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?

Terrible idea. In the heat of the moment yes I could agree with you!

On a calm day no morally it isn't right is it? It would make the main parent morally wrong too and ultimately the DC will most likely grudge the parent who stopped/reduced contact later as an adult it is not the mothers place to do this!

It's a slippery slope..

You take it to the proper channels. It’s not fair on the child and will likely come
back and bite you in the ass. Sorry you can’t see Daddy/Mummy but they are paying for you so I’m punishing you and them. Children usually find out when their parent is a genuine dirtbag and decide how to handle it accordingly. Don’t be the one to refuse contact and hurt your kid in the process.

Your having a laugh. I have a court order in place but other than CMS DS father does not have to buy any form of clothing why would he? I pack my child's clothes for the weekend.

Food and toiletries that dad already has at home which are a basic human right how kind of dad to put him self out EOW and provide this for his own blood 🙄

Most people are not 50/50 hence OPS thread in the first place!

I also pay for the majority of activies as DS is with me a lot of the time...

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 think there’s certainly a case for withholding contact from the NRP in that scenario. That is both illegal and abusive and I don’t believe it’s beneficial to a child to have contact with someone who behaves that way towards them and their main carer.

So agree with this!

OP - I totally get where you’re coming from. Dead beat dads who can’t be bothered (as in unwilling, not unable) to contribute to their kids don’t particularly deserve a place in that child’s life. I’m not convinced that contact is always for the best, also. How engaged, interested, supportive, loving is a father who won’t pay a cent for his child? Not very :(

What would people say about a resident parent who openly admits to not working as they don't need to due to the maintenance they receive from NRP. Should they have their contact with their children removed?

Of course this should happen. The reason why it doesn't is probably the combination of too few women in Parliament, together with many of those that are appearing to be misogynistic, including the women.

How many of those men in Parliament are on second or third wives? Including our PM. I doubt many of them want the spotlight shown on their own personal situations, so they'd prefer to let the taxpayer fund child maintenance.

I find it absolutely shocking that people are able to avoid paying for their own children by lying to CMS. Although HMRC are not perfect and don't catch everyone who is not paying their due amount of tax, they seem to have more powers to investigate and more information than the CMS.

I don’t disagree with you that not paying for your child is neglectful. The thing is, @Whypaymumwillsavetheday , parents who neglect their children do still see their children, generally. The vast, vast majority of children in foster care removed for neglect continue to have contact with their parents, and whilst this is complicated, not seeing their parent(s) is generally worse for the child than seeing their parent(s). Neglect in itself isn’t a reason to sever ties between a parent and a child, because it’s about the child’s right to see and know their parent, however crappy and unfit that parent might be.

Your exP sounds like a bag of shit, though, and I’m sorry for what you and your DD are going through.

OP do you also believe that if contact is prevented by the RP that maintenance shouldn't be paid?

Because that is the other side of this?

I don’t think contact is always best for the child. My ex deliberately withholds maintenance, he owes £5k and refuses to pay, then showers them with the Disney dad routine while running me down and spinning how hard done by he was by mummy throwing him out (mummy, btw had 4 broken bones, a black eye and a crime reference number!!!). In his case it is continuing abuse, the only assertion of power and control he has over me. I would happily forget the weekly phone call the kids don’t care about having ( the one where he tries to find out where we’ve been and with whom) or the twice yearly trip for 2 nights to stay with daddy and the grandparents!

I think he’s toxic and the only reason I enable contact is because I legally have to. Yet despite his legal obligation to support them he doesn’t…

Agree about unwilling not unable. I'd also make it fair if an employer decided to refuse promotion or sack someone who did not fulfil their responsibilities, and definitely not allow anyone doing so to hold public office.

@P205 I've spent years chasing CMS to use the powers they have for the children to be supported by their father. He managed one night a fortnight. I send clothes. Toothbrush's hairbrushes etc. I've lost countless items that haven't been returned and therefore incurs more expense for me. My arrears currently stands at £20k.

CMS need to use the resources they have. They should deduct money from bank accounts NRP would soon start engaging with the system then. Not paying needs to be criminalised. Like drink driving and wearing seat belts.

My concern is what example am I setting the children. Their father does not provide for them and has limited contact. When they go on to have adult relationships. They will accept crumbs of attention as that is the example of love their father has shown them. They are not learning how love looks or how they should be valued by the important relationship in their lives. As much as I can do that as their mother. The male role model in their lives is their dad.

Children need Mums and Dads.

I think you need to accept the situation as frustrating as it is.

I can understand your thinking but it's your child that will suffer (more than financially).

Concentrate on you and DC and less on others.

I think the issue is it will hurt the child more. And if we frame it like a transaction someone unscrupulous might use it as a weapon e.g. 'you didn't give me extra for Christmas as agreed, you can't see DC over christmas', etc.

I do think that non payment should be punishable and investigated in the same way fraudulent benefits claims are though! And if people have to sell their houses for care then rich men fiddling their books to avoid child support should have to sell assets.

@IfIhearmumagaintoday my friend is in the same situation, the dad earns £40k+ yet rarely has clothes which still fit at his house, sometimes doesn't return the clothes friend sends with the kids & she pays for all activities & holiday childcare. He does the absolute bare minimum

In some states in the usa there are other penalties. Like you can’t do your every two years car license renewal if you owe child support.

I am sorry but I think this is quite offensive -‘and I would be curious to see if this poster typed the same things if they were faced with similar predicaments to the OP and others.

