Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that Polly Toynbee makes a good suggestion in this article?

48 replies

Longtimelurkerfinallyposts · 30/11/2024 08:53

I was struck by her latest article in the Guardian:www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/29/britain-child-poverty-fathers-pay

In it she suggests that the DWP should play more of a role in getting money from non-resident parents for child maintenance.
Is this a good idea, or is there a problem with it that I can't see?

Am I unreasonable to think that this might be an improvement on the current situation for many single parents?

Here’s one way to slash Britain’s rate of child poverty: stop dithering and make all fathers pay what’s due | Polly Toynbee

A new report shows a bad situation is getting worse. This really is a case for draconian action from the state, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/29/britain-child-poverty-fathers-pay

OP posts:
napody · 30/11/2024 09:26

AuntyEntropy · 30/11/2024 09:23

The assumed cost accrued as debt is a good idea. It would stop people hiding money in their company and suddenly taking it as dividends when their child hits eighteen.

Oh good point. Hadn't even thought of that but how infuriating. A few case studies of this would make a good addition to the media coverage...

AnnaMagnani · 30/11/2024 09:30

Am I the only person who clicked because they were shocked anyone still read Polly Toynbee in the Guardian?

Boomer55 · 30/11/2024 09:32

It used to be organised by the DWP and was called ‘liable relatives. Men sent the money to the DWP, who paid it onto the lone parent.

If the man didn’t pay, the DWP picked up the slack of the amount he should have been paying, under their calculations. They chased up any arrears to save the government money.

Then it was hived off and the DWP now pay x amount to the lone parent, regardless of what the absent parent/s pay to her.

So, there’s no financial advantage now for the government to sort out the mess. It’s not right, but that’s how it is.🤷‍♀️

Simonjt · 30/11/2024 09:36

napody · 30/11/2024 09:24

Where's 'here'? Your first paragraph is interesting- it shows a system with teeth. I wonder whether the debt thing means they are more likely to stay unemployed for much longer though? To be honest it's the ones who can afford to pay but aren't that it'd be more useful to chase.

The CMS 'having powers but not using them' is the reason why system change of some kind IS needed, surely? But it needs to be driven by societal change and a real drive to reframe the issue as child maintenance fraud.

Edited

Not many people can live a long time and also earn no money, so it would be hard to remain unemployed for the majority of people. I don’t think it would make a huge difference as seemingly nothing is enforced in the UK, so it would be newer ignored rules.

The calculator is here

www.forsakringskassan.se/english/parents/parents-who-do-not-live-together/if-your-children-live-with-the-other-parent/maintenance-support-when-the-child-does-not-live-with-you

RosieLeaf · 30/11/2024 09:37

Anything which stops taxpayers having to step in for parents would be a win.

CoffeeCup14 · 30/11/2024 09:42

A lot of men see it as money for the mother, as her being greedy. There are loads of ways to reduce or hide payments - upping pension contributions, for example.

I think there's a lot that could be done. It would take work and cost money - but if you could define avoidance in the same way as tax avoidance or deprivation of assets (for benefits payments) and penalise it, that would help. If you can make it not worthwhile to avoid paying, it would probably stop. If you can make it shameful on top of that, so much the better.

If the DWP have the power to look at benefits clsimants' bank accounts, let them look at non-paying fathers' accounts (including joint accounts) and work out a 'deemed lifestyle expenditure' and use that as the basis.

I like the idea of it remaining as an accrued debt. For some women, it wouldn't be so much use. But many women are using the money they earn to cover all the costs of raising children rather than putting it into mortgage payments or pension contributions - if you could receive it later in life you could pay a chunk off the mortgage or put it in your pension. Take it from their pension pot when the last child turns 18.

hairbearbunches · 30/11/2024 09:50

Ytcsghisn · 30/11/2024 09:12

Like PP said, the CMS are useless. Like most government agencies.

Our government and civil service is stuffed full of chocolate fireguards. Incompetent, morons you would pay to clean out your shed. Yet there’s hundreds of thousands of them ripping off the taxpayer.

It’s the same story everytime. A home office that can’t manage the borders. Ofwat that can’t regulate water companies. Ofcom that can’t regulate the post office. CMA that can’t get feckless dads to pay. These people are stealing a living from the taxpayer and giving nothing in return.

The fish rots from the head down. If they’re toothless, it’s deliberately so.

Westfacing · 30/11/2024 09:52

It really is a disgrace that absent fathers can get away with not supporting their children and have little risk of not facing any sanctions. They wouldn't have so many if they were truly held to account.

It's even more of a disgrace that this has gone on for decades - over 30 years ago a friend had no luck in her many attempts to extract some maintenance for her child, and it seems nothing much has changed.

But in these past decades women have gone to prison for debt, no TV licence, a child's truancy, etc.

