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.

No, but using whatever means are available to you to force your ex to cough up helps you to provide for them a little better.

This is entirely within the non-paying NRP's control.

Catching up with the thread today. I also wonder if there are a few different issues being discussed in terms of getting NRP to pay "more". There seems to be different kinds of NRP, and (potentially) different kinds of problems and solutions.

1. NRP who pays CMS minimum, works full time, but the minimum isn't enough for the children
2. NRP who don't work, and only pay £7 per week, or nothing (e.g. stay at home parent for new family; unemployed and looking for work)
3. NRP who hide their income to pay nothing or a CMS (e.g. self-employed)
4. NRP who have other sources of income that "don't count" to the CMS amount

One solution is just raising the CMS minimum to something like 30% of income, subject to some floor (e.g. £400 per month per child). And then changing how they income is calculated (to include pension, property income etc) and non-payment is policed. If working NRP can't afford it then they must work more hours, or can take a high interest "loan" from the government to pay it.

I do wonder whether this would have a knock on effect where less relationships break up while children are under 18. Because, instead, the NRP could chose to stay in the family home (rather than a bedsit, for example) and remain working 37 hours a week (rather than having to work 50 hours to pay the extra money) and would get to see the kids all the time (rather than just end of week) and would presumably have more disposable income too, and not have to contend with a high interest loan for the periods they are unemployed or cannot get enough hours from work, or if they cannot get a higher paid job, for example.

This brings up a related issue of "family units" where one of the parents is checked out, for example I do have a friend whose husband is constantly job hopping, unemployed, not helping out round the home, and she has to work so many (paid and unpaid) hours to cover him. They are still living together as a family. He acts like these NRP in not paying for the kids, but he is actually resident! If they divorce he will get half of everything she has paid for and saved. There should be something for these people too IMHO.

I've been the child in the situation.

My DP has been a parent who went to court to get a regular contact arrangement as his ex doesn't understand what regular means.

I do wonder whether this would have a knock on effect where less relationships break up while children are under 18. Because, instead, the NRP could chose to stay in the family home (rather than a bedsit, for example) and remain working 37 hours a week (rather than having to work 50 hours to pay the extra money) and would get to see the kids all the time (rather than just end of week) and would presumably have more disposable income too, and not have to contend with a high interest loan for the periods they are unemployed or cannot get enough hours from work, or if they cannot get a higher paid job, for example.

So the reasons they were going to split for, just disappear? Or they’re unhappy and the kids live in an unhappy household but it’s good news financially? This seems wilfully naive at best.

RP’s also leave relationships, btw. Not sure why you’re intimating it’s just flighty NRP’s.

So what happens to parents where one cheats/abuses the other?

Past government policies forced people to stay married when their relationships were toxic which caused more damage to their children. Other parents split and pretended to be married to their new partners.

Point is not everything can be legislated for which is why social pressure e.g. teaching boys from when they are born that both men and women are responsible for care of children.

@MargotBamborough

This hypothetical figure for child support that has not been given a number value to.
If the RP is unable to pay her half will she also be made to take out this "loan" and forced to pay it back for the rest of her life?
Will she be forced into shared accommodation and her home sold so that she can clear the debt?
And will she also be forced to work 60hr weeks to clear it?
Or is it just the NRP that will forced to do this?

The RP has no choice but to find the money because they are the one with the child at home.

So you are saying that a "reasonable level of living" should be based on what the RP can and is providing for the child?

@FrippEnos I think you'd find, if you dug into it, that the vast majority of RPs already do exceed this unknown number by a considerable way, whether that's through salary or benefits they are entitled to because they are the RP and working opportunities are so severely restricted as such. What you're putting forward there is a seriously flawed argument because at its base, you seem to be implying that RPs don't already meet or vastly exceed their "share". As has been pointed out on here, if an RP actually did only provide the £7 a week deemed acceptable for an NRP on benefits, they'd have the child removed. An NRP, health issues not withstanding, can indeed work 60 hour weeks or retrain or seek promotion or whatever it takes to adequately provide his share.

I'm saying that the resident parent is ultimately responsible for providing for their child out of whatever income they have. A resident parent does not get to say, "That's the £7 per week budget used up now so the kids aren't eating again until Monday." They forego meals themselves, they sell things, they visit food banks, they do whatever it is they have to do to provide for their kids because the buck stops with them. And yes that might mean not having a haircut or buying clothes for a year.

Those resident parents wouldn't be in such dire straights if the NRP was made to pay a reasonable contribution.

My argument isn't flawed, or is certainly no more flawed than the NRP should be "forced to" argument that is being put forward.

What I am trying to do is find out what the definitive principles of the argument are are what the defined terms are as apparently 50/50 which was my original point has been derided and scorned yet would solve the issues especially as "we" are allowed to force NRP to work longer hours, live in poor housing but "we" are not allowed to force them to look after their children.

It seems to me that many posters are stuck the pound signs and not on a way that would actually solve the problem.

IMO some posters are coming across as being very bitter.

