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.

But I didn't become pregnant by myself. My ex and I decided jointly to "try for a baby" (twice).

While the decision to keep the baby was ultimately mine, at no point did he even consider is not having it. He wanted the babies as much as I did. Why should he then get to decide a few years down the line that actually he didn't want them and shouldn't have to pay?

But what if neither of you had wanted children and toy said that you would have an abortion if you got pregnant, but you then changed your mind and kept the baby?

But that isn't what happened. We did want children. So he shouldn't have to not pay just because we weren't married.

If it had been a one night stand, or I'd lied about contraception, or said I'd have an abortion and then changed my mind then maybe, and it's a slim chance, but just maybe I'd agree with you.

But just because someone isn't married it doesn't mean their baby isn't planned and doesn't deserve support from the nrp.

Well if only you had that piece of paper that loads of women refuse to have because it's just a bit of paper.... Well that piece of paper is the biggest tool a woman can have to fight with. Makes me laugh when people say it's just a bit of paper

But that "bit of paper" should have no bearing on a parents financial obligation to their children.

CM is no more enforceable just because the parents were married.

It’s interesting to see the men ( or second wives / GF ) on this thread tying themselves up in knots trying to think of reasons why men shouldn’t have to pay for the kids they made. And why the tax payer / the kids themselves / the other parent should have to pay so a man doesn’t have to face the consequences of his own choices.

” Wah wah wah “ they cry “ Biology is so unfair. Men should be allowed to force women to have abortions before birth / kill their children after birth, if that’s what the man wants “.

Next they will be suggesting a return to workhouse for any children no longer wanted by their fathers .

A non resident parent who is on benefits gets to put in £7 per week for two children.

My highly educated ex, educated at a top red brick university, was giving me this and not working.

People’s circumstances change. Women cannot send their children back to the shop when they are five, six, seven.

Society depends on the propogation of the species.

Women shouldn’t carry the whole can, like I am doing, especially not on a long term basis.

People like my ex should be forced to work and contribute.

Hear hear.

I guess the point I was making is that although the figures currently used for foster children could be a useful starting point in terms of how much it costs to feed/clothe/house a child, if a foster parent stays at home then they won't have the additional expense of paid childcare, so that is something that would need to be added in to the calculation for child support.

Not many people want deliberately earn less than the student loan repayment cut off just so they don't have to pay though.

I disagree. At some point you have to hold the man responsible.

Women have had zero choice about whether to bring a child into the world for most of hunan history and still have zero choice in many parts of the world. Nobody ever tells them they shouldn't be responsible for any children they produce.

Being married doesn't mean they have to financially take care of the children after divorce either unless I'm missing something?

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

What aboutvtge rights of the child? To a relationship with both parents? To receive adequate financial support? Why is this being ignored in favour of a man's right not to parent, at any point whatsoever, if that's what they choose?

My parents were married and my father did not provide for me financially after they divorced?

No, probably not. But it's better than £7 a week, I guess.

Being married means that in order to become unmarried the man has to let a judge know about everything he owns and decide how much of it belongs to his soon to be ex wife.

Obviously this is of limited use if he hasn't got a pot to piss in.

Why is marriage relevant to the question of supporting children?

Yeah, it doesn't really help though unless the man is well off. Especially nowadays most couples I know rent because they can't afford to buy, even if I'd have been married to my ex it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. My father was supposed to help pay the mortgage when he and my mother divorced, he literally chose to go to prison instead of doing it.

And the wealthier ones know how to hide their money.

I haven’t read all the thread but wanted to say this:
It isn’t just unmarried women. This happens to married women too. A woman who marries and then chooses to have children within a stable relationship can end up with a husband who fs off and does not pay maintenance.
The man often shacks up with another woman and she is quite happy for him not to pay maintenance or look after his children. The CMS or whatever it’s called, reduce the payments the nrp has to pay due to this woman having children to another man! The system is bonkers.
Before I get jumped on I’m not saying married women are better than unmarried women or anything if the sort.
What I am saying is that there us so much flack thrown at unmarried mothers, yet nobody supports married mothers when their h decides to sod off either.
I believe maintenance should not be reduced if nrp shack up with someone who already has children. Neither should it be reduced if the nrp decides to have yet more children with a different partner.
They should be paying a decent amount towards the care if the first family.
If you can’t afford to keep getting different women pregnant then don’t!

If you can’t afford to keep getting different women pregnant then don’t!

Well, quite.

And if that means that you, as a 45 year old man, need to work 60 hour weeks to pay your child maintenance, or rent a room in a shared house like a student, so be it.

Because it is more important for the children you have fathered to have a stable roof over their heads for the 12 days a fortnight they are not with you than it is for you to have a nice house for them to visit you in every other weekend.