To let you all know that the Child Maintenance Service..

[Rippeditoff]

have used their full powers (passport removal, driving licence suspension): 10 times since 2019

3 immediate passport confiscations
7 immediate driving disqualifications in Great Britain (July 2019 – March 2025) / CMS published data

And that the total unpaid debt is 756.6 million pounds as of 2025

Would I also be unreasonable to say this is a national disgrace to single parents and their children which we should all be raising with our MPs?

So both parents should pay equally then.

Thank goodness you finally admitted it.

Court orders are not worth the paper they are written on. So easy to break for the RP then guess what the NRP can’t afford to go back to court time and time again as their cms payments take any spare money they have.

you would think it was easy to prove. I have seen examples of payments being made every month but each year £1000 of arrears appeared on their account at renewal time. Guess what their payment went up to cover arrears that were false.

I don’t see it as a punishment, I see it can be used as a form of abuse to both sides. What grates me is when women want equality but they are happy for a system to in some cases cause death. That’s not equality

The court order, whether adhered to or not is proof enough for CMS. They take the evidence of a court order over the word of the RP.

Women wanting men to contribute something towards their kids doesn't cause death. Nobody is going to end their life over 12% of their wages without other very significant factors going on in their life.

I'm very sure that you're so involved with the CMS payments of people that you've personally seen thousands of arrears multiple times 🤨

If arrears happen then that's because there has been a significant payrise or bonus that hasn't been declared, which is entirely on the person paying, they should declare it.

The system is entirely set up to favour men. That's not equality.

Not once have I said nrp shouldn’t pay. I have stated that the system should be equal to both sides on working out how much is affordable.
People forget that children are at the core of this. Be it bio or non bio children.

This system is not working for Rp and NRP it needs a complete overhaul. The system is always going to be criticised as there is no one size fit all

The system absolutely works in the NRPs favour the vast majority of the time.

They get to pay less if they move in with someone with kids. They can quit work and live off their partner. They can go self employed and hide money. They can continually change jobs to avoid paying.

If the RP neglected to pay for food, clothes, heating etc for their child they would be jailed for abuse. Surely your version of equality means that non paying NRPs should also be jailed for neglect?

Who knew that the suggestion of men paying towards the children they created would be so controversial.

Unfortunately your statements are completely wrong.

yes men have died due to false calculations. Gavin Briggs being just one to name.
It’s not 12% of their net wage it’s 12% of gross wage that you must admit would cause financial difficulties as no one works out a budget on gross pay.

Believe what you want about false arrears it’s fact and been proven many times.

The system is set up to go after the easy targets and leave the job hoppers etc alone.

Court orders are not worth the paper they are written on. So easy to break for the RP then guess what the NRP can’t afford to go back to court time and time again as their cms payments take any spare money they have.

CMS would only be taking payment based on the court order.

If the RP breaks the order they don't get increased CMS payments.

Just as if the NRP breaks the court order the RP doesn't get increased CM unless the court order is amended.

This is so common.

When I worked there briefly, when you were actually allowed to go progress through the available sanctions in a way that made the NRP believe that you would be putting a charge on their house, applying for one of payments from their savings accounts, applying for seizure of goods, all of a sudden they started paying.

Only on two occasions did I actually get to the point of serious sanctions - one man who was exceptionally rich and thought his £££££ barrister would save him in court (it didn't) and one man who refused to pay as he believed the child wasn't his but wouldn't take a DNA test as he didn't want the government to have his DNA

My claims are absolutely correct.

I don't believe that you've personally witnesses multiple occasions of thousands of pounds being randomly added, no.

Men are not choosing to end their life imply due to 12% of their gross wage. As I say there will be significant other factors going on. If the parents were together then more than 12% of their wages would be going towards the chikd anyway.

I imagine their has been a few payments calculated incorrectly through the years, but until the problem for the vast majority is sorted out I really don't care tbh.

On some occasions its OK for men to be considered last.

yes If the NRP moves in with other children there is a reduction made. Very small reduction. Surely as adults we wouldn’t want other children to go without basic living standards because they are not our blood?!
yep they could quit their job (which I don’t actually agree with) and live off their partner but that can also be said for the rp they could rely solely on their new partner and their ex to pay towards the children and not actually contribute financially at all. Both situations do happen.

Jail doesn’t seem to be the answer as the children still won’t get any money. But agree with your point something has to happen. Maybe a police tag so they can still find employment but their social life is impacted as they can be set curfews 🤷🏻‍♀️

it’s not about men paying towards the children that is the issue for many. It’s about finding a way that is best for all. Which I believe is unachievable

No I don't believe that a reduction due to step children should be a thing.

Why should one set of children have 3 adults contributing, and another gets the Mum and reduced maintenence from their dad.

If the RP is relying solely on a partner then that's a decision the couple has made which ensures the child is still being provided for. If a NRP makes that choice the child isn't being provided for. Very different scenarios.

You're trying to put the situations on equal footing, and they aren't comparable.

The system hugely favours men and disadvantages women.

And there lays the issue

“On some occasions it ok for men to be considered last”

it’s not ok for either side to be considered last!! Children need both parents (except if there is abuse) hence why we need a system that works for the children not greedy RP or dodgy NRP.