I am not disagreeing that the NRP should be made to pay,
And I am not disagreeing that RPs will find a way.
I am asking that if you put a definitive monetary value on what the costs for a child or multiple children are where does the figure come from and what happens if the RP is also not able to meet that level of expectation?

Totally agree. My ex has never contributed much to his kids. For years I let him get away with it in the interests of maintaining good relationships and fact I’m a people pleaser. He’s now living in a 5 bed house with his new partner and her child whilst my daughter and I are in a rented 2 bed flat (can just about to afford to buy since a promotion as I’m in London but haven’t yet). When son is back from Uni I’m on the sofa bed. Daughter is now refusing to go to his house as she doesn’t want to live 50% of the week with strangers, she met these people twice before they moved in. So he’s going to be told pretty soon he’s paying maintenance as he’s not doing 50-50 and maintenance is meant to be about giving your child a decent standard of living reflective of your salary. I don’t see why it’s all down to me with him being the hero paying for what he fancies - a laptop here and there, a school trip for example

I would guess a large number of the non-resident parents who fail to make their contribution, be it financial or in other ways, still manage a holiday outside the UK.

Have the option that their passports can be withdrawn for a period of time, that can be enforced by the courts.

@FrippEnos well I think your argument is flawed, sorry. We, as in our society, could "make" NRPs pay by setting up a transparent, robust system, attached to HMRC as I have outlined previously. The minimum floor figure could be some equation based on CoL calculations, broad averages etc. I pretty much guarantee you that an RP will be exceeding that figure.

What we cannot and should not do is make an unwilling parent have 50/50 care of their children. Nothing can be more damaging to a child to feel unwanted, in the way, an inconvenience. If we somehow were to force that, we'd see a huge rise in child protection issues. In reality what would happen is that RPs would rightly stop their children going to the NRP and they would be at best, left with no financial support because 50/50 is assumed and at worst prosecuted for not following the 50/50 order.

Well if it's based on income why would the RP need to contribute 50%?

Somebody said upthread that the hypothetical NRP on £30k shouldn't have to pay 50% of nursery costs to allow the RP to earn £150k. Well it cuts both ways.

If what you contribute is based on a proportion of your income then whether the RP can afford to match what the NRP is required to pay is entirely irrelevant.

I think we have a fair and robust system (20% of NRP wages, adequate sanctions for non-paying NRPs, HMRC linked, NRPs circumstances taken into account re level of childcare, second families etc).

However it’s not being properly enforced. As my eldest approaches 18, I’m about to take his dad to court to find out exactly how robust it is.

Unless I do this (instead of just talking about it) I’ll never know. That takes courage and it takes resources. I’m hoping, in my case, to get free legal advice as we have previously been victims of domestic abuse (well documented elsewhere). We do continue to be victims of his financial abuse and coercive control as he doesn’t pay and he has lied about his income and refused to pay even when he has been working and that will be prominent in my complaint to the court.

I’m about to test the system. I’ll let you know how we get on (but don’t hold your breath for an answer).

if I were to give advice to a younger version of myself it would be make sure it’s all documented. You never know what might happen. Do your best and hold your course.

The CMS writes off the NRP debts after three months routinely, they told me on the phone.

So imagine you’ve a large credit card bill or a bill which is going to take you longer than three months to sort out.

As NRP you are busting a gut settling your household bills, both new and old, and pay for childcare, clothes etc.

Along comes your ex who, it is agreed, owes you £1000 for unpaid maintenance for little Peter and Jane. The CMS decides that would be unfair and helpfully writes off anything older than three months.

As resident parent, you still have to plough on and make your bills. It’s very unfair.

Well they need to stop doing that and start doing their bloody jobs.

I wonder whether some kind of class action against the CMS might succeed.

Surely you can't legally write off debts which are owed to other people, that's ridiculous.

Yeah I don’t get to call my credit card company and tell them the debt is over three months old so maybe we can write it off amongst friends?

But financially abusive ex gets to do exactly that, after messing me and the CMS about for months and owing me 5/6 months of maintenance, which I desperately need.

It does feel that the current set up enables financial abuse to continue when relationships end.

Yes I’ve wondered about legal action too.. surely the group who suffer from these policies are mainly women?

Now I get nothing.. CMS has investigated and maintains that ex does not even earn £7 a week. Beggars belief.

CMS do not write off debt ..? My ex’s debts go back to 2014 and I have assurances that CMS will continue to pursue.

I don’t have a great deal of faith in getting anything, but they do at least acknowledge it. Also, debts logged by the CMS are nowhere near the actual amount, but it’s a starting point.

Some sort of class action would surely help? Raise the profile. There are 100s of 1000s of parents getting away with it up and down the country. We need to make a noise, get our voices heard, not fight among ourselves.

You can’t complain unless you complain. Yes, CMS are useless. We need to get behind them and force them to stand up and do what they are being paid to do.

That takes courage and organisation and not just throwing up your hands and saying,’They do nothing for us.’

Cms wrote off £1000 of my exes debt. I didn’t really care though as he is on benefits so I knew I was never going to see any of it…