Rocksaltrita · 30/11/2024 09:54

Excellent article but highlighting an old issue. I’ve never understood why there isn’t more shame heaped upon the dads who don’t pay. Single mothers are vilified but really it should be the feckless men who are named and shamed!

Pussycat22 · 30/11/2024 09:59

The original CSA used to take payment from salaries if the nrp refused to divvy up. However this led to nrp packing in work to avoid paying.

LittleBearPad · 30/11/2024 10:01

Pussycat22 · 30/11/2024 09:59

The original CSA used to take payment from salaries if the nrp refused to divvy up. However this led to nrp packing in work to avoid paying.

Then the payments amass as debt - will fathers really not work for years to avoid paying CM.

What are they living on in the meantime?

TitusMoan · 30/11/2024 10:02

@Westfacing

But in these past decades women have gone to prison for debt, no TV licence, a child's truancy, etc

All true. Shows you what the system thinks of women.

BadSkiingMum · 30/11/2024 10:12

I have long thought that children should be able to bring a case against an absent parent for unpaid maintenance, once they reach the age of eighteen. Or perhaps just bring back the stocks?

I remember the CMS being introduced and the horror in the right-wing press at the idea of poor, innocent, hardworking men having their salaries docked to pay for the children of feckless women with whom they had just happened to have sex.

Certainly the social and state penalties for failing to properly support a child should be far more severe.

BunburyInATizz · 30/11/2024 10:14

LittleBearPad · 30/11/2024 10:01

Then the payments amass as debt - will fathers really not work for years to avoid paying CM.

What are they living on in the meantime?

Yes, they do. How times is there a MN thread where one parent declares that they're unemployed and living off their new partner's income so have no liability.

There are interesting wrinkles around capital vs income.

www.tatler.com/article/super-rich-dads-dodging-child-support

In some US states, it seems to be quite common that NRPs 'voluntarily' work for friends' businesses so that they have no official income and are therefore not liable for child support.

LittleBearPad · 30/11/2024 10:19

BunburyInATizz · 30/11/2024 10:14

Yes, they do. How times is there a MN thread where one parent declares that they're unemployed and living off their new partner's income so have no liability.

There are interesting wrinkles around capital vs income.

www.tatler.com/article/super-rich-dads-dodging-child-support

In some US states, it seems to be quite common that NRPs 'voluntarily' work for friends' businesses so that they have no official income and are therefore not liable for child support.

The living off a new partner’s income should be cross-checked with HMRC and secondly the new partner should develop some self-respect! And be very careful she doesn’t get pregnant and end up in the same boat.

As to capital vs income - assets capable of generating an income equating to CM should be claimed by the CMS

Failing that - I agree with a PP, let’s bring back the stocks!

Annabella92 · 30/11/2024 10:23

Ytcsghisn · 30/11/2024 09:12

Like PP said, the CMS are useless. Like most government agencies.

Our government and civil service is stuffed full of chocolate fireguards. Incompetent, morons you would pay to clean out your shed. Yet there’s hundreds of thousands of them ripping off the taxpayer.

It’s the same story everytime. A home office that can’t manage the borders. Ofwat that can’t regulate water companies. Ofcom that can’t regulate the post office. CMA that can’t get feckless dads to pay. These people are stealing a living from the taxpayer and giving nothing in return.

Exactly this

SmokeRingsOfMyMind · 30/11/2024 10:53

You could also make it a deemed debt of any company in which the NRP owned, say, 25 percent or more of the share capital. And allow a winding up petition if it's not paid. Not foolproof but harder to get around without losing control of the business.

BadSkiingMum · 30/11/2024 12:38

Wow, that’s quite a left wing and radical article for Tatler, which is generally very much in favour of male-dominated structures such as the aristocracy and inheritance. But obviously their readership is largely female and it touches on questions of personal wealth, which is always of interest to Tatler.

Itissunnysomewhere · 30/11/2024 12:39

Totally agree. It's outrageous how toothless the current system is.

DisappearingGirl · 30/11/2024 13:10

I came to see if there was a thread on here after reading this article. Not seen Polly Toynbee's name for a while!

I agree the system needs to change so that not paying for your child is as criminalised as benefit fraud, tax fraud etc.

Crazycatlady79 · 07/12/2024 23:38

LittleBearPad · 30/11/2024 10:01

Then the payments amass as debt - will fathers really not work for years to avoid paying CM.

What are they living on in the meantime?

Yes, they really do.

My ex works cash in hand.

It's simple, really. Wrong, but ever so simple.

Swalwey · 07/12/2024 23:56

AnnaMagnani · 30/11/2024 09:30

Am I the only person who clicked because they were shocked anyone still read Polly Toynbee in the Guardian?

No, it’s just you

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread