To think that men who evade paying for their children are a burden on society?

[ASimpleLampoon]

Not my situation as not divorced but I'm fed up of hearing about thousands of men who don't pay child support or only pay the minimum, or fiddle their employment status/ declared income to pay less

They should pay at least half the actual costs of raising their children, more if they earn significantly more than the other parent

If they can't pay they should be supported to get a better job

If theyre self employed and can't pay enough well get a job that allows you to pay.

If they're getting paid in cash, take on more work to pay or find a job where they can't hide their income so they have to pay.

They are the real burden on society , fed up of seeing disabled people and carers torn apart while these feckless men get away with it year after year.

Where is the government and media campaign against them?

No one should be able to stay home on benefits because of a child. Don't get it. It's a lifestyle fir some people instead of doing a job.

And yes parents should pay to raise the kids they don't live with. No doubt.

Too aggressive.

Then there's the DWP.

Just abolish the CMS and give it to the DWP to oversee.

There's enough heartless jobsworths bastards there to do it there without a second thought.

Why are you confident it's not a vote winner? Governments of all colours seem to think slashing benefits is a vote winner, and that would be one result of a policy that actually made these loser men (and yes, it's men) pay for their children.

Indeed.

I think society is hardening on this too.

It's not the happier times of the Cameron era.

Can you image some of the policies now being rolled out now being even suggested in 2011 and the reaction they'd be?

It's 2025. The world has moved on.

An excellent idea. I'd go one further and have a public log of parents who don't pay for any children they have so everyone can see them for what they are.

Some people not taking responsibility for their actions is a huge problem in society that needs to be addressed.

I remember reading an thing that was about how men pay more tax overall and I ended up thinking a lot of men are basically subsidising other men to not pay thier way with thier own children or to misbehave generally (looking at prisons and policing and A&E on a Friday night)

The change that needs to happen for this issue to be better is that it needs to have societal consequences for someone if they don't pay.

I was lucky. My ex's senior officers made it clear, when they heard from the welfare officer that I was having to go down the CMS route, that it would be looked on very dimly for him if it got to the point of DEO. That judgement (from people whose opinions he cared about) changed his attitude and he paid.

If Steve's mates in the pub told him he was a dick for not paying, or Mike was likely to not be invited back to 5-a-side because his friends think neglecting your children financial is shit, and if Brian finds women don't want to date him as he doesn't pay for his kids then men would pay.

It's currently acceptable to not pay if you're someone's mate, brother or son - that's what needs to change.

Why are you confident it's not a vote winner? Governments of all colours seem to think slashing benefits is a vote winner, and that would be one result of a policy that actually made these loser men (and yes, it's men) pay for their children.

Because if it was it would have been jumped on.

It's absolutely not going to be a vote winner among men, and among the women whose sons/partner/brother have an ex who would "spend it all on hair and nails".

There needs to be a societal mindset changed first.

When you phrase it like this, it makes people think differently to single mothers being a drain on society.

But no one ever frames it like this. We need to change the framing.

100% agree.
I think the money should be recovered by HMRC, using all of their powers and then paid to the mother or whoever has custody (including the state). In this country we have more powers to enforce people pay their gas bill than provide basic support for their children.
Problem is, government would never create such a law because men like the fact that they can walk away from their kids without a backward glance or penny paid so it wouldn't be politically popular.

It's always astounded me that non payment of child maintenance isn't a criminal offence. It's failure to care for a child properly.

I do think there is inherent sexism is behind the failure of any govt to address this. Statistically most resident lone parents are women. There's a 'well it's their own fault anyway' agenda. A 'but women can trap men agenda.

It's sickening.

So how would this work with the next family men decide to have? How many blended families would this effect?

If I were in charge 😂
I would make it a government loan to the resident parent
I would link it to NI number
They don’t pay then CCJ no fucking about
removal / block of passport so they can’t travel abroad on holidays

The CCJ would be efficient in that it would prevent him from renting / getting a mortgage getting a nice new shiny BMW 😂

it’s become acceptable to not pay for your kids
women often moan about how much there partner is paying and have no problems in seeing it reduced to pay for their own kids

That's a really interesting pov. While I completely agree it's a gendered problem, the way to turn it into a vote winner is to make it not gendered, iyswim. As always, feminism is good for men and boys...

Yanbu. I suspect there's a fair number of cash in hand tradesmen who use it to avoid maintenance.

Because marriages never break down ?

Maybe men need to work out how to pay for the children of their first families before rushing to make a blended one? That's one of the reasons there's a 14 year age gap between my DS and my DSD. We had to wait until he was in the right financial space to support both before TTC.

This post is a good example of what I mean - CMS have most of these powers already

The government should go after them. Have the power to seize assets. - they already have this power. A court order for seizure of goods can be gained. Also they can put a charge on a house.

Have access to their bank accounts. CMS can already take one off, of regular, payments straight from a bank account without a court order.

Have arrears never be written off so they can come after you at any point in your life. This can happen. They don't chase arrears after the child turns into an adult guy the debt can sit. Despite the (deliberately) poor wording on letters about write offs it's up to the RP if a debt is written off.
CMS debt isn't written off by bankruptcy or IVA.

And your estate after you die. This can already happen. I actually dealt with this when I worked there.
The current issue with that is the letters that are sent out to RP's about writing off debt don't make clear that it is a choice.

I completely agree.
It’s a national disgrace.
I never got a penny. He’d change jobs , go unemployed, self employed.
Take their passports, driving licences , anything.

Totally agree.
My exh never paid anything towards our son even when we were together (or towards anything ever). After I kicked him out, he did have to pay maintenance but it was a piddly little sum and after a very short while, he just gave up work and claimed he had depression. That depression lasted exactly until our son was old enough that he wouldn't be expected to contribute anymore. Then he made a miraculous recovery. Funny that.

So if maintenance doesn’t affect benefits the bill for benefits would not be cut
Is that correct

I don't disagree but i personally would never have a child with someone who already has one its not fair on the current children

Tyat doesn't make it right though that there are fewer mothers who does this. The correct term should be parents who doesn't pay.
@ASimpleLampoon I voted YABU. Exactly because you used father not mothers.
I do agree that something should be done and I would be in favour of a system similar to the American one. (That does have faults) for me though it has to apply to all parents not just men.

Women have been found to be less compliant in paying child support for their children than men. But men are over represented because mothers are usually the primary carer.

I therefore think the concept of 'child support' is the issue, not men in general.

What's the responsibility on the women who chooses to have a child with a loser? Often more than once? Also what about couples that choose to have children who can't afford it?