Anyone think the UK is a joke when it comes to not paying child maintenance?

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

You hear a lot of stories especially in the UK where courts are not that strict on individuals who are no longer together to pay maintenance for their child. Unlike the UK, USA is much more stricter and it is much harder to avoid paying child maintenance.

Anyone think the rules need to be a lot stricter in the UK? How can it be better enforced in the UK and what is the minimum amount a month you think someone should pay for maintenance assuming someone is on around £1.5k-£2k after tax a month.

That was one of the things when I was dating this year - I wouldn't have touched anyone who didn't pay it with a barge pole
My partner is 50/50 with his ex, on everything. Overnight stays, contact, school trips, uniform, clothes, everything gets split equally and they go to things like school plays/hospital appointments together if they can
I fully support him in that, if he has to be with his child then they take priority over me every time

Shouldn’t the NRP work full time in order to support their children?
For some RP it doesn’t work to work full time when looking at after-school clubs and breakfast clubs. For example if it takes you an hour to travel to work but the breakfast club starts at 8 and after school club finishes at 6. It’s impossible to do without cashing in favours (very short term) or also getting a childminder or a nanny (which is not very affordable for many on one wage). I’m assuming the RP has the standard 9-5:30 contract. It makes even less sense when it means loosing benefits which means you are actually worse off.
I know mumsnetters like to talk about the long term benefits of working when you have children but when working full time means you go from having money to not breaking even I can totally understand why some RP choose to be short term if they don’t have any support.

If it was down to me I would put a ccj on anyone who is in arrears by more than 3 months

when these parents can’t lease a nice new shiny car
and can’t get a mortgage it might focus their minds on what they need to pay

hit them in the pocket with a ccj and it always tends to focus a persons mind

I would also revolve their licence and passport

i would also ensure that the maintenance is not reduced because they decide to have more kids or move in with a women and pay for her kids

Also I would have it where the state pays the required CS and chase the NRP for it
it would be a debt forever 😂

YANBU

CMS is an absolute joke. I haven't had a penny for years and they are meant to take action but don't. They also make it extremely hard to actually speak to a human being on the phone and never have a date on any of the letters they send. I've given up even trying anymore

. Who is raising these men?

an increasingly gendered society where men are told babies and children, housework etc are a womens role, and women are told it’s theirs. Pink brain, innit? Blue brains can’t do that shit, they can only think about work, football and beer.

that and as pp pointed out, 50:50 is great in theory, but many women don’t want it, and as society sees women as the primary parent, it’s them that usually gets to say how much access a dad has. That’s even if the family can afford to split their family assets into two to provide two living situations suitable for kids. So mum keeps the family home, dad has a bedsit, and the bulk of the parenting falls to her. And dad finds it difficult to maintain a good relationship with kids he now sees for 36 hours every other week.

it’s a shit situation all round, and I honestly don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution.

@Catfordthefifth I really disagree with your point. An NRP can work flexibly, extra shifts, take promotions with long hours, work away from home all, all without thinking once, let alone twice about whether they can because the RP is their default childcare. They absolutely should work FT or whatever hours they need to to provide a sensible amount for their children. An RP is obviously hamstrung with regard to many of the work options above because they have to be available for their children until about 7.30am and again by 6.30pm, and they have to pay for that privilege over and above what is covered by any tax credits etc. Outwith any illness/ disability, absolutely NRPs should be working FT to provide financial support OR step up and do the childcare.

If it was down to me I would put a ccj on anyone who is in arrears by more than 3 months

how would this work? There’d be no informal arrangements, everyone would need to go through the CMS or all it needs is a vindictive ex to say he’s not been paying and that’s his credit history, possibly job, screwed. No job, no maintenance, no ability to rent a flat…

I would also revolve their licence and passport

so you would leave them with no means to get to work, rent a house, get a mortgage etc? How would that work?

there is no easy solution. Harsh punishments like above will end up with everyone worse off.

Outwith any illness/ disability, absolutely NRPs should be working FT to provide financial support OR step up and do the childcare

again though, many nrp don’t get the choice. Family member worked flexibly, did much of the school runs and childcare, as did his family, prior to the separation. Afterwards he wanted to continue, but his ex didn’t want to go back to work so refused..that and because it would also have made more sense for the kids to live with him in the week if she worked.

Ime this is total bollocks if they ever want to see their children. Dp certainly could work long hours or work away because he had a contact schedule, decided by his ex that he had to stick to with no deviation, ever, unless that's what she wanted. His ex certainly wasn't his default childcare, it was more the other way round.

I agree they should be able to step up and do the childcare, but often they're not allowed. Plus, let's remember they don't qualify for any help with paid childcare so if they end up taking 50% of the time and need paid childcare in that time, they don't get any of the help the RP gets.

I think this is a very one sided pov which sees one parent as a bank account to enable the other parent to work less. I don't necessarily agree it should work like that. Each parent should get equak time and contribute financially to the child but unfortunately our benefits system is not built to support anything like that.

