Child Maintenance-Should fathers on benefits pay more?

[CalmGreenWasp]

My ExP owns his home outright, receives in excess of £1,200/month in disability benefits and works cash in hand. His only outgoings are food and utility bills for himself. Is it fair that he only pays £7.00/week maintenance for our DD10? For context, I am a lone parent and own a mortgaged home. I slightly exceed the threshold for universal credit. My disposable household income after mortgage and bills equates to half his, but with two people to support. Is the system broke? Should disposable income be considered by CMS when paying parent is in receipt of benefits?

But if he is claiming because he can’t work then he is claiming fraudulently

Make up your mind, if living on benefits is supposed to be hard - and it is - how can someone with less than enough to live on afford to pay more?

PIP is nothing to do with work. And even on ESA/UC, you can work.

That isn’t true.

I have always thought that grown-up children should be able to sue absent parents for the unpaid maintenance that they did not receive in childhood.

The whole system seems to be a disgrace and it receives surprisingly little media attention.

Give him more custody. Let him do school runs etc and foot the bill for keeping DD fed and clothed in the week. You won't get more money but you'll spend less and he'll see that the cost of raising a child is more than £7 a week!

“Should be hard” try reading it again!

Why? CMS payments are not given to children it is given to the parent looking after them. Children are not out of pocket when child maintenance is not paid... their parent is.

I struggle to see what benefits you need for MH if you can work 9-5, what would the benefits be paying for. It’s pretty obvious he’s playing the system.

Most people on benefits can certainly spare more than £7 a week since most of them smoke and drink!!

How does OP know it is cash in hand?

He hasn’t set eyes on her in six years and to answer a previous poster, his surplus income goes up his nose at the weekends

🙄

If it was taxed income then he would pay more than flat rate of CMS

I find it strange that the system appears to be set up based on the father's ability to pay, rather than the amount the child needs to live.

It should be that the father has to come up with an amount each month, same as he would if he lived with his children.

And off to the workhouse if he doesn't!

How dies she know he works 9-5? How does she know he blows it all on drugs?
She says he never sees their child, yet she seems to be observing him and knowing what he is up to.

Can’t believe it’s women defending these men. If he can’t afford it out of his benefits try getting a job!

You dont have a 'next family' if you cant support the existing one surely? And the point is that the children get resources as they should and the NRP owes a debt to the government / tax payer that wont be written off. If its still owed at death it comes from any estate before anyone can inherit.

None of that has anything to do with taking the Disability Benefits of NRPs when they're paid to specifically address some of the costs and disadvantages of being disabled, though.

I know it’s cash in hand because he’s unofficially working for his family company, which he used to run. The dogs on the street where we live all know he continues to work full time

Well no becsuse you can work with PIP.

We live in a very small town. I know because friends, family and even men he has worked with on building sites have told me what’s going on.

Well hes very silly to tell all and sundry his buisness
Just report it.

So you need to report him under diversion of income. Complain until the financial investigation unit at CMS get involved.

What's the pip for? If he's now in a wheelchair it's pretty reasonable that he's no longer climbing on rooves?

Tbh the most I've ever had in CM was when my DDs father was on benefits, because it got taken and given to me before he could refuse to pay it, when he was working we just went round in circles with CMS, because he never paid anything, job hopped and worked cash in hand and despite him running up a debt because he didn't pay anything, they didn't use any of their powers like attachments of earnings to collect.
So at least I go something when he claimed benefits.
It's not benefits or income that are the issue, it's it being socially acceptable for men to create children and bear no responsibility for them at all.