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 mean, it would be fairer for parents to pay in proportion to their earnings, and let's face it, that would usually benefit the mother/RP more than the NRP.

But even in that situation, the NRP still needs to be contributing to the upkeep of the children they have brought into the world. The RP probably isn't working just for the fun of it, but to provide for those children, and the fact that they earn 150k still doesn't mean they should be liable for all costs.

But if the contact is 50/50, and one parent has GPs to help with their childcare, and the other doesn’t, how is that the responsibility of the one who does? I could agree if it was say 75/25 as the costs of raising that child will not be even, but when it is 50/50 the costs will be straight down the middle.

This

If grandparents were helping with the NRP's portion of the childcare, then provided the arrangement with the grandparents fit in with part-time childcare to cover the RP's portion, and provided the NRP picked up the slack on any days the grandparents were unavailable, that would be OK?

For example, the grandparents agree to have the child two days per week and the RP manages to find a nursery place to cover the other three days. Even if the RP then had to cover the whole cost of nursery, it would still be cheaper than having to pay for five days. The grandparents would need to be reliable though.

Mandatory CCJs for non-payment of child maintenance would definitely help as it would impact the ability of these pondscum to build new lives. It should be classed as a formal debt and if you’re unable to pay debt collection proceedings should take place. I do not believe how many resident children living with the nrp should matter either - it’s just based on sexist principles that men are always the breadwinner & encourages these pieces of filth to have more children.

A simple way to cut through some of the very complex and varied circumstances would be simply to raise the rate of CMS. The % is a joke. I don't get to ring fence 18% of my salary and then tell the kids halfway through the month they've had their allocation and that's it. Something like 25% or a minimum amount whichever is higher which actually reflects at least a basic real attempt to contribute a meaningful amount. That figure could be based on ONS numbers of average costs and reviewed annually. If the NRP cannot pay it, the state does, as an additional benefit to the RP and it accrues as a debt to the NRP (Unless the NRP is in receipt of PIP or sickness benefits etc) . The higher amount and the state guarantee allows the RP a more meaningful contribution and might go toward some more fairness with regard to childcare costs
. CMS should be a dept of HMRC with all records available instantly and heavily invested in so cases are handled in a timely fashion.
For those saying 25% is too high, NRPs have huge earning capacity that RPs don't. They can do extra shifts, night shifts, more than one job. They can retrain, get promoted, go on overnight trips. None of which are usually possible for an RP. If they can't afford more kids with a new partner, tough.

Yes, surely this would be easy enough to implement?

Fuck up their credit ratings if they refuse to pay.

Great post.

The difficulty is if I can't afford nursery fees, I might choose to use my Mom or quit work and rely on benefits. But of DH were the resident parent and could afford half, this would be forcing me to pay half regardless of my preferences. Now I could go for 50/50 and therefore not used paid care for my half but that's often not best care for a young child.

As a resident parent, only money that exists can be spent but as a non resident parent, you're saying well tough, of the other parent chooses to spend this money you have to find half. Tough of its your rent money, love on the streets. Only the resident parent and child matter.

If DH and I together decide to pay for full time childcare or use my mother that's OUR choice for our money.

You're talking about ONE PERSONS CHOICE being forcibly enforced using another person's money.

If the NRP is working, why shouldn't they be contributing to nursery fees? Particularly when the alternative, if they don't contribute, is that the RP can't work.

As a PP said, the NRP has huge earning capacity because their ability to work is completely unencumbered by childcare responsibilities. The RP can't just increase their income to pay for childcare by working more hours, because they would also need to find childcare to cover those hours. The NRP can, actually, increase their income to pay for childcare by working more hours.

I was a single mother to my eldest child and always worked. I used to get 70 percent of her childcare paid by tax credits and she went to private nursery. When I went to university, they helped me pay my childcare also. I was completely able to further my career and work, even when she was small.

You have just reminded me of something - if the father was loose with his sexual behaviour there may be two or even more children who need childcare at the same time with different mothers.

Forcing him to pay one lot of childcare fees will deprive the other(s). Alternatively the state (us) would have to pick up the bill which is never paid off.

I like the suggestion a PP made about the state picking up the bill and then treating it as a debt that needs to be paid off as soon as he is solvent enough, with interest. It needn't be more complicated than the system of student loan repayment, or recovering care costs from the proceeds of sale of someone's house after they have died.