Sorry if your ex doesn’t pay but your last comment shows why cms will never make people happy.

Years ago, child maintenance payments (previously called liable relatives) used to reduce what the Governent had to pay single parents. So, they chased it.

Now, it doesn’t reduce anything, so government departments aren’t that bothered.🤷‍♀️

Men aren't considered last regarding CMS. They are considered first, before the children. That was my point.

Greedy RP? How many men pay half of what their children actually cost? Why are the men avoiding paying, reducing their payments, or paying the legal minimum not considered greedy? I'm not sure whether it's internalised misogyny or just plain old misogyny at this point.

Years ago, child maintenance payments (previously called liable relatives) used to reduce what the Governent had to pay single parents. So, they chased it.

Now, it doesn’t reduce anything, so government departments aren’t that bothered.🤷‍♀️

They weren't any better at chasing it then.

The debt owed to the Sec of State for maintenance due to be paid by NRP's when the RP got so high it was decided a change must be made.

The current "they can keep the monies we know doesn't get paid the money even if on benefits" is the plan of how to deal with the non payers

I would urge posters to ignore @NeverDropYourMooncup as she clearly has an agenda and anything we say will never resonate with her.

Sigh. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy, just because it doesn't agree with your opinions.

Personally, I preferred my child's father to actually earn a living. It meant he had somewhere to live and a means of feeding her, so she was able to maintain a relationship with him - which was a damn sight more important than petty revenge. Didn't change him from being a dickhead, mind, but he was a dickhead who was consistently present in her life, as was her right.

Wish there was more people who thought like you. RP are more concerned what they can get for their house never considering if it would affect the NRP relationship with the child/ren.

yes If the NRP moves in with other children there is a reduction made. Very small reduction

Its interesting how it's always claimed this it's a "very small reduction" and therefore the RP can manage without it. Yet its not such a small reduction that the NRP could actually still pay it.

Men shouldn't be moving on and having "new" families, without making sure they can still afford to contribute towards the old one. That's what RPs have to do. Its not about me wanting his step children to go without basics, but not wanting mine to as a result of them. That's not fair either.

When I lived with someone who wasn't my DCs dad, we had to discuss finances before hand, as him moving in meant I lost my benefits. Other than child benefit. This meant that realistically he had to pay towards my DC, which he was happy to do. But we decided we couldn't afford more DC without negatively impacting on the existing ones.

My ex OTOH, moved in with a woman with DC. Found out that he was allowed to reduce his maintenance, which he thought was hysterical. Then went on to have 3 more, reducing payment to mine everytime. He also reduced how much time he spent with them. They have suffered as a direct consequence. They've never gone without basics, but I have to make sure they haven't.

When my step-dad moved in with us he kept paying the same rate of maintenance as always to his ex wife. Which was above the recommended amount at the time. Which is how it should have been. My own dad didn't reduce payments when he moved in with his now wife either.

My partners reduced £10 for our child. What an insult but we Carried on paying the same amount to a woman who didn’t work Because benefits and cms payments gave her a free ride and holidays aboard.

my exes partner all ready had 5 children she hated mine went onto to have another 4 so 9 in total. I know it’s only 3 kids taken into account but I did not see it as an issue because at the end of the day them children like mine were innocent and caught up in a battle about money. My children have no relationship with their dad due to him not wanting to upset the apple cart in his house.

It just grates me that majority of the time people are happy to donate to children’s charities but people’s attitudes seem to
change when it comes to half siblings or step children. Children are used so much in adults games to get one over on the other parent.

The only time I agreed with the reduction for new children in the NRP's household was the period when CMS counted tax credits claimed for those children as income. That wasn't right.

The single biggest thing that would change NRP's paying - and in many cases paying without event requiring CMS intervention - is societal changes.

Blokes can sit in the pub and openly say "I'm not paying her, she'll just use it for hair and nails" and they know that their mates aren't going to call them out on it.

My ex started paying when his senior officers got wind of the fact he wasn't and it was made clear to him that if there was any truth in the 'rumour' they'd be very disappointed in him and it may even impact his progression. Money was in my bank before you could even say 'army welfare'.

I was in quite an unusual situation in that my ex's parents were horrified when they found out he walked away and didn't pay a penny (or see his daughters). In all the years I've been on MN I've only seen one or two other people say they experienced similar.

A close friend of mine had a nightmare with her ex over maintenance , he didn't see why he would be "funding her lifestyle" until he met a woman who basically said to him that if he didn't take responsibility for his kids she'd be offski.

Whilst there will always be some who try and dodge paying regardless, there would be much more who would pay if they thought for a second their spot on the 5-a-side time would be at risk if they didn't because their mates would think he was a dick, or that relationship prospects would be genuinely damaged. If family and friends openly said "that's shit behaviour" and society was as nasty about non payers as they are single parents more would pay.

This thread has proven what the problem is.

Single mums only really have themselves and the majority of other women on their side.

NRP - usually men - have men on their side, and a whole host of pick me women bending over backwards to explain why expecting an absent dad to contribute financially towards his children is a bad idea.

It’s insane.

You see expecting the non-res parent to fulfil their legal obligation to financially contribute to the upbringing of their own offspring as "revenge"? Wow.