Non resident parent's obligation to support their children

[MargotBamborough]

Another day, another thread about an unmarried woman separating from the father of her children.

This gets discussed a lot on here, but I can see the logic for why unmarried couples should not necessarily have any financial obligation towards each other when they separate. People should have the right to live together without being considered a single financial unit in the eyes of the law, and enforcing marriage-like obligations on people who have not chosen to get married seems wrong to me. Even if this results in some unmarried people, particularly women, making themselves financially vulnerable.

What I don't understand is why the non resident parent's financial obligation to support their children is so small. If the parents of two preschoolers separate, for example, how is the resident parent, who is most likely the mother, supposed to keep a roof over their children's heads if they can't work, and how can they work if they can't afford to pay two sets of childcare fees with the piss-poor contribution she is getting from the children's other parent?

I realise that even claiming the minimum that non resident parents are obliged to pay via CSA can be impossible sometimes - and that's a separate issue - but who on earth decided it was fair or reasonable that the non resident parent's obligation to pay should be limited to an amount which doesn't even touch the sides of the actual cost of raising their children?

I know it's another argument in favour of getting married, but that doesn't help resident parents in this situation, or indeed their children.

Does anyone have any bright ideas about how things could be changed to make the system fairer?

This is purely theoretical for me, but the injustice of it just grates. I've tried to use the gender neutral "resident parent" and "non resident parent" throughout, but we all know the reality, which is that it is usually women who get screwed over in this way, and I assume that is why the problem hasn't been addressed.

The quickest and easiest way to sort this would be mandatory 50/50.
But I can't see many "resident parents" going for that.

The problem with mandatory 50/50 is that there would have to be so many legal exceptions laid down that it would be useless. NRP moves a long way away, abuse situations, children in crucial school years, disability and medical issues - it would be unworkable.

Instinct makes me want to say 'just fling non payers in jail', but given that we can't even jail rapists right now, that's also a no go.

I'm not sure it would be in the children's best interests either, especially when very little, shuttling back and forth between two homes.

Both yours and pointythings points are the reason why there is no easy solution.

Take too much money and the NRP cant afford to live, take too little and the RP finds it hard.

It should be a legal requirement to pay for your children (whether NRP or RP). But how much is not going to be easy to find unless you have a way of finding a solution for everybody on a case by case basis, and this won't work due to the cost of implementation.

Then there is the problem of what the money for the child/ren actually goes towards how do you make sure that its not spent frivolously?
If there is a legel requirement to pay for the child/ren that you have then there should be a legal requirement/responibility that only the child benefits from the money.

That’s why marriage isn’t just a piece of paper. Any work around to the current system would just end up being like getting married.

Well to take nursery costs, as a big thing. Could it not be a legal requirement for both parents to be billed separately for their contribution to nursery fees, and to have an expedited debt collection process to enforce any debts against a NRP who failed to pay their share?

@FrippEnos that's not easy to define though, because there is so much overlap between what benefits the child and what benefits the RP. Should the money be spent on heating, for instance? Should it be allowed to go towards rent payments? If you start pinning that down, controlling exes will take advantage.

I think it would be a good start if nursery was affordable even for those on minimum wage. And I mean genuinely affordable, so people could still have a decent standard of living after paying nursery fees. That way the vast majority of resident parents would be able to afford to go back to work. Obviously not everyone would want to, but it would make it a feasible option.

The same should go for after school club - it should be affordable. If these things were affordable the resident parents wouldn't be as reliant on their exes.

If these things were affordable the resident parents wouldn't be as reliant on their exes.

So the state subsidises shitty non -paying parents even more than it does already?

Also funnily enough it is not the parent who is reliant on the ex...it is the children.

This is why it's such a mine field and there is no easy solution. Both parents have to survive, put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

As the op said, the nrp could pay childcare, but I think a better solution is that both parents are responsible for drop off and pick up at school etc to keep the childcare costs down. Contribution towards the dc doesn't just have to be financial. That's why 50/50 often works well, as the parent the dc are with them, is then responsible and has to sort their own childcare out, work pt it stay at home during the time the dc are staying with them. They also provide school uniforms etc which will ensure that one parent isn't responsible for buying all school uniforms, clothing etc.

