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.

No salt in the game but a few thoughts after conversations with friends who have shitty exes on both sides.
Cms needs to be calculated on take home. People say its only 12% but it isn't. Tax comes off, pension, national insurance, student loan then that 12% is on the gross. Its actually much more.
When people split with kids, there's less to go around. If nrp want to house their kids to, they need more space which costs more money
My sons dad and I are together and my son is disabled so receives dla and we receive child benefit. If we split, my son does not cost me any more a month than I receive for him
It's unfair a low wage rp can claim benefits for the child and nrp can't. People can't moan their ex should pay 50% of childcare cost if they're getting 85% gov funded.
The reality is its too difficult. Rp never feel its never enough and it so many cases its shockingly low, £7 a week is criminal. Nrp moan they're being made skint and can't afford to live.
I would make childcare completely free for all.
50/50 contact to be considered more, in society dads are treated as incapable and financial providers. They can run off because society expects it. It may not always work but we need to start shaming those who become part time parents and move away from the women being the default parent.
All benefits a child receives should go in a pot, their costs deducted from said pot then whatever is left split 50/50. But even this would rely on 2 adults wanting the best for their kid and not a controlling a*se ex.
Women who refuse contact to have harsher punishments and the self employed to have minimum floors. I would link to credit rating and passports. I would try and make it socially unacceptable to bugger off from your kids by demonising men who walk away, the same way that women are. I think a lot of the issues stem from neither side admitting to the flaws of the other. One of my friends uses cms as ex refused to pay anything and for her they quickly got the money, others felt it was too much and agreed a dif figure between themselves but they also coparent very well.

It's not that subsequent children don't count is it, it's that you have to factor in "can I afford to have more children" based around the costs of raising the ones you already have. If I think about having a second child pretty much the first thing that crosses my mind is whether I can afford it. If I split up with DP and got together with someone else that would still be one of my first considerations because the number of children I've got hasn't changed!

I don't think you can have it both ways @Housesellingnightmare - either the discount is important to help pay for subsequent children, or it's a piffling amount that makes no difference. I think you've argued both here but they can't both be true?

Where are these mythical men who pay for their children?

As a taxpayer, you already are. You're already paying for the benefits claimed by RPs who can't work because the NRP won't contribute to nursery fees. You're already paying for the school lunches and subsidised childcare hours and state education and healthcare for all these children. And you'll also be paying for the huge amounts of student loans being written off every year which is going to start getting really super expensive in 2042 when the first lot of 12k a year loans reach their 30 year limit.

The point of my suggestion is to ensure that the only way a man can avoid paying for his kids in the long term is by keeping his income so low that he can never expect to have a decent quality of life. In those circumstances, hopefully most of them will decide it is actually easier to get a job and pay what they owe until their child's needs have been met and then they can keep the rest of their money for themselves.

"Unless they're kids of the second family and then fuck them, eh."

I thought the Mumsnet mantra was "don't have children you can't afford" Or is that just aimed at women?

"I would try and make it socially unacceptable to bugger off from your kids by demonising men who walk away, the same way that women are."

This is massively important. I think most people's reaction when a guy says he doesn't see his kids (usually accompanied by something like "my ex won't let me") is sympathy. When women leave their kids I bet they don't get the same reaction.

Was thinking the same.

Me too.

I know it must be true sometimes. But when I hear the lengths that most mums go to to ensure that the NRP can see the kids at a time to suit him and then so often the kids are let down etc, I can't believe that it's true the majority of times i hear it.

But also in my own family we had a guy who "wasn't allowed to see his kids" in the sense that it was originally agreed that the parents needed some time apart which the dad agreed to. The question is, after the initial dust of the split had settled, why did he not bother to get in touch with his kids over the next few decades? There was nothing at all to stop him. I can't help but think that some of these "my ex won't let me see my kids" guys might just... try a bit harder? (Not saying this is the case of your ex of course, he sounds like a good dad.)

I've got friends and acquaintances in other European countries and worked in a couple.

The main way to get NRP to take responsibility for their children is actually social pressure. This is from peers and family members.

On the other side RP had social pressure to allow the NRP to participate in the child(ren)'s life.

Unfortunately I didn't see what happened in abusive situations though I did see what happened when there were mild disagreements.

These threads always get detailed by whattaboutery. yes there are some arseholev female NRPs. Yes there are some wonderful dads who face difficulties accessing their kids, though with self rep now very common and courts looking much more favourably on dads, this is less of a problem than it used to be, if a dad really actually does want more access and is prepared to put all the necessary logistics in place.
The fact remains that 99% of NRPs are male and there is billions in unpaid maintenance. And a large number of them are fathers who were previously married or commited and wanted the children, until they got bored or whatever Let's focus on that.

No we think there is something wrong with the woman.

In reality from people and children I know and have known who lived with their fathers there are various reasons. Some of it is actually due to how the "family" home is owned, working patterns, or how the children themselves act.

"The main way to get NRP to take responsibility for their children is actually social pressure. This is from peers and family members."
This is the only way, I suspect, to get men to stop behaving in all the ways they do that give the OK men a bad name. Time to step up, OK men. Don't let the other sort get away with it.

I'm the product of an affair (1960's)
BECAUSE of this, I waited untill I was 30, & found a man who wished to marry me & who very much wished to have children, before I contemplated having children. I had many rounds of icsi IVF (male factor infertility). My exH walked anyway & it's no easier to make him pay up child maintenance either.

@Housesellingnightmare I've outlined it at least twice. So bugger off with your "pray tell".

I wasn't talking about social pressure I was talking about the posters on here who always want to talk about the tiny minority of cases that don't fit the profile of feckless NRPs.

No of course not but you shouldn't have more children if you can't afford any existing ones.

There is a presumption of contact with both parents under the Children Act. In the absence of abuse of course.

You can self represent in family court and it costs virtually nothing.

If a man isn't seeing his kids it's because he hasn't gotten off his arse and got court ordered contact. Its far easier to blame a woman than admit you're a deadbeat father who really couldn't give a shit.