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’ve not read every post.

I think a good few things would be never wiping off the debt for a start that way people who quit work then magically get into good jobs once the child is 18 still have to pay.

I think there should be a set minimum regardless of wage in a sense too, none of £7 because benefits just let it rack up to debt again and then if they ever get a job or come into money it can be clawed back. See those who live off savings or own a house outright but don’t “work” so they don’t have to pay, also covered those who own their own companies.

During nursery years, make the cost or rather childcare be that cost or actually looking after a 50/50 demand. If you won’t or can’t help watch then whoever is paying submits the bill and 50/50 is owed/paid. If unpaid add to the debt again. Make sure the debt is like all government debts and cannot become stat bar.

Remove passports and driver’s license once debts get too high as encouragement to pay.

No deduction if you move in with someone else with children or decide to have more children to again encourage responsibility.

Taking it away would be for non payment, just as America can do. If they are paying they wouldn’t lose it, it’s an incentive thing don’t just ditch work to get out of paying or live off a new partner to not pay. There would be a set £ where they then get chased to pay or else risk losing passport/drivers license.

Why not for more? Because like everything else in life including if you was still with the first partner you plan via what you already have not banking on getting a discount because you’ve added an extra child, the other children don’t suddenly cost less because you’ve added a younger one. In fact in an original family the youngest would cost less due to hand me downs.

Just like those in private rental or a mortgage don’t magically get a bigger house like council tenants become entitled too (yes I get there can be a long wait but again it’s a choice to add more bodies) if they create more and more children. Plan with what exists rather than expecting everyone else to bend to you because your added more.

I worked out once roughly how much it cost me to live as a single mum of 2 vs just me. So a room in a house with all bills included vs a house and associated bills. I split the food bill evenly between the three of us. I didnt include clothes or extra curricular activities.
I then deducted the child related benefits I got and the housing element of UC.

If I then divided what was left between 2 parents it worked out as a couple of hundred each.

My ex pays nothing and never has them overnight.

Of course the CMS couldn't work out everyone's costs on a case by case basis like that. But the current 'one size fits all' approach doesn't seem to work for anyone.

There is no doubt the system is a mess. Frankly, due to wildly varying circumstances on both sides there is no easy, fair formula that would suit most, let alone all. Having worked in this field for over 25 yrs I have seen countless non paying NRPs (99.5% are dads) who will do and say anything to avoid paying even the legal minimum, ie - moving job every three months, working for non UK company, going self employed - all situations meaning wage arrestment can't be enforced. Then there is quibbling over amounts, even disputing paternity (less common nowadays, billed for DNA test), demanding they be able to specify items purchased using “their” money, wanting to purchase clothing etc in lieu of actual cash payment. In short, absolute shits. On the other side there are RPs (99.5% women) who use access to children as a weapon/bargaining tool or refusing to comply with court mandated access; or demanding cash payments from NRP instead of BACS then denying getting any money at all. BTW previously married makes no difference unless there is a marital home to carve up. CMS needs to be far more agile, be able to immediately move arrestment order to new employer and no backtracking if they start direct pay. They do have powers they almost never use. Should be seizing driving licences and passports of non payers, adding significant interest to debts, getting the debt recorded on CRA reports and seizing assets if necessary. Also, perhaps naming and shaming in some public list of the worst offenders would help!

I think one of the problems is the cost of childcare and the cost of housing. When together 2 people are living together as a couple, they just have one house to pay for. If childcare is too expensive one of them doesn't work. Or they split who works and both work part time to care for the child. Or one works part time etc.

Now the RP is stuck sorting childcare, and the "two people" have to pay for two houses. Some people on low income only get paid £1500 a month, but if childcare is £1200 (x2 for 2 kids), those figures don't add up. If the NRP is paid £1500 per month from work and made to pay half child care (+CMS minimum?), NRP would have no money left for accommodation, food, bills and likely wouldn't be eligible for any benefits.

But how it is now also doesn't work. It means RP cannot work without significant (free) family help. If RP isn't working, or is working minimal hours, at least they can claim benefits and have a roof over their head. But that's race to the bottom stuff.

Government should make housing and childcare much cheaper for all. Force NRP to pay for half and NRP would have the means to do so.

Right now, single people can't afford housing or to have kids. That needs to change

Genuine question, did this calculation make it feel like (in general) CMS should be more or less? You say it came out to a couple hundred each (parent?). So does this mean if your ex paid £200-300 per month it would cover both kids?

Because this feels low compared to threads where RPs are saying the minimum isn't enough. I know you said you didn't include things like clothes, holidays, after school activities etc. For a NRP to be paying £300 per month for two children that person must be on a relatively low wage (around £25000 perhaps)?

More. Much much more.

It was based on what I spend on my very low budget. For eg my gas bill is fairly low because we don't put the heating on. I can't afford to. Our food spend is very low. My rent is also very cheap. My landlady very kindly hasn't raised it since I moved in 10+ years ago. If I did the calculation using an average rent for the area it would add another couple of hundred.

And if a NRP is a higher earner then they could pay more than half the very very minimum and let the dc have a better standard of living.

Ideally there would be a legally enforceable contract signed before both parties agree to have children, which would say that throughout the child lifetime they are responsible for 50 per cent of costs.

But that's clearly never going to happen

Thanks for the reply. I expected as much but wanted to clarify.

I guess it also depends what costs you think should be split.

For example I've seen posts on here claim that the nrp should be paying half the cost of Christmas/birthday presents. Or half the cost of a holiday. I disagree with those. But if I expected them then the amount I "needed" would be far higher.

If there's childcare costs then that will drive it up significantly.

The ideal thing would be to require a couple to obtain a permit before they could have children. Both partners would have to demonstrate an ability to raise the child alone, a stress-test based on current individual income. It needn't prevent SAHPs existing, the working parent would just need to sign a legal agreement to pay £xxx per month or 50% of their income, whichever is greater, for the duration of the child's life. This would be enforced by jail terms for those who don't pay what they've agreed or those who have children without a permit. Obviously we'd need to build a lot more prisons to lock these extra people away, but that could be funded by stopping things like state education and child benefit. Any children that are born without a permit could be confiscated when the parents are jailed and they could be raised in an institution to become menial workers of the future, or work towards release if they are unusually gifted.

What an interesting idea. Perhaps you could call it marriage and say that children born within marriage were the father's responsibility and those born outside weren't.

You could, if you wanted to discriminate against certain children based on the circumstances of their conception.

Well, that's the most ridiculous idea on this thread so far. Great for men, though.

Maybe if both parents thought more about who they have kids with in the first place there would be less endless single parents?

And if pigs could fly they'd be dragons.

In the real world, these kids exist and need to be paid for.

If only we had crystal balls that told us our DHs/DPs would not only walk out us but also abandon the babies they wanted.

Thats why we need a better, more transparent system.

Let's be honest with men. If you marry and have children, you will be responsible. The starting point on divorce will be 50/50 custody and each parent will pay an appropriate amount towards the cost of raising the children.

Let's be honest with women. If you are unmarried and have children you are solely responsible. Men will have no parental rights and only have contact if in the best interest of the child.

But as previous people have said, who decides the cost.

eg
Clarks shoes costing £30+ or supermarket shoes under £20.
Hobbies - Rp wants dc to do ballet, horse-riding and cheerleading, whilst nrp only wants Brownies,

If we could at least enforce something covering a fair proportion of childcare, school expenses and a reasonable amount towards the cost of living, that would be a good start.