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?

You shouldn't punish a child for their dad being a dick. And in most cases that's what you're doing - children will nearly always want to see their other parent. Your argument that it's best for the child to be denied that just doesn't stack up.

The authorities should punish deadbeats by removing their rights: their driver's licence, passport, taking money directly from their bank account, whatever. But the child's rights should never be removed unless they're at risk of actual harm.

Contact is not pay per view, but when money is yet another method of control and abuse, it should be.
What on earth? You're happy for your little girl to see her abusive father more if he pays for the privilege?
That's just sick.

I don't understand why child maintenance isn't enforceable like any other debt. If someone owes you money for any other reason you can take them to the small claims court. If they still don't pay their credit rating will go down, bailiffs can take their goods and car and sell them etc etc

Why isn't child maintenance like this?

Honestly, if my daughter's father would have regular contact (every other weekend, say) I'd cheerfully waive child support. Turning up when it suits him, going self-employed and lying about his income to avoid paying is immoral in my opinion. Evading child support should be a criminal offence, as it is in other countries.

My dad had nothing at his house for us, no clothing and definitely not a bedroom. We never stayed over. He paid my mum less maintenance than I can earn in an hour of work (it was that low). He also never fed us an evening meal, we'd be dropped off at grandparents around 4pm who would give us tea (and we slept there because they did have a bedroom for us). My dad brought nothing to my life and I went NC as a young teenager, I was disgusted by how little he paid and how little he did.

OP I agree with you. I also believe parents who have an affair should forfeit the right to shared custody. They have proven that they aren’t capable of making decisions with their kids’ interests at heart and why on earth should the other parent lose out on a significant chunk of this children’s childhood in order to send said children off to someone who has proven they put their sex life above their children’s secure home life. You always read on here that someone’s ability to be a good parent is separate to their ability to be a good spouse but I completely disagree. Not shagging around and blowing up your children’s home is very much part of being a good parent who puts them first.

I know people generally disagree but that’s my opinion. It’s not in a child’s interests to nurture a relationship with a parent who doesn’t prioritise their wellbeing, be it through providing for their basic material needs or doing everything they can to ensure they have a secure home life.

To answer one of your original questions op, the difference between you failing your child and her father failing her is that you are a woman. Simple. Women are punished more than men and this is all the evidence you need.
Do I agree that non maintenance should equal no contact? I'm not sure, that seems to punish the child. I do think children should be made aware of the facts so that they can make up their own minds as adults.

Both parents should pay 50/50 until the child they created together is an adult. Society needs to get over the vilification of single mothers and hound the ‘fathers’ who are happy for a quick bunk up but believe their responsibility ends there. Their payments should be taken at source like tax and NI.

I don't think the children should ever be used as a punishment or carrot on a stick. There absolutely should be better pursuit/greater consequences for NRP who don't pay though.

Some NRP would see it as a bonus to be able to completely distance themselves from their child like that - how does that benefit anyone other than themselves?

@expat101

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''.

whilst that might seem harsh, NRP having them more frequently barely changes how much the RP needs to pay to maintain their home, school uniform, other clothes/shoes/coats. It changes the food bill by a meal or two, that's all.

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

of course not. It's controlling and the RP has Bills to pay to house & clothe the child not just feed them. It's not up to the NRP just to shove a bit of random food at the RP.

I can't believe you seriously think that's acceptable.

@Whypaymumwillsavetheday I understand what you're saying, I think, on the whole, NRP who choose not to contribute financially to their child's upbringing are probably parents a child doesn't benefit from having in their lives but I think too many children would hear arguments about it & end up feeling the RP was stopping them seeing the NRP.

its all a shit show & many need to grow up & stop being arseholes. However, had they been able to do that, they might not be NRP.

I disagree. It isn't "pay per view". It is entirely about the child's right to have a relationship with their parent, however feckless and undeserving that parent might be.

I do think parents who fail to support their children financially should be prosecuted, though, and they should face substantial financial penalties for failing to meet their obligations.

What? Not remotely. I mean it should be fine to limit contact when the NRP uses money as a form of abuse. Surely that was bloody obvious?

Children shouldn't be punished for their fathers' refusal to pay child support

But the state should do more eg confiscate driver's licence, TV licence, DBS certificates where people don't make payment. Although I suppose people might argue that without a driver's licence, they cant get to work

You're right that the child would be removed from your care if you didn't meet their needs, but you would still be allowed contact so it's a false equivalence.

