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?

I see where you are coming from OP. Attitudes of "you can't weaponise contact - that's sick!" but if men can't be bothered to pay child support, "ah well, that's men for you".

The biggest problem with this idea is that lots of men who don't want to pay, also don't really care if they see their kids or not. So this rule would be a double win for them.

I think a better rule would be a much harsher punishments for not paying, up to and including jail.

I can’t really understand your point.

Surely, when a dad has contact, he has to pay for necessities such as clothes, food, toiletries, etc. If a dad isn’t feeding or clothing his child during contact, then a court order could be obtained to remove contact or move contact to supervised contact only.

A mother also has a duty to feed, clothe and provide necessities when she has the children in her care.

In the case of 50/50 contact, there isn’t any maintenance paid.

Removing contact does not always damage a child. You need to qualify that statement.

Christina - Assuming you mean a SAHP in a couple where one works and the other doesn’t? As otherwise the SAHP would be supporting the child(ren) via their benefits or other savings. So this scenario would he an agreed decision between the parents where one brings in money and the other doesn’t. A bit of a ‘devils advocate argument for the sake of it’ and bringing nothing much to the conversation. A better comparison would be perhaps two ‘SAHPs’ in a couple not providing anything financially, undoubtedly neglectful. Ok to do I if you know the other parent will pick up your slack though? (Again, clearly not talking about a partnership where this is agreed, for the avoiding of doubt)

So, you mean dads who work but refuse to pay maintainable? I thought CMS took maintenance directly from their wages?

What I would really like to see is CMS being merged or linked with HMRC.

I was thinking along the lines of what @P205 said. If you have shared care, both parents are providing emotionally, practically and financially while child(ren) in their care. So child support is effectively just an attempt to equalise income if one parent is earning more than the other. Is failing to pay that actually neglecting the children?

I thought so too P205! My child’s father is a long term benefits claimant according to CMS. Even so they can only manage to take the £29 per month approvingly 3/12 months of the year with no explanation for the other months. Then when superdad deigns to have his rightfully allowed and ‘must never be inhibited’ half yearly contact he spends around £1000 on random treats. No school uniform or other such luxuries unfortunately. However I must remember not to ‘weaponise contact’

we don’t have shared care so perhaps my own situation is clouding my understanding of your response

And is it still neglect if for example, the paying parent wanted a higher percentage of care but didn't get it? Or if the payee has the ability to increase their own contribution to the children's upkeep by working/working more hours but chooses not to?

So many variables.

Its abusive to not pay child support when you have the ability to do so. It’s abusive to the child and the other parent who has to make up the short fall.

Abusive behavior should have a consequence beyond the slow system they currently have. So many non resident parents owe considerable amounts. The amount owed isn’t even compounded at a reasonable rate.

Couldn’t agree more difficultbloody woman!

PS. Your ex is a shit and I'm sorry you're in this situation. I just don't think your solution is the right one. CMS should instead be pursuing him to the ends of the earth to get that money to you.

I understand you now. So, where is his money coming from? From his parents? From illegal activities? Is he doing work but not paying tax?

I think it’s hard to be on benefits long term these days. But whatever system is in place, people will find ways to cheat it. Like the mega-rich not paying tax.

Christina, respectfully I think the points you are making are red herrings. What you’re describing sound like disputes to me, not anything like neglect. Not providing your child with basic necessities is undoubtedly neglect whatever way you want to spin it

I have no idea where the money is coming from, he tells our child it is from work. The same work he uses as an excuse for not seeing her. However CMS are adamant he has no income other than benefits

I agree with the principal of what you’re saying actually. Of course if you are unable that’s different but ‘unwilling’ should be treated with far harsher consequences and maybe that could include lack of contact. The lack of penalty for non payment by CMS is disgraceful and says everything you need to know really about the position of women in our society imo Xx

The punishment for not paying CMS should be far harsher than it is, should be vigorously applied, and society should shun those who refuse to support their DC.

Cutting contact with a non-payer isn't the punishment I'd go to first, given it would likely impact the DC negatively, more so than the non-payer, so I don't think that is the way to go.

No, the loss of contact on a child is too significant.

This
Who gets to decide? Is this just if a dad doesn't pay cms maintenance or also refuses top ups?
There are already plenty of people who use kids as pawns in splits giving parents more rights to do this is wrong

@Whypaymumwillsavetheday I completely understand your frustration. I see your point too. I suppose that my situation was clear cut - DD's father didn't pay maintenance, and ensured that he stayed overseas, plus had no interest in seeing her. I was more upset and annoyed about the latter than the former, but the decision wasn't mine to make. Had he asked for contact, I would have been pathetically grateful!

I agree with you and I also think that child maintenance should be automatically taken from their bank account, whether or not they see their child.

I’m not sure how much it benefits children to be around a father who cares about them so little he won’t even pay towards their upkeep.

I kind of see your point but in some cases the RP uses the maintainance as a reason to work less themselves with no agreement from NRP. Is that not neglect then but the other way around? It's not a black and white situation and I wouldn't want to be the one telling the kids they can't see their parent as they didnt pay this month. There possibly needs to be some kind of law against it with a fine. That might work better than punishing the kids and making them feel their relationship with their parents is about money.

I agree that many dads who evade payment are abusive in other ways, but not all. The others may well not be great parents, but not bad enough to make them harmful to the child.

It's whether you take non payment as a proxy for neglect/abuse (emotional and possibly other forms), given that we don't have the resources to do a case by case assessment and these things scan be hard to assess anyway.