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.

I would :
1 link passports and cms. Turn up at the airport to fly abroad, passport scan shows cms debt? Not able to leave the country until debt paid
2 have cms debt show up on credit checks. So it impacts the ability to get a loan
3 penalties for anyone who has to make payments under cms if they don’t lodge a tax return every year
4 use the average wage for occupations as calculated by an professional organisation when determining the amount payable by self employed people, not the amount they say they earn. This would only apply to anyone who says they earn less than the average.
5 work on changing the culture around non payers. Have society view them with the same sustain that we view drunk drivers.

use the average wage for occupations as calculated by an professional organisation when determining the amount payable by self employed people, not the amount they say they earn. This would only apply to anyone who says they earn less than the average

All of that seems sensible except this, you can't get blood from a stone.

Wouldn't we all like to earn the average for our occupation. Its unrealistic, it's also massively dependant on location. There's too many variables to declare an average here.

I do wonder if they made children genuinely affordable and easily available, if it would help far more people to come out of poverty and stop the NRP using the RP solely as childcare which they don't have to pay for.

Hmm, let's see?

They see single mothers and their offspring as unworthy of help?

Even though, each time, a MAN was required to produce that child?
But it's all the woman's fault, of course.

Therefore, no claims pursuit is necessary for child support, it's just the wimmin need to stop being so bloody flighty.

Every divorced mum I know is not getting paid what they should be. They can't take it to court because it costs too much, the men lie about their earnings and if it's paid via their salary they refuse to pay a penny more for anything no matter what the circumstances and it's always down to the mum's to pay.

One friend had the cms give evidence in court, it said that the dad didn't have sufficient earnings to pay anything. The evidence was one email from the dad stating that he had no earnings?!! He was earning over £100k. She gave up.

Absolutely agree that the men don't even need to ask/consider the mother when it comes to changing jobs or work over time.
Men have more options there needs to be a trade off if dad can't work full time or more for example... he needs to watch his kids so mum can!

I get the impression from threads on here that it's the controlling arse holes who insist on going 50:50.

They have legal powers already, they choose not to use them.

Also - any legal enforcement action, whether it’s a Liability Order, bailiffs or removal of licence will STOP once the NRP signs onto benefits. Because they have no way pay the debt. Well, they were working when they chose to fucking accrue it, and most are aware of this loophole and use it to their advantage.

To get CMS to do anything, you have to be on the phone twice a week, every week, or they just pretend your case doesn’t exist.

Oh, and the call centre staff don’t have a clue, will tell you the last person you spoke to was wrong - every time, without fail.

Totally, the CMS are an absolute joke. My ex just didn’t want to pay so didn’t and that was that 🤷‍♀️ The CMS went down the enforcement route which was basically sending him letters asking if he would pay 🙄 He’s now just spent my arrears on a wedding. DS is grown up now but I’m all the years we were not together, I had 9 years of no maintenance whatsoever, 16 months where he’d pay sometimes, a couple of years in the early days where he’d pay but then it stopped and it went to DEO until he left the Police.

The CMS claim they have all these powers but they never use them. And as for £7 a week from benefits! WTAF are they thinking? Can’t really answer your question as it depends on how many kids, how many relevant other kids, how many nights he has the kids. Just as a guess, I reckon CMS would say about £250. i reckon it realistically should be closer to £375.

Wow!! That’s how it should be!! In the U.K. they claim they can take away people’s drivers licence but I’ve never heard of it, not even when I worked there. How do they know people are in debt?

The child maintenance service directly or child maintenance. To blame suicide on the CMS is a big assertion, where did you get your stats from?

Same here. My ex does not work and does not claim benefits. Will only shop in Waitrose and has a second home in Spain 😕

Yep. EXH took his business limited and made max pension contributions (£40k) to avoid paying child support. net worth of over £2m, just sold a flat etc.

Appealed against the pittance CMS assessed him as required to pay - so far that has taken 5 months and no end in sight.

even the appeal felt like a battle, I had to justify it to different people on thr phone every time.

I would:
allocate a single case worker for every case - not a different person each time. With the option to appeal against caseworker decisions if you feel they are not correct.

require CMS to take into account asset wealth, including company shares, property etc.

put the onus on the paying parent to justify why they should not pay, rather than the RP to make the case for why they should.

Absolutely agree that the men don't even need to ask/consider the mother when it comes to changing jobs or work over time
Men have more options there needs to be a trade off if dad can't work full time or more for example... he needs to watch his kids so mum can!

Again this is absolutely not the case unless you don't care about seeing your kids.

And then on the other hand you get this

I get the impression from threads on here that it's the controlling arse holes who insist on going 50:50

So men should "watch the kids" so mum can work, but if you get 50/50 you're obviously a controlling arsehole.