There should be actual consequences of not paying - legal and social. Non-paying parents (almost exclusively dads let's face it) should become social pariahs. There should be a legal requirement on dating apps to include a running total of unpaid child support across their face on their profile pictures.

My ex “doesn’t work or claim benefits” and hasn’t in 5 years so I’m entitled to no maintenance at all, but even then no I don’t agree with you, he doesn't see the children anyway as he doesn’t want to so it wouldn’t “punish” him but that would be the only thing that would actually make the fact that he doesn’t pay a bit better if he was actually a good involved dad but he isn’t so no I don’t think those who don’t pay shouldn’t see their kids.

I don’t get some of the posts which disparage the request for NRPs to pay maintenance by calling it “pay per view”.

It seems almost anything can be used to exonerate a man who doesn’t want to pay for his child.

Why do some men, on the breakup of a relationship, refuse to pay for the ongoing needs of that child?

it comes down to emotions. They’ve moved on, and they expect the person they feel has “wronged them” somehow , to bear all the costs.

My friend split from her husband of 10 years (two DCs, 8 and 5) last year.

He moved to another country 1000+ miles away, lives with the woman he met that provided the escape route. He pays no maintenance for the DCs as he bitterly claims that he never wanted the second DC and it was “expectation” that made him do it.

And as simple as that, he’s considered justified in his actions. She earns ok so she can pay for everything. She longs for him to see his kids, which gives the pass he needs to pop by twice a year only, buy them a big meal out and weekend of fun, then disappear.

I disagree OP, and I say that as someone who never received a penny of maintenance. What's best for the child should always be the most important driver - their physical and emotional well-being. A child who is deprived of paternal contact will almost always suffer for that lack of contact.

A parent who is useless in terms of financial support should be punished by our legal system; a child should not be punished in their place.

As for I also believe parents who have an affair should forfeit the right to shared custody I don't really know where to begin with that. Relationships are rarely black and white, and there's a reason behaviour isn't normally taken into account when financial settlements are made. Such a simplistic bad parent/good parent decision which in the end is likely to harm the child above anyone else should never happen.

I also agree with another poster and would happily have no maintenance if my ex would have regular contact with the kids but he doesn’t want to see them and I think a lot of men who don’t want to pay maintenance are also the ones who don’t care about seeing their kids

An less than adequate parent may be a dick financially but I wouldn’t say they are in any way a fit parent.
But it very much depends on individual cases whether contact would be better or not.

People who have had this happen to them as children are saying exactly how much they don't like their father for doing what they did and that it's ruined their relationship with him.

Yet people think they know better and should force contact. The child when young won't understand, but as a teenager or adult, they will see the truth and why you protected them from their knob head father. Surely the people who have already had to go through this have more of an idea?

Another problem with the OP's suggestion is that if there's a quid pro quo between maintenance and access it works both ways, ie, access withheld by the custodial parent means she loses the right to recieve maintenance payments and a toxic situation all round.

On a separate point, where I live custodial parents who are owed child support can 'uplift' the debt, ie take on the right to collect it themselves. Not for the faint hearted, but I understand that the UK CSA are useless.

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?

The difference is that RP has 100% of responsibility for welfare of a child living with them. That level of responsibility does not vary with income, regardless of the income source.

I certainly think it should be treated as financial abuse and a financial crime.

My ex used withholding maintenance all the time as a way to continue the abuse after we split.

It drove me to climb to career ladder so I wasn't dependent on his money any more, but I know not everyone has that option.

It should be a very relevant consideration in contact hearings for certain, as any form of abuse should be a red flag.

I‘m sorry you had a child with a dickhead @Whypaymumwillsavetheday

I know it would be nice to be able to teach deadbeat/non paying CM dads a lesson.

However

You cannot just cut them out if your child’s life. It might seem fair to you, but it isn’t fair to you child. That’s the risk included in having a child I suppose - you’re forever linked to the other parent, whoever they are.

Even serious, imprisoned offenders get to see their kids - do you really think any court would order to cut contact with a father because he doesn’t pay CM?

As bad and frustrating as it sounds, if your child’s father won’t pay CM anyway, you might as well support their relationship. When your child grows up, they can make their own judgment based on the potential years of hardship they’ve experienced due to lack of CM money.

But unless there’s a safeguarding risk, only that child should decide to go no contact with one of the parents.

Very well articulated. Totally agree.

Sorry about your father, but so glad you have a great DH now. There are many good men in the world. That doesn’t mean that as a society we should conspire to exonerate the sh*tty ones.