Self assessment for Child maintenance. The Nrp should have to complete a full disclosure of income and declare what has been paid as CM. Any payment due should be paid by the tax deadline.

If the self assessment is falsified or not completed it should carry the same penalties as not declaring your income to HMRC for tax purposes. The self assessment system is already set up. It was amended to include covid 19 gov help. They could easily tweak it for CM for all employed and self employed people. If the government gave a shit this would be an easy thing to do.

In the 1980S & 1990s middle-class/middle-income women usually did better out of divorce than their husbands, so I think it is wrong to say that women always got the shitty end of the stick.

But even if that is right that is in the past and the present situation of CMS sounds farcical.

Society now demands and expects that both parents work, so there should be state provided, free childcare. Once child care costs are met, the modest figures suggested by CMS might not seem so absurd.

I didn’t have children until I knew I was able to support them myself, worst case. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night otherwise.

IMO all standard child expenses should be totted up, divided 50/50 and the NRP charged for their half of the bill.

If they can't afford it, then they'll have to do what the RP has to do i.e. get a better paying job, try to ask family to help, get a second job, or claim some kind of benefit.

I cannot fathom this world where the NRP is means tested and never charged more than they can theoretically afford - the RP has no such luck.

Having nursery fees added to the student loan system rather than paid upfront would help all parents not just separated ones. It's a crippling bill but only for around two years per child. It might even stop some couples splitting as they wouldn't be so financially stressed.

I just calculated how much CM I would have to pay on the gov.uk website using my own modest income of £31000. It’s £411 pcm, so it remains at about 20% of income as it has since the CSA was first set up. Things like no of nights they stay with NRP/ other children are accounted for. It make no difference if you were married or not.

If the ex doesn’t pay, then you can ask the CMS to enforce Collect and Pay - where they tell the NRP how much they should pay and they have to pay CMS, then CMS give it to RP. There is a small percentage charge for this, so both parents lose out. Next level is Direct Pay, where it’s taken at source and given to RP. This costs more.

In the case of arrears, the following options are available to the CMS (from gov.uk)

If the paying parent lives in England or Wales, we can take the following action to recover unpaid child maintenance:

• Bailiff action – the bailiffs will to go to the paying parent’s property, seize their belongings, and sell them to get the child maintenance that is owed. The bailiffs can also add their charges to the debt
• Register of judgements, orders or fines - we enter a liability (a debt) onto the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. This could impact the paying parent’s ability to get credit. If they own a business, their suppliers could change the way they ask for payment for goods or services
• Charging order – we tell the Land Registry to put a ‘charge’ against a house, land or assets the paying parent owns or jointly owns. If they decide to sell an asset, we can claim the child maintenance owed from the proceeds of the sale
• Order for sale – once we have a charging order, we apply to the court to force the sale of the property or asset. We can then claim the child maintenance owed from the proceeds of the sale
• Freezing order, third party debt order and set aside disposition order - we ask the court to freeze the paying parent’s money and other assets so that they can’t sell or transfer them. We can also ask the courts to get back anything that’s already been sold or transferred.

Wherever the paying parent lives in the UK we can apply to the court for:

• an order of disqualification – taking away the paying parent’s driving licence or stopping them from getting or keeping a driving licence for up to 2 years
• a warrant of commitment – sending the paying parent to prison for up to 6 weeks

We hope that the threat of serious action will cause the paying parent to pay. If it doesn’t, and we go ahead with the disqualification or warrant of commitment, they will still have to pay all the child maintenance owed.

That said, I’m still chasing my ex for 1000s of unpaid CM. He pays a paltry amount, but they know where he is (I don’t) and they are able to deduct from his benefits at source. Having his debt registered with the CMS is an an important piece of evidence in all of this, so it if you have young children you need to get onto it even if you get nothing in the first instance. You never know the turns that life can take you.

What we need is a better system that cms and one that has far more power. It’s easy to work out the average cost for a child, including childcare, uniforms, treats, food. Gas elec etc. then the NRP pays half, simple as that

the US has it right in that if you don’t pay you end up losing your driving licence etc. that needs to be brought in here, along with taking the payment automatically from your salary from day 1

I know there's a lot of variation but the government is always estimating e.g. how much we need to live on. I'm sure they could give it a go.