So what are we saying? Do we want men to look after their children (not "watch" like they're the equivalent of a babysitter for mums benefit) or not? Or would we all just prefer it if they only provided financial support and allowed mum to work less / not work and simply disappeared off into the back ground? That's the impression I'm getting here.

So what happens of a women cheats and takes the kids away…Its not black and white and each case should be treated very differently

children’s needs and wants should not, for the most part be dependent on their parent’s behaviour. Small children with a part time working mum will more than likely want to stay with mum, for example, as their primary care giver. Telling an 18 month old he has to spend more time at dad’s than mum’s because mum is a cheat is simply not fair on him.

we can’t have a system that treats everyone as individuals - such a system would be too costly to manage, would require endless training of staff, and would encourage animosity with the ability to appeal and appeal again. From a state perspective, it really is one size fits all even though we know real life is much more nuanced than that.

and none of that is taking into account the needs of the children or the ££ required to support them.

Agree with the passport suggestion.

The other one would be to require all MPs who have to pay child maintenance to have to declare it (number of children, whether fully paid), and be disqualified if they fail to pay up. It would apply to one MP, not sure about others.

@Catfordthefifth I'm not sure what the issue is with an NRP working full time - why would that mean they don't see their kids? I work full time and am the RP. I see plenty of mine. Regardless of who left who and what led to the split, both parents should be contributing equally, whether that is in time or money but too often the NRP chooses EOW only and does not use that "freedom" to maximise earnings and provide better maintenance. My own ex (who chose to leave for OW) chose EOW and took a 20k pay cut to step away from management and have an easier life. That cut the maintenance in half and leaves me to scrabble around and go into debt. As I said, I work FT and juggle the kids but I have to turn down promotions and additional roles as I simply can't stay later. He could. The fact that there are NRPs out there who desperately want 50/50 in no way changes the fact that the majority don't and many dodge payments, which is what we are discussing.

@howtomoveforwards but what if the dad would like to be part time and more hands on, why is it fair its only the mum who gets the choice ?
I know a fair few women who use their cHildren against the ex , so its not always men as is portrayed on here thats the issue so a one fits all system will never fully work
The only way would be That a basic cost is decided per child the each parent is expected to provide half off, both mum and dad . But then this wouldn't work as things change people loose jobs , someone mentioned about ex stepping down so has to now pay less , maybe they needed to step down for their own health as well , or they could of done to pay less
There are so many different scenarios out there
Why people should always be wart about having kids with someone who already has some and doesn't pay as likely to repeat that
Its very difficult but maybe a minimum amount should be taken , regardless of income or anything even if started at £20 a month it would be something

If you read it again, I didn't say that. Pp said they can change jobs or take on overtime whenever they want. That's simply not true is it? Of course you see your kids if they live with you. If you were NRP and did overtime during contact time you wouldn't see them would you? Its obviously completely different.

He could, if he didn't want to see his kids. However if like my dp, you have set contact chosen by the other parent which you cannot deviate - you cannot go for promotion or take on more hours because you wouldn't get to see your children ever. Im struggling to see what you don't understand about that?

I haven't disagreed that most don't want 50/50 I'm asking what posters actually want, because dad's who want 50/50 have been labelled controlling and those who don't have been slated as well. So what do you want? More money?

Exactly that. If you want 50/50 they say you want to avoid paying maintenance. If you pay maintenance, the CMS payments are not enough for all they do. I think for some women, not all, a biological father has no value except for paying the maintenance. They want the child to be part of her new relationship with no involvement with the biological father. A lot of women say it in here. You don't have to consult parenting styles, schools, health, travel, moving. It will affect the child though.

I'm not saying that though. I have stated I would love 50/50 as would my SP friends who all work professional jobs full time. If my ex said he wanted it I would 100% go for it and not think it was about dodging maintenance provided it WAS actually 50/50 and he bought 50% of uniform, clothes, activities, friends' birthday presents etc and didn't just conveniently "forget" and leave it to me, which is what I suspect would happen in reality. I can't speak for anyone else or what they want but the NRP can't have it all ways. They either pay a decent, fair level of maintenance which recognises and compensates the RP for their full time parenting role or they step up themselves. If the former, they can take on additional work (and yes obviously there are restrictions around contact time but nothing like the restrictions the RP has) and if they want a different contact pattern, go back to court. Ask for it.

But what's a fair decent level? Because you seem to think fair and decent means taking every promotion and all overtime? But can't answer when they'd see their children?

As if going to court to get a different contact pattern is so easy! This is the thing oh well work more but take your ex to court to change contact to enable you to pay them more. And you wonder why people don't go for it. In all honesty would you do that?

Arguably I think the RP can't have it all ways either. You can't moan about being the RP but then moan you'd rather have more maintenance. (Not you personally general you)

I’m on a lot of single parent groups and the vast majority of women do not want 50/50 most women are dead against it.

Also maintenance is for supporting the children not compensating the ex for parenting their own children. You don't get compensation for having your own children!