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'd make it a debt that workshy NRPs couldn't escape just by refusing to work.

There needs to be a crackdown on these people who don't pay for their kids.

It works for student loans. Why wouldn't it work for this?

I'm not saying each set of separated parents needs to agree on every last expense and then a court can enforce it, or anything like that.

Just that the amount the NRP has to pay should reflect a reasonable proportion of the actual cost of raising a child. Certainly in the early years when childcare is very expensive, they need to be paying much more otherwise how is the RP supposed to work and pay the bills?

Why are unmarried women solely responsible in your world? Some sort of shitty punishment for daring to get pregnant out of wedlock?

Student loans only get paid if the person earns over a certain limit. If the same principle applied, , then many nrp would work just below the cut off limits.

Because it is solely their choice whether to have a child.

A man can't decide to have a child, only a woman can.

@Housesellingnightmare I agree individual items are a road to disaster. My ex wanted to do this. At the beginning, he was going to pay more than CMS but wanted it done on a constant basis each time something came up. The mediator said this would be a recipe for ongoing and permanent conflict given that it wasn't an amicable or mutual split. . He recommended instead an overall amount, almost double the CMS actually but worked out on real figures of our kids' costs. In the end, ex baulked and now pays not a penny over CMS which is therefore significantly under 50%. If I ever point out how expensive something is he just says my budget is not his problem. Lovely attitude to the mother of his child...and that's half the issue. Animosity toward the RP...seeing adequate financial provision for the children as somehow being "fleeced" by the mother. As I said upthread, the simplest and easiest way to reform this is is to increase the % an NRP pays and institute a minimal level per month per child. If the % figure falls below that minimum, the gov tops it up and it's accrued as debt to the NRP.

This really resonates with my experience. I hadn't heard it phrased like that before but "animosity towards the RP" and then "seeing the RP's budget as RP's problem".

Underpayment feels like such a common issue among NRPs, and with most of them, you wouldn't have guessed it in the relationship. So what happens? Do they actually want their children to suffer? Are they in denial about the true costs of raising a child (surely they must know/remember from when they lived with the children)? It boggles my mind. I feel how you've described it sums the issue up.

Re the costs of raising children - this has already been calculated - it’s the amount paid to foster carers for expenses . It’s not income / fostering fee that’s taxed like salary.

Yes it’s not perfect as obviously high earning NRP should pay more. But it’s a starting point.

https://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/policy-practice/policies/allowances

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't foster parents stay at home, or have at least one of the couple stay at home, rather than both parents working full time jobs and the children in nursery?

I could be way off base there but that's what I thought.

A man can decide to wear a condom, have a vasectomy, or abstain from sex.

Many of the non resident fathers who refuse to adequately support their children were fully on board with having them and actively TTC with their ex partner.

That's why I think it should be based on income but subject to a floor of a full time minimum wage salary. Topped up by the government if they fail to pay and enforced as a debt unless they have a legitimate reason for not being able to work, such as being disabled. If they are earning more then why shouldn't their children benefit from that?

That figure is the allowance to pay for out of pocket expenses. Many get a wage / salary on top. It’s not related to their employment or marital status.

Of course most foster carers of young children are not working full time outside the home, they have work to do ( meetings , paperwork ) on top of caring for the children. many of the children have emotional and behavioural problems and wouldn’t cope in Ft childcare or even school.

But I’m not sure how that affects the fact that most local authorities accept that these are reasonable out of pocket costs for raising a child.

Of course they are not taking account of school fees /nursery fees / keeping a pony / whatever. It’s a starter for 10. Not a maximum that any parent in the Uk will ever spend on raising their kids.

Sorry if I am not understanding your point.

I agree, but that is a different point.

A man can choose whether to attempt to impregnate a woman (sorry I don't like that term but I can't think of better wording), but it is entirely the woman's choice whether the child is born (assuming abortion is legal, which happily it is my country).

Even if a man is actively trying to conceive he has no legal say in whether the child is born. I can see the argument that as it is the woman's decision whether to have the child, she should be responsible for the child.

Not everyone has huge earning capacity just because they don't have kids. It doesn't mean you can work 20 hour days 7 days a week or just go off and retrain as a surgeon or you'll what? Go to jail? Send the baliffs round.

I'm not saying something shouldn't change, and I like a pps idea about raising the amount, the govt paying any defect and it becoming a debt for the NRP.

BUT I don't think as it stands that as the RP I should be able to make financial decisions on the basis that I can afford half of it and if he can't he can just register as homeless or work 20 hour days.

If my wages don't stretch to stuff, my kids don't get it. If I have ten kids, that means each of them gets less. No one says well the first child must continue to get the same.

A man can choose whether to attempt to impregnate a woman (sorry I don't like that term but I can't think of better wording), but it is entirely the woman's choice whether the child is born (assuming abortion is legal, which happily it is my country)

Even if a man is actively trying to conceive he has no legal say in whether the child is born. I can see the argument that as it is the woman's decision whether to have the child, she should be responsible for the child

You do realise that not every woman agrees with abortion? While others don’t find out they pregnant until that opinion is no longer open to them.

and how exactly do you propose to decide when a child is , say 5 years old, whose “ choice “ it was to have them?

But most of this is beside the point. Most of the NRP who don’t support their children were in a relationship / married / when their children were conceived and born . Most of these men actively wanted these children - while it was convenient to them.

Then when it no longer suits, they get to walk away.

My kids were teens when their father left and stopped paying for them and - how does abortion help them now ? Do they not deserve support from their father because he changed his mind about wanting them?

Are you arguing that more children should live in poverty so men can have consequences free sex ?

I actually think CMS calculation of 20% of income works provided NRP works and pays tax so is economically visible. This can be enforced through CMS Collect and Pay or Direct Pay. The NRP also has to keep a roof over their own head and put food on table in order to stay economically active.

There are many steps CMS can take to get money out of a non paying parent, from putting a charge on property owned by NRP to forcing its sale to removing their driving license and even prison. I looked on CMS website today and posted about it earlier.

The problem is where a NRP hides their income or is on benefits. In the case of hiding income I guess this would be fraud but proving it is very difficult. I know many RPs in this position. In the case of benefits the maximum amount NRP is liable for is £7 pw as obviously they have to have something to live on.

Why even go down this path of argument. Most child maintenance is not from one night stands or short relationships. People plan to have a child together and then the relationship ends. The men absolutely made the choice to have these children.

There are many steps CMS can take to get money out of a non paying parent, from putting a charge on property owned by NRP to forcing its sale to removing their driving license and even prison. I looked on CMS website today and posted about it earlier.

They technically have those powers but don't bother using them.

So having got married and chosen to have a family, if we split up he shouldn't have any responsibility for them because I didn't choose to have an abortion when we were happily married and had made that choice together?

You forget that some people hate women so much that absolutely everything is their fault. It’s only okay for an unmarried man not to be responsible for his child if an unmarried mother isn’t responsible for her child.

It is disingenuous to say that you both made the choice not to have an abortion - or to use your words we made 'the choice together'. What he says can influence your choice, but it is your choice.

I had earlier said I would put full obligations on married men for exactly the reasons you gave.

The bit of my argument I was uncomfortable about was that I said I wouldn't put any obligations on unmarried men. Nor would they have any rights. So if an unmarried woman became pregnant, if she decided to keep her baby then she would be solely responsible for it.