Children might need their “mum and dad” but there shouldn’t be elastic and forgiving criteria for fathers, and unforgiving ones for mums who by default shoulder a lot of the work.

there are huge swathes of women who enable terrible behaviour from dads by shrugging when they hear of non payment, CMS avoidance, etc by saying “you shouldn’t have had children with them”. Again, placing the blame and responsibility on other women.

I think why this situation doesn’t change is due to what seems to be the continued “right” of a man to lose interest, leave a family, and then resent the existence of that family despite having been active in its creation.

that resentment leads to complete disinterest when they inevitably meet another woman, who in turn is happy if that father keeps that money in their “new”household. Therefore reinforcing the situation that an “old” family is a financial inconvenience.

This is how our society reinforces things. While I am very lucky I am with my original first partner and now DH, I experienced this from my father, and I saw it in countless relationships years later as an adult.

I don't actually think removing contact with a 'man' who pretends to be a father and yet refuses to pay any of his money towards said child will damage the child at all. Usually the child grows up to realise their dad is a complete knob head and ignores them. They are a 'parent' who won't even feed their child or cloth them. How is that a good role model? That's abusive.

We are too lenient on men. If they are useless, they are useless, stop helping them and let them sink. If my husband buggered off, paid nothing for his child and yet demanded access, it would probably be down to me to organise it if he had become that selfish. And I just wouldn't, he could organise it and plan it. But these types won't because that's effort, they make the women do it. Just ignore them, they'll stop bothering.

If the above is TL:DR, then in short I’m saying that “children need mums and dads” is the perfect way for dads to always have access irrespective of what they have contributed to their continued existence

Children need “dads” as a performative role. A verb, not a noun.

OP I think you are correct with your approach if the parent is unwilling to pay. As someone mentioned many inconsistent parents can cause just as much damage. It is neglect bottom line and no sane parent would put the child in the care of a neglectful grandparent, uncle, aunt or childcare provider- but just because it’s a parent contact should be allowed?

My personal experience has informed my opinion. After 5 years of no contact with the belief my DC’s other parent would get his act together, I called him and said I would like them to establish a relationship and he take responsibility. I suggested he start with paying DC after school childcare cost which was approximately £330. His response was what if I only earn £330 in a month (what are the chances you earn the exact amount as the childcare cost) I will not be able to pay the £330 as he need to look after hisself in order to provide for DC. He made no suggestion to pay less in such a situation or alternate approach. I was in complete shock and made the decision to block contact permanently.

It's a highly controversial topic and whilst I do not believe in weaponising contact, I also think that Dads who don't pay up for the actual raising of the child (food, toys, school uniform etc) yet want to take DC out every weekend to do the fun stuff are playing Disney Dad. It's abhorrent.

I also have some other thoughts about Dads who don't pay: if Mum is struggling to make ends meet she is likely not doing much 'fun' stuff with the kids because she doesn't have money, time, energy etc. This must wear her mental health down having to stay the 'boring' parent and deal with the more mundane side of things, feeling inadequate because kids look forward to awesome day out with Dad but don't experience that with mum as much. Dads need to do boring days with the kids too and stop trying to make themselves look amazing to their children while doing none of the hard stuff that comes with parenting.

The money is there not just to feed and clothe the child, but also helps pay the bills and can contribute towards childcare which, let's be honest, if you're a single parent on a not so great income, is bloody expensive.

Sorry for the slightly off topic rant! Also in case anyone jumps on me, I know that not all dads are like this and probably a good deal of non-resident mums are like this.

No because using a child's emotional wellbeing as collateral is not on. If you have legitimate concerns about the other parent then fair enough but you can't decide that if your ex doesn't pay they don't get to see the child. I know it's annoying but you need to pursue that through court or CMA.

This!

I think you're being seriously unreasonable. Of course he should pay maintenenace, absolutely, and if you need to there are legal routes to follow to get the best outcome with this, but that's totally separate (morally and legally) to him having a relationship with his child. The financial issue is between the 2 of you , and nothing to do with his bond with his child.

People who use this as a stick to beat their ex partner with cause so much damage to their children, your child isn't a commodity to use to hurt your ex.

Go down the proper route to get maintenance but don't punish your child for your arguments with their dad

This is such an important point! I'd love to stop DDs weekly contact with her father. His constant pick her up put her down attitude is damaging her self esteem. He spends all night running down her main supporter, complains constantly to his child that I steal all his money and am SAHP because of it (£100 a month. It's not HIS money I SAH with) and can afford my home and lifestyle because he funds it, and obsesses about buying the absolute bare minimum to punish me for leaving him 11 years ago. She has to take everything, there are never any toiletries or food there, he never buys a pair of pants or shoes or anything, because I apparently make him broke.

Meanwhile he's in a 4 bed detached in the nicest area of town with an almost finished mortgage, just spent 12 weeks in the tropics for his 'mental health' and drives a far newer car than I, allegedly on £18k a year.

I haven't stopped it. She's coming to the point where she completely cringes when he calls. He manipulates her. If she wants to see her friends and leave his an hour early, he blanks her for the week after. His stepchild has treat food and activities while she waits to come home as punishment. The problem is, her friendships are fraught because she accepts treatment I can't stand from them, after years of being conditioned that this is acceptable. She stopped eating lunch at school because she didn't want to 'waste' the money - that he apparently provides. What is she going to be like in her relationships in another few years? Contact is not pay per view, but when money is yet another method of control and abuse, it should be.