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.

Yes it does, but obviously when you're self employed you declare what you earn. Some people don't do that truthfully, which is obviously a wider issue. There should be something to do to tackle this but bank statements aren't the answer because to avoid tax you get paid in cash.
I don't know what the answer is but absolutely agree it is a loophole that needs to be closed.

woukdnt it be great if the more the non resident parent earned the higher percentage of CM he would pay?

I have come to see why paying more than 15% with a small income can drive a parent into severe debt and suicide but when a parent has money to spare, not so. It would also be good that the income of the resident parent was also considered, it is not fair a nrp with a smaller income is asked to pay more they can afford when the RP is earning considerably more, in the same way that is unfair a NRP earning a 6 figure salary only pays 15% to a RP who is living on the breadline.

I have heard however that the reason why CM payments are disregarded in benefits calculations is because about 50% of parent do not pay CM or pay less than they should.

But it's mums that are the resident parent the majority of the time though. I've explained this in mu post. Are you yourself a resident parent? Because it doesn't sound like it!

I don't care if mum is a surgeon or top lawyer. It's merely principle that as a parent you should pay for your child.

You have a nasty under tone. You can't just claim benefits you have to be ENTITLED for a start and if you think life is so rosy why don't dad's take the benefits and the kids? 🤣🤣 it's laughable you know people work full time and claim benefits? Even 2 parent households right?
The audacity to moan about mum climinh tax payers money.... F off single mums tax too.

Yes they get cash in hand. But money will definitely be going through the banks! Unless your carrying all the cash in hand money around in your pocket... anyway I think in this case bank statements would soon put a stop to this tbh.

But it's mums that are the resident parent the majority of the time though. I've explained this in mu post. Are you yourself a resident parent? Because it doesn't sound like it!

We have been both paying and receiving parents. We paid significantly more than we received for a child who cost us just as much.

I don't care if mum is a surgeon or top lawyer. It's merely principle that as a parent you should pay for your child

Yes, unsure why you think I don't agree.

You have a nasty under tone. You can't just claim benefits you have to be ENTITLED for a start and if you think life is so rosy why don't dad's take the benefits and the kids? 🤣🤣

What are you on about? I've not said anything nasty about claiming benefits?

it's laughable you know people work full time and claim benefits? Even 2 parent households right?

Yes I am aware, again, why do you think I'm not?

The audacity to moan about mum climinh tax payers money.... F off single mums tax too

I've said absolutely nothing of the sort. Would you like to point out where I have?

You'd have to be a bit silly to bank cash you aren't declaring, I think.

Is that the people in your circle?

Nope, the people who post on mumsnet. It's been an eye opener.

Maybe we should have a “man tax”.

all males over 18 pay an extra % tax. Unless they can prove they’re infertile- might persuade some of the more irresponsible to get a vasectomy.

bin CM, and use that money to up child benefit.

What if it is not a mutually agreed childcare because one party simply doesn't want to pay, and there's no official way to include these expenses, even at some notional rate into the child maintenance calculation?

My childcare bill was close to £3K pcm for around three and a half years, and that was the cheapest local combination of a nursery + pre-school + childminder for two. The solution from my ex's point of view was - "well, it is your own choice to work, you don't have to do it". Child maintenance all this time was fluctuating between £1 per month and £7 per week. It completely blew my mind that absolutely everyone just wisely nodded their heads and confirmed - yup, that's how it is here, nothing to be done (you can probably tell from my username I am foreign).

They are not included because the government of the day when they scrapped them counting couldn’t be arsed to find a better way.

At the time if the NRP was on benefits they only got to keep £20 a week of maintenance. The rest was owed to the Secretary of State to go toward the welfare bill.

When the amounts owed to the Sec of S got so high that it was declared that something had to be done they decided the best way to deal with the non payers was… to just let the RP keep all the money (that they knew didn’t get paid).

Well that's why it's hard to say! Because yes saying well I'm not paying but then not offering any kind of alternative is totally shit. But then if my ex put my child into ft childcare without me having involvement and then handed me a bill I'd be pretty pissed. I wish I knew what the answer was.

I feel what would help women in general, and children, is subsidized childcare. Not because I think men shouldn't pay, but because I think it should be more accessible and allow women to work and not be forced to give up (single or otherwise)

The thing is in court mum can't deny dad if he wanted to look after his kids over a nursey. It's a big IF and it's a minority also. The majority of dad's can't be arsed even those in marriages let's face it.

The thing is in court mum can't deny dad if he wanted to look after his kids over a nursey. It's a big IF and it's a minority also. The majority of dad's can't be arsed even those in marriages let's face it

Well they can, often they don't and that's a good thing. I don't think a parent should have to go to court to look after their own children, mind you.

Also, I don't agree that the majority of dads can't be arsed. I have to say that actually the majority I know do the same as dp and spend most of their annual leave seperate from their wives off with the kids to minimise holiday club fees. I'm sure there are some who cba but I think it's less common certainly than it used to be.

Equally if you're married to a man who can't be arsed to look after his own children it's not a surprise if that continues on divorce. Its not right by any means, but it's not unexpected. I'm not sure there's an answer to that unfortunately.

@Catfordthefifth and see that's where anecdata is hopeless, because the majority of nrp dads I know are of the 'cant be arsed' variety and use a tiny fraction of their annual leave on their kids because they want to prioritise their new partner / family / mid life crisis cycling or golf hobby. Neither of us are wrong but nothing is achieved by an endless cycle of whattabouttery. The existence of decent nrps does not negate the existence of crap ones and vice versa.

Oh and please don't do the 'he was crap when you were married to him' thing. Mine wasn't. He was great til he met ow. There are literally hundreds of threads on the lone parent and relationship boards that reflect that dynamic.

Well quite. I haven't ever said it has. I do find it interesting that you are surrounded by awful men though! I suspect I am younger than you and perhaps there is time yet for all the men I know to take up golf and become twats but to be honest I'd be really surprised. Most of them genuinely seem to enjoy spending time with their kids.

I'm just not sure what the answer is. I don't think demanding half of childcare costs is necessary appropriate.

I haven't said that.......

I said if they were crap when you're married it's not a surprise. Not that they're all crap, obviously people change. Nobody's denying that.

YANBU OP

Oh they really do say that. Often. Usually on the 'i am 100% sure my guy won't cheat ever and if yours does its your fault for choosing badly' type threads. I think half of childcare costs (whatever is left after any UC etc) is absolutely right. If both parents are at work, the child needs care. Both are able to work due to the paid childcare, so why should both not pay for it? It can't possibly be right that than nrp gets to skip out that massive cost and effectively get 24/7 free childcare 26 days a month. It's indefensible.

I'm sure other people have said that, I'm clarifying I haven't.

I also haven't said they shouldn't pay, I think in an ideal world it's an open discussion where parents are default carers, then family/friends childcare where appropriate and then paid childcare jointly agreed by both parents.

Then like you say UC/TFC disregarded and then paid for perhaps by % dictated by earnings maybe. But perhaps maintenance would need to be accounted for potentially(?)

Its very complex imo. Its not as simple as demanding half. Some people simply will not have half to give!

And you're also seeing it in terms of the NRP only having EOW which isn't always the case and would have to be considered also.

I'm just not sure what the answer is. I don't think demanding half of childcare costs is necessary appropriate.

If both parents work full time why is it not appropriate? I genuinely don't understand. To go to work you need childcare. It is an expense for both parents. When you are together you might say stuff like "it takes up all my salary" (it did in my case) but that's just a way of slicing up your budget. It was a joint cost.

When might it not be appropriate for separated parents NOT to share the cost of childcare?

Same in my case too, father of the year until she came along and pointed out that he didn’t need to do that any more because she was here now for him to run after instead.

He has become the most selfish prick you could dream of meeting over the past five years. The Children hate him.

Absolutely should be a paid minimum and it builds up as debt for the father.

Though, given you can accuse/name anyone as being your child's father, it would need to be backed up some way with evidence.

The only way this systen could work is with a retroactive DNA appeals process, whereby the named paternal party can only appeal with a witnessed DNA result proving they are not the father, and the mother can only continue the claim after the appeal if she agrees to the DNA test.