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?

And this is what we should have in this country. No child or resident parent should suffer because nrp decides to shirk their responsibilities

So it is totally underwritten by the taxpayer then ?

Hence why it's a waste of everyones time here, suggesting it for the UK. I refer you to my point previously. You will never get "the taxpayer" to agree to it.

No you don't. You can go to the library or job centre regularly to access your account.

Depending on your circumstances UC may give you a cheap smartphone under the Flexible Support Fund. You still have to pay the data/airtime contract.

Many of our clients don't have broadband. They use their data contracts or get WiFi in public places.

Sweden (?) has a similar system with convicted criminals, they have to repay what they stole/destroyed.

But the amounts claimed are so enormous that the offenders have no realistic ability to ever repay it and it deters them from 'going straight' as their earnings are the states for ever.

Whose turn is it to collect £200 ? Seems like we've been around the board since Today 14:35

It's almost as if people with no money have no money.

Again, not in every case, with my prince there is a 400k house, his parents are reasonably well off and a good chunk will come to him from that..more than enough to cover any sum of maintenance paid

A house and well off parents are irrelevant to disposable income.

I am referring to the model in Sweden, the government recovers monies from NRP (and I would assume their Estates)

I've been through this debate for decades.

Usually they go round and round (passim). However, if the danger of the system actually working to extract the money due from absent parents were to actually start working by some miracle, people will start to run into the next problem for society, And that is the danger of violence being escalated against the resident parent and children. Something we already know isn't really taken seriously by the justice system. A system which - if it worked - would have started with making sure the NRP paid up.

If you don't work (or pretend you don't work) and you don't claim benefits you don't even pay £7 a week.

You mean someone who is financially supported by their partner? Or parent?
That is the only way someone on zero income would be able to survive.
Bit of a slippery slope to expect their partner/parent income to be taken into account for CMS, and to have them pay it too.

Because we still have our mobility & care needs regardless of whether we work or not. Being in work often increases the care & mobility needs. NHS and social care do not pay for these.

There is a huge amount of misunderstanding as to what PIP is for on here.
There have been posters who have said only working people should get PIP, as what would they need PIP for if they are not working. And that only working people should be able to have a car via Motability because people who do not work do not need to go anywhere 🙄

There are quite a few posters on here who have detailed how PIP helps them stay in work.

Smoke, drink, go on beach holidays, buy expensive pets, big TV’s - meanwhile the working resident parent is struggling to put food on the table or have a day trip to the zoo. £7 is an absolute joke. Not sure why the resident parent should be expected to endure hardship as standard but the waste of space guy must always be able to afford to live in basic comfort

If he works cash in hand he shouldn't be on disability benefits and should be paying you more. I'd send them video evidence.

I bet the government would be much better at retrieving it than CMS are though. HMRC and council tax seem to do ok getting what they are owed from people. Same sort of system needs to be in place

I think it should be a flat rate per child for everyone with 1/3 reduction for each weekly overnight (and an expectation that everything is provided for the child during that time, no sending bags of clothes or nappies).

No one on benefits can afford all that. It is the working cash in hand that is paying for that sort of thing.

So someone who has them 3 nights a week would pay nothing to the parent who has then four nights a week?

Who do you think runs the CMS?

But the consequences of not paying aren’t the same - they need to make it so rather than it practically being optional

Absolutely they can. I know of many many families in this position going on holidays etc. having been on benefits for a time myself after a split and relocation. The money might be basic but all the extras like uniform grants, school meals, vouchers for milk and veg, school holiday money, no council tax, subsided utilities, money for starting school, access to welfare grants, hardship payments, universal credit loans and advances and the list goes on. I had more disposable income when I was claiming benefits than now working 2 jobs. I work in school in a deprived area with a large amount of parents not working and can confirm there have been a lot of tanned dc with braids in their hair returning this week with stories of their week in Tenerife!

But he doesn’t owe any monies as he’s been assessed at £7 and you’re not claiming it?

Your issue is the cash in hand work, not non-payment.

If you’re arguing every maintenance claim should be paid by the state in the first instance, and later recovered from the NRP; no chance this would be put in place. This is not for taxpayers to shoulder and would never get approval. There’s no political will to change it as it is, if it was a vote winner they would have done something about it years ago. It isn’t.

This sounds similar to America in terms of there being a minimum amount, but they also imprison people for non-payment. I don’t think that’s quite right if people actually can’t pay the minimum (lost jobs etc.) but I do like your idea of it being a debt with interest.