaws in that plan too, of course, but I think it is an option that should be considered in government.