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.

I agree 50/50 is best 👌🏿

'Ah. But were you married to your ex?'

No, thank goodness. Ex morphed into weird controlling person the day I brought ds home from hospital. Thankfully I was able to pick up my possessions and leave when it got too bad, without a legal battle.

He initially said he wanted 50:50 but that lasted precisely one weekend. He hasn't mentioned it since. I think it was the reality of changing nappies and lack of sleep that changed his mind. 😀

We've coexisted relatively calmly ever since (13 years). He sees ds 6 hours a week during which time he watches sport and ds plays computer games. Then they ignore each other for the rest of the week. It's odd but it works.

i was thinking along similar lines. It’s never that straight forward.

Sadly you can't make someone parent well if it's not their highest priority.
If picking a child up from nursery/school is less of a priority for them than their job so that person is unreliable at best what you going to do?
If someone's own lifestyle (ie time and money) is more important than the child getting socialisation at nursery or the child finding a hobby they enjoy, what are you going to do?

Unless you want to live in a sounding chamber it is a valid point. You may not like how it sounds but that's life.

The problem with raising percentage payment is that many NRPs are on the breadline as it is. What do you do if they can't pay the amount?

I agree with removing passports but if you remove driving licences you run the risk of the NRP not being able to work at all.

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

^^ I've asked this several times and he's not interested. Happy two night a month and paying a whopping £25 a week

50/50 is not fair for the child imo

Any couple who have a baby should be put into the same legal framework as civil partners, automatically. Once they share a child they need to share finances

I hope your DS has better male role models and is learning how not to be a dad.

@Heelenahandbasket

Women do a huge amount of unpaid work when it comes to children- this should be valued and shared regardless of marital status.

Do you mean parenting?

@Blahblahaha and @defi

How much of this is down to the expectations of society?
They get away with not parenting because they can get away with it.
If is was actively discouraged then maybe they would step up to the plate as it was required of them.

Exactly the same situation for me.

My ex-husband quit his decent paying job after I left and then moved in with OW to provide her childcare.

She’s built a successful business off the bacl of him being home to provide childcare for her child.

He has no income (won’t even claim benefits) so hasn’t paid a penny towards our children in almost 10 years) Nor has he ever done the school run despite at one point living 2 minutes away and driving past my house to take his new wife’s 12 year old to school.

He is a disgrace, but I can’t help but wonder how she can live with herself too knowing that she is enabling him to not provide for his own two children.

Because if he didn’t live with her, he’d have to fund himself somehow and a measly proportion would be given to my children.

@FrippEnos no don't think it has to do with society as I say I think it is because ex doesn't prioritise DC because he doesn't benefit from it...it's a selfish thing, not a society thing

I quite like the American system, or at least the penalties of it,

www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-support-enforcement

Pay or go to jail.

That could well be the case.

I'm not sure that childcare costs should be split 50/50. How does that work, for instance, when NRP has the kids but doesn't actually require childcare? Childcare on a day-to-day basis should be the responsibility of the person who needs it to cover the children on their own time.

(I say that as a parent and a step-parent who has lived this situation)

I'd certainly not be happy having to pay half the childcare costs to enable my ex to go to his job if I don't need childcare on my own time.

Remember though that only one parent can claim benefits and that is usually mum. You can claim help with nursery fees on average incomes

Unusual/rare/hypothetical childcare circumstances is no justification whatsover for one parent to shoulder the entire burden of childcare costs whilst the other, who already abdicates most of their parental responsibilities, gets off scot free.

It simply perpetuates a cycle of poverty, burden on the tax payer and gender pay gap.

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

sorry…but how can you even think that, let alone say it? I have been single for 15 years. I’ve brought up 3 kids alone, without a penny of support from their so-called father (who has seen them weekly, minimally). I don’t know of any women in my position who fit the ‘reliant on their ex’ description. Children, however, are reliant on their parents, both of them, or it should be both.

It isn’t helpful to portray women as helpless, passive creatures who need a man to provide. Statistics on child maintenance in the UK show that literally millions of women cope perfectly well.

If the NRP only has the child one evening a week and every other weekend they don't need childcare.

If the child is the RP they are the one who needs the childcare to be able to work but the NRP should still be contributing. If the RP just said, "fuck this, you have them" and drove off into the sunset, the NRP would become the RP and would need to provide childcare.

I appreciate you putting in the caveat re special needs.

I am a parent to two children (now 16 & 18) who have Autism. I am now their Carer & the DWP allows me £70p/w in respect of my not being able to work around their needs. My exH was never willing to split work / any care duties.
I have 'lost out' on around 16 years of salary & pension contributions.
exH walked out 2 years ago. He never has the children & he paid £200p/m maintenance until he decided to retire early & now therefore has to pay nowt.
It's a lousy situation which leaves the kids (& I) in poverty.
Society should shame men who walk out on kids as much as they do women.

This.

If there is a disagreement over childcare settings, for example, with the RP wanting a more expensive setting than another one in roughly the same location which is cheaper, the RP could pay the difference in cost.

But I think the RP does still need to have the final say about which childcare setting should be used, given that they will be responsible for most or all drop offs and pick ups.

My ex only needs to pay £7 a week, he wouldn’t do 50/50 as he doesn’t see them through his own choice. It’s funny as there was a thread on here recently where someone was getting over £400 a month for one child and it got pages and pages of posters saying how disgusting it was and how low it is yet I get £7 a week for more than one child and I got about 10 comments telling me to be grateful for it as at least it’s an ice cream once a week or a takeaway once a month 🤦🏻‍♀️

If the child is the RP they are the one who needs the childcare to be able to work but the NRP should still be contributing.

I still don't agree that it's that clean-cut.

RP could be earning £150k a year, working and putting the child in childcare so that they can earn. NRP could be earning £30k but is expected to pay half of the childcare bill to enable RP to work? Nope. That's why it's not a straightforward answer. And that's what we have CMS.

There's always an assumption that NRP is a higher earner than RP and that's not always the case.

There's always an assumption that NRP is a higher earner than RP and that's not always the case

agreed. However, I do think that society - broadly - will label a female RP as ‘grabby’ or ‘gold digger’ or something equally unpleasant if she dares expect a lower RP to support their joint child.