If you’re talking solely about the financial side of parenting, the only way that it could ever be made truly fair and enforceable is for each parent to pay £430 towards raising a child. And to then irradiate any benefits for resident parent.

this way each parent pays the exact same amount for their child’s upbringing. I think it would then be easier to enforce. If the NRP didn’t pay, then financial assistance could be given. And cover the £430 instead.

The latest report in our annual finds that the overall cost of a child up to age 18 (including rent and childcare) is £185,000 for lone parents and £151,000 for couples.

It should link up to credit files.

That way they wouldn't be able to get new cars, mortgages, credit cards, without paying maintenance as it would screw their credit score.

Don't know how that's not possible in this day an age

Child support enforcement is a matter of state law primarily. It varies greatly from state to state. My state is another one that will take a driver's license away for not paying child support.

If they were 50/50 there would be no RP or NRP so they could split any CB or childcare help. I don't at all disagree that the system is flawed in all directions and needs wholesale review but as I said upthread, the overwhelming majority of issues are with non paying or minimal paying nrps and that is what this thread is about.

*a month

Except that's reliant on the parent who receives it, sharing it. That wouldn't have happened in our situation, and countless others.

I agree that non paying parents should be dealt with, however I don't agree that tarring everyone with the same brush and enforcing full time working at a certain level is the answer to that.

I am a fully grown adult with my own child and the cms still occasionally remind my mum that my dad owes her £££. I know how shit the system is first hand, however telling him he should work ft wouldn't have done anything. The loopholes should be closed first, that's a good place to start. Then consider looking at it from a more modern perspective.

So what happens of a women cheats and takes the kids away you think the dad should still work full time and have no real time to see his kids and rp can stay home or work part time ?how is that fair , 50/50 isn't always agreed or even given by the courts
Its not black and white and each case should be treated very differently

Noone IS tarring everyone with the same brush. This thread is about nrps who don't want to contribute in any way being made to. If you want to do a thread about the iniquities of the system for nrps, please do, but this one is about those many many many nrps who simply do not fulfill their obligations and what could be done to fix that. I absolutely agree that blunt instrument systems are unfair and the only way for that not to happen would be a massive investment in the administration of CMS and a root and branch reform and review of the family court system, but please don't suggest that because some nrps are well meaning and contribute, it is somehow wrong to point out that a huge number are not.

Yanbu OP. Generally the UK is shit at this. Of course there will be pedantic people on this thread arguing that their case is different but on the whole this country is shit at ensuring nrp pay maintenance when they are trying to avoid it

I'm not saying it's wrong to point that out, I'm just pointing out that some of the suggestions to deal with this issue wouldn't actually do anything to the arseholes who decide not to pay but may punish those who already do. I hope that clarifies it.

If you’re talking solely about the financial side of parenting, the only way that it could ever be made truly fair and enforceable is for each parent to pay £430 towards raising a child. And to then irradiate any benefits for resident parent. This way each parent pays the exact same amount for their child’s upbringing. I think it would then be easier to enforce. If the NRP didn’t pay, then financial assistance could be given.
I don't disagree but how would this be enforced? How would you even work out what amount of money should go in what direction? My DH pays maintenance but as I've said on many a thread before now, DSDs bedroom/clothes/food/etc and so forth in this house are not somehow free off the NRP magic money tree. So what he "pays" (as in transfers to his ex monthly) falls short of that £430 figure but is by no means the beginning or end of what he pays towards the cost of his child overall.
So where do you start to unpick it all? I think we then arrive back at the blunt instrument of the overnight bands pretty quickly.
Kid stays one night per month = blow up bed in living room is arguably fine, if a bit crap.
Kid stays 3 nights per week = proper bed, if not own bedroom is now essential, with all the associated bills of a home large enough to properly accommodate.

The cms is a big joke.
I read the other day they will have new powers to put people on ankle tag who dont pay.
I doubt I'll see a penny for ds could do with it with cost of everything rising too.

CMS is a shit show along with the £20 good for nothing admin fee.

Why doesn't the paying party have to submitt any form of recent bank slips? The maintenance should be taken directly from the wages.

I agree (even being on the other side of the shitshow) but what about people who are directors of their own company. Fwiw my dh has always paid but he very easily could have just stopped paying himself and paid me instead. It needs to be even more robust than that.

They use your p60.

agree (even being on the other side of the shitshow) but what about people who are directors of their own company. Fwiw my dh has always paid but he very easily could have just stopped paying himself and paid me instead. It needs to be even more robust than that

For self-employed, there should be a basic income expectation - so, if a person claims to be SE but also claims they earn a pittance, well that shouldn't just be accepted. They should have to attend the job centre and prove they are seeking better paid work - like those on benefits have to, and 'sanctioned' with fines if they don't comply.

It's appalling that we have so many kids living in poverty who aren't supported at all by the NRP.