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.

You can't force people not to procreate.

But you can enforce fairer child support laws that will make some people think twice.

Yes - or even, they have actually been barred from seeing their kids, which would be on the grounds that they had severely hurt them in the past. In a way presuming that someone who says they've been stopped from seeing their kids is just lazy is the positive option!

I've made my suggestions upthread but basically to make NRPs pay a higher amount that reflects more accurately the costs involved of raising the child. Many pay a pittance.

NRPs should be responsible for half of childcare costs as its patently inequitable that they can work unencumbered by cost whilst the RP can't.

Unearned income/assets should be taken into account (thankfully this is being covered by the new legislation) and self employed people should be held to account as too many fiddle their figures to get out of paying. HMRC tie in is preferable.

Consistent non payers should lose driving licences and passports. Non payment of support should carry the same stigma as drink driving.

I don't have a crystal ball...maybe there have been abuse concerns in the past.

Court will consider the evidence available and judge accordingly.

It's all excuses.

Exactly.

It's always a red flag when someone says their ex stops them from seeing their children.

@Housesellingnightmare not sure why you have such a problem with me. I'veafe detailed and lengthy suggestions upthread about ways to tackle the problem of non or low paying NRPs which is what the OP started the thread about. I was simply asking that we don't get derailed to talk about other related issues, as it diverts the discussion away from the most pressing and widespread problem.

Tbf 90% of the posts shooting down big changes to the system are from you.

When they are forcibly taking the money off your ex, they actually charge you as well for the arrangement. So your child loses out as part of the policy as you are getting less money.

My ex keeps seeing the kids and then disappears for a year so yes if he wants to see them again he will need to take the court route he has been doing it for 6 years.

My ex (and his mother) are always coming out with this bullsh*t about not letting him
see his children.

In reality, it’s crap. I used to pay for his travel and accommodation.

He has lived an hour away and has not showed up on birthdays or in fact for a few years at a time.

There is such a thing as phone calls, birthday cards etc. Neither the ex or his mother bother doing any of this stuff.

If I was non resident parent, even if I was skint, I would be phoning, texting, sending cards, letters or postcards. I’d be on the National express when I could.

I know my ex is off crying into the arms of some new lady who is supporting him and telling her how he has been forcibly estranged from his children. They “were stolen” and everyone will be wildly sympathetic. In reality it is a crock of shit. He is even ghosting my children now when they text him.

I think access should be automatic unless you have been abusive or you are in arrears with the child support.

And everyone should know this.

That way, when men complain about not being allowed to see their children, everyone will know it's either because they have been abusive or because they haven't paid the maintenance they owe.

So what's yours? Or do we just say "oh well, it's too hard, let's just forget it and use the benefit system to plug the gaps in the case if lower earning RPs. Higher earning ones can just suck up the unfairness? So much more could be done but it would take imagination and an actual will from the establishment to do it.

I would be fucking delighted if they could see him. As long as they are safe and near me so I can pick them up, I would be happy. But it’s his way or the high way.

And the granny is a cold hearted cow who doesn’t bother.

If any of your kids are 11 or above - give them the choice of seeing him.

In fact encourage them to see him at least once. As when they work out what he is, then they are unlikely to bother again.

That way you can never be blamed from stopping them seeing him.

Abusive or neglectful. First and foremost, I need to know my children are safe.

Are you being obtuse?

Stop with the whataboutery.

As I explained before there is no reason for anyone to claim they are stopped from seeing their children because they have the right enshrined in law.

If they then don't go to court and enforce that right then it's on them.

As I said it's an excuse trotted out by parents who simply can't be arsed.

Children aren't pay per view.

I've got some friends and acquaintances who told their fathers who f*&ked off and paid nothing where to go when they turned up in their mid/late teens.

I also know people who asked their NRP (yes it includes mothers this time) in their early teens why they were paying nothing towards their care.