Appreciate this doesn't always work when a child is very young, but it's a workable solution when a child is of school age. It also gives both parents the opportunity to earn a wage and further a career, becoming more financially stable

That's an inane suggestion, that wouldn't help at all.

I thought, and I could be wrong, that you can claim back about 70% of all childcare costs if you are under a certain salary?

Thank you for your well thought out and thought provoking response. Would you like to try again, or actually make a counter argument?

Genuine question... what difference would being married have made when ex left? Other than having the cost of a divorce. We didn't own a house. Had no assets/savings of note. He had a car, it was in his name and I can't drive. I had about 1k in savings.

Regarding the child maintenance the whole system isn't fit for purpose. Some NRPs appear to be paying so much they then can't afford to live. Or so they claim. I don't know anyone IRL that this is true for.

I do however know many RPs who are struggling.

As a start I would remove the "discount" on CM that NRPs get when they move in with someone else who has children/has more children.

I agree that it isn't easy to define. But the points you have made are things that need to be paid, What about went the child wants to do a club or hobby? if the NRP is to pay then should they not get a say in whether the hobby should be done?
Or is it a cart blanche where the NR gets to call all of the shots without thought for the cost as half will be paid buy the NRP?

50/50 contact also does not allow for a fair split of costs. If one parent has child care support in the form of a grandparent but one parent doesn't, this might prevent that parent from working if they can't access child care. Should.nursery fees in this instance be split?

In my experience in 50/50 arrangements one parent is usually still left with more of a financial burden. It is usually still one parent who buys the children's clothes, takes them to the hairdresser's, organises birthday parties, etc and that's not to mention the time that parent spends doing these things instead of working.

Research has shown that 50/50 works well for all parties only when the parenting was being split 50/50 within the original relationship.

OK but what about when kids are under school age?

Then it's not a question of drop off and pick up, it's literally, who is looking after them all day?

If it's the resident parent, the resident parent can't work.

If it's a nursery setting, who pays?

Yes, both the parent and the non resident parent need a roof over their heads, but the roof that is also over the children's heads is more critical, and yet the person paying for it frequently gets very little to help towards that.

The sums just don't add up, do they? You need to work to keep a roof over your head because you have no partner to pay for that. You need childcare to work. You can't afford to pay for childcare for two children AND keep a roof over your head. You can't afford childcare so you can't work. You can't work so you can't keep a roof over your head.

Literally, how are people resolving this problem without the non resident parent making voluntary contributions beyond the legal minimum?

I'm a single mum and have always worked full time. That way I had my own income, and child care is just another bill to be paid 50:50.

If separated, unless a child has special needs, it seems sensible for both parents to work full time. That way, each is free to earn what they need, each has a career and a pension.

The issue comes when a separating couple has multiple preschool children and childcare gets too expensive to afford.

If nursery fees are defined as a needed expenditure for the child then it should be spilt between the parents IMO.

@Phonedown
I'm just suggesting things that already work in other countries. I'm not a single parent or a low income family, I just think that things like nursery and school should be more or less free for everyone. I feel like access to education, including early years, should essentially be considered a human right.

And to whoever it was that said people can get heavily subsidised nursery costs - yes, but the earning limit for it is very low. Those who earn just above the limit and need to pay for nursery won't be able to afford a decent standard of living. Or in a lot of cases, food.

In my opinion nursery costs should be a small percentage of your household income with a relatively low maximum monthly cost. This works well in Sweden.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I obviously believe in it but others are free to disagree and point out the flaws if they so wish. I just think it would help if single parents could afford to go back to work full time

Enforcing 50/50 or shared school runs is ridiculous, and potentially dangerous. Mandating someone who might not want to care for a child, or have the skills to do so, would result in neglect at best.

Did your ex actually pay 50% of the childcare bill though?

TBH there are quite a few parent couples that are not fit to be parents either, so unless we do something about them as well...

Benefits subsidise both resident and non resident parents.

I know it's another argument in favour of getting married, but that doesn't help resident parents in this situation, or indeed their children.

Does anyone have any bright ideas about how things could be changed to make the system fairer?

Civil Partnerships are now available to mixed-sex couples. I think that they should be actively promoted to those who choose to have children together - they give the legal protection of marriage with none of the societal baggage or cost.