Are current laws around separated families fair?

[emilygal]

Just wondering if my POV is unreasonable on this topic or if I've misunderstood the reasoning behind the laws around separated families and child support etc...(I'm also in the Channel Islands so we're generally behind UK law - certainly behind when it comes to any kind of gender equality - but we do tend to use UK law as precedent).

Anyway as far as I can tell (in both UK and CI) if both father and mother signed the birth certificate and the parents separate / child ends up living mostly with one parent:
- The parent living away gets parental responsibility. This means that they are entitled to weigh in equally on all choices related to thre child's upbringing. They are also entitled to a significant amount of contact, alternate contact for significant events such as birthdays and Christmas etc...
- Only the parent living with the child the majority of the time takes on the bulk of financial responsibility for the child. Before the age of 4 this means the parent must cover full time nursery costs and after the age of 4 they need to cover school uniform costs (and breakfast clubs, after school clubs and holiday clubs if that parent works full time.)
- The other parent is obliged to contribute a token amount financially but this is based on their current financial means and regardless of that it is nowhere near an equal split in terms of the overall financial costs of raising a child today.

I don't see how this is fair? The parent who has left is entitled to equal pull when it comes to decision making about the child - but is not responsible for half of the financial cost of the child, despite declaring equal responsibility at birth; just like the primary parent did?

My situation is that my child's father has left and started a new family. His new partner already had a child from before, then in the first year they had another together (and now have third on the way). She doesn't work and they rely heavily on benefits but because he is now the sole financial provider to them, he is only obliged to pay £200 a month towards my child because he can't afford more.

Shouldn't the law state that parents in separated families should take equal responsibility financially? Unless they can't afford to do so because of situations beyond their control? Of course this should protect the other parent too and only relate to the minimal costs of raising a child: Eg If the primary parent worked full time and decided to send the child to private school, the other parent would not be responsible for half the fees but would be responsible for half of the average cost of public school after school, breakfast and holiday clubs.

In my mind, if the other parent doesnt earn enough to contribute equally financially, then they should be made to prove that they have made a reasonable effort to find a job that earn more in order to provide for their child. After all, this is what I would have to do, if I needed to go on benefits if I couldn't finance my child alone.

For me - Nursery costs £780pm (that's one of the cheapest here unfortunately - its expensive), then there's costs for food, clothes, additional rent so child can have own room etc. But legally my child's father only has to pay a v small percentage of that. I earn just enough that I'm not entitled to benefits but due to the huge outgoings to provide for our child I have nothing left to spend on myself, on birthday presents and parties for our child or to save for their University education should they wish to follow that path. But because my ex has chosen a low paid career and to have more children than he can afford to provide for, he isn't obligated to assist with the financial burden much at all and is heavily supported financially by other taxpayers. Shouldn't the law change to incentivize the other parent to take on the same level of responsibility where possible? Or is this unreasonable?

THIS is brilliant and I 100% agree with you! Very very similar situation for me, but my ex is now married to the other woman. She has 2 children and is very financially secure. Her 2 children are supported by her ex and they even go to private school, have private health care etc. Yet my ex has what he is obliged to pay in financial support for DC reduced because he is living in a house with her children. Her children, whom her ex and her are more than able to support financially....

Same same with everything else being split 50-50 and having to be 100% equal and down the middle...

I feel so enraged about the pure injustice of it all I feel like campaigning or lobbying to make a change. It sucks and should not be acceptable.

Added to that courts are happy to sort out the split of time etc and formulate a legally binding contact order, but will not investigate financial issues. Case in point - I have very little money, ex lives 2.5 hours away, court has ordered we meet halfway every other weekend. Ex provides barely enough to cover the petrol, but this wasn't an issue for court???? BUT if I refuse to drive to said meeting point because I don't have the money for petrol then I am in breech of a court order.

I'm a bit fed up of the whole, that's the way it is attitude... it needs to change.

If you're on the birth certificate you get parental responsibility right away.

In practice, while an abusive ex can try to derail things by say objecting to a school choice, this costs time and money so doesn't always happen.

I agree that Maintenance shouldn't