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.

Read my previous posts, I'm not going to say it all again. I've literally said what the ideal process would be.

I have never spent less than £100 a week on my children I have two at university now who cost me £180 a week each.

When the third goes that will take my commitment to nearly £1500 a month and im
doing it on the cheap making them
go to the same uni and share a house.

so that’s over a third of my wages gone before I pay into my pension before I feed and clothe the other child before we have any leisure activities or fun. I’m also about to start paying school fees so as you can see the maths doesn’t really work and I will get into debt to provide for my children whilst he keeps 85% of his salary to do with as he pleases. Plus his cash in hand side gig. And he’s one of the good ones.

@Nothappyatwork whilst I see that's hard for you, I don't think it is necessarily very common. I don't even earn what you're spending on your children, so it's hardly surprising I spend nothing like that on mine. I suppose you live to your means, you can't spend what you don't have. although there's no way in hell I would be getting in to debt for school feels! I'd be telling my adult children to get jobs tbh!

And the fact that you wouldn’t pay for school fees and wouldn’t support your children through university will be a contributing factor towards the fact that they will probably never earn more than £1500 a month either.

I’m not asking anybody else to contribute towards this other than the other person who created these kids. I think it’s disgusting the plan was put together before they were conceived and only one of us has to fulfil it.

fine so. I am prepared to make sure I read all of OP's posts. I certainly am not trawling through this thread to read yours. I was responding to your last post on a thread I haven't visited in a couple of days.

I'm quite sure you haven't "literally" said what the ideal process would be - just your idea of it.

And the fact that you wouldn’t pay for school fees and wouldn’t support your children through university will be a contributing factor towards the fact that they will probably never earn more than £1500 a month either

Wow, that's pretty offensive and small minded. My child hopefully won't get into debt and look down on others who don't earn as much as them. Hopefully they'll have a good work ethic, and not expect their parents to pay for everything.

I’m not asking anybody else to contribute towards this other than the other person who created these kids. I think it’s disgusting the plan was put together before they were conceived and only one of us has to fulfil it

Nobody has said you have. Perhaps your ex sensibly doesn't want to get into debt when your adult children could work a little bit and contribute something.

I appreciate he agreed but again, more expensive for two houses than one etc.

To be honest I've lost any sympathy I had for you before that post.

Well obviously my idea @Pallisers. What would your ideal scenario be? Since you are quick to have a go, but can't be arsed to actually read mine?

I haven't had a go. I asked a question - it was a genuine question. Sorry if I hadn't read all your posts but I think that courtesy is really only due to the OP on a big thread.

Couldn't be bothered dealing with a poster like this so go on your way happily believing you are right.

Believing I am right about what? I simply told you I had already written it. I don't care if you read it but I'm not going to repeat myself.

You either want the answer enough to find it, or you don't. I note you don't actually have any answers yourself..

And the fact that you wouldn’t pay for school fees and wouldn’t support your children through university will be a contributing factor towards the fact that they will probably never earn more than £1500 a month either

really? So if you don’t go to private school or university your wage caps out at £18k.

hate to break it to you but there’s a significant number of kids that do very well without private school or uni. And not being able ti afford private school does not make you a bad parent or doom your kids to poverty.

I'm not being disingenuous or goady. You can accuse me of lying if you like, but I'm not. In MN world I'm sure a lot do spend £££ a week in their kids, in the real world, lots don't have it to spend. Your privilege is showing.

Oh and it was to do with parents fully funding university, not children going to university. Perhaps read it properly. I'm not sure children do worse at university because their mother doesnt get herself into debt to pay for it. What kind of a lesson is that?

Nrps get nothing but flack for not having enough bedrooms for their children so let's not pretend that is completely acceptable when we both know it's not.

I don't count my housing as a direct child related cost, I didn't have a one bed flat before kids, i wouldn't have one after.

You're saying I'm being goady but your comment is much much worse. I've done nothing but state the truth about my won financial situation, which you've decided (based on what?) Is untrue.

Oh, and I don't get any benefits other than child benefit so the state pays what £20 odd quid a week for my child. It goady to assume I'm on benefits, no?

Children are a big responsibility. Very few actually don’t have two parents, and even if the parents are not together, they both should bear proportionally equal responsibility for the welfare of their children. I do not understand the selfishness of a parent who won’t play their part. We need a system that ensures children don’t lose out massively because one parent deliberately changes their family dynamics.

Your statements about it not costing you £100 per week as you didn’t earn as much as the PP upthread and your constant assertions around benefits led me to the conclusion. You are being goady, the fact you’ve stated that benefits can too single mums up instead of the actual parent contributing. Many single mums are ineligible for benefits and are the main providers for their shared children.

As for university, I assume you graduated long before the student loans system came in. With the new levels of loans it is incredibly hard to study without extra help or working. Of course students who are under nourished or working instead of using that time to study don’t do as well in their university course. Those students will then come out with debts as well which will likely never be paid off even if it only works out at £150 a month it’s still unnecessary and will likely cost them more in the long term.

You may not have had a 1 bed before you had children but you definitely need more space after having children, you are likely to use more electricity and gas. You need more food etc… Why shouldn’t each parent contribute fairly to their child? You seem to be going around the houses making excuses for why the RP shouldn’t contribute fairly and/or living in cloud cuckoo where people can have a relationship where compromises are made. If they were they probably wouldn’t be separated. Your ‘plan’ also enables abusive ex’s to continue their abuse.

50/50 is not in the best interests of the child it’s in the best interests of the laziest parent. No maintenance due and you know that means one parent would never buy clothes, or cover other big ticket items. Should a child miss out on every school trip/ learning an instrument/get sent to the cheapest nursery even though it’s 15 miles away from where they live because the NRP must have their say too. We should be seeking a system that puts the children ahead of the adults and your plan is putting NRP wants above a child’s needs and well-being.

Its clear you think the RP should make all the decisions and the NRP should pay for it all. I disagree, I don't think that's an unusual opinion either to be honest.

And as for cloud cuckoo land. Most people work whilst at uni. Again, not unusual unless you're massively privileged which you clearly are. And yes, a lot of people get into debt from uni. Most people do not have parents who pay up front for their courses.

The CMS system in the UK is bloody awful. Once I divorced my abusive ex husband, I think I received maybe £60 in the 10 years after, for two children. I live in the Netherlands now, and my fiance happily pays 350 per month for his daughter, which only stops when she is 21. And as she is at uni, he will probably still pay something until she graduates. It should come directly from wages or benefits if the father is a shirker

I’ve read your comments and yes you have said single mothers and their benefits several times on this thread.

As for speculating as to my intelligence level surely you should read again as I have specifically said one parent not based it on gender so it’s not a low bar for men but actually watching how adults behave post break up and yes your plan does enable abuse. I gave an example of the abuse it enables but just to spell it out to you: when no maintenance is due because of 50/50 care their will likely be one parent that doesn’t pull their weight financially in my above post I said it helped the laziest parent but it can also be down to abuse.

Can you explain how 50/50 is in the best interests of the child? You clearly have never been a teacher. The children often don’t have two PE kits or two lots of anything that they need for school and I’ve had to sort out children far too often where their PE kit is at the wrong house. They were often the most disorganised/ settled children and were also not as self assured as their peers because they were never allowed to settle in one place. Like I also said if these parents were able to compromise adequately they wouldn’t likely be separated. Many adults bring their ego to how they do things when it relates to children as they use them as a weapon against their ex (not gendered as evidenced on the step parent threads it’s not a gendered issue).

I don’t believe the RP should hold all the cards but surely you can see that your plan is open to abuse. Why should the person who doesn’t have to do the day to day care be able to veto the choice of childcare? Why should a child be denied extracurricular activities because the NRP doesn’t want to pay more than they ‘have’ to. You are absolutely advocating that the adults wants are put above children’s needs and yes extracurricular is a need.

As for your maybe the NRP might want to use family line. Using family isn’t always appropriate even if the other parent thinks it’s ok. I’ve watched the arguments between married couples because the dads mum was abusive towards him as a child so the mum of the children obviously didn’t want her to do any unsupervised caring whereas he couldn’t see the issue due to him being ‘ok’.

I'm not even going to bother with you when you're blatantly lying. I've mentioned getting support with childcare, which is true for many parents single or not. If you would like to twist this into being a negative, that's on you. Obviously shows your opinion on benefits. I think any help towards childcare is brilliant and have also said on this thread there needs to be more of it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed that.

I haven't been a teacher. I also haven't said 50/50 is best for all children. I have said some. Again, your view of men (because it is men) is very low and I'm sorry you know so many shit ones.

No using family isn't always appropriate hence having a conversation about it.

Youve clarified though that you think the RP should have all the control and the NRP should finance it because obviously all NRPs are abusive lazy bastards.

I have nothing further to say to you, because you just keep lying about what I've said and it's tiring.

Also I think it's ridiculous to say that seperated parents can't compromise or they'd still be together. Its called "putting your children first" and not being a twat

Posted too soon. Lots of people of both sexes manage this and amicably co parent and put their kids first. Do you genuinely not know anyone who actually communicates with their ex? I don't think it's particularly rare. You don't have to like eachother, just be civil and put your children in the centre.

If this were true there wouldn’t be threads upon threads about maintenance. Nor would there be arrears being written off by CMS. In fact the CMS wouldn’t need to exist as these adults would be putting their children first. Also maybe try reading, I said if they were capable of compromising they likely wouldn’t be separated. Why do you think relationships breakdown? Affairs and abuse and?

Once again I haven’t mentioned genders, you have. The reason I refuse to mention gender is because one of the worst parents of 50/50 was a woman who refused to buy clothes for her children but would keep any of the clothes bought by her ex and send the children in clothes that were too small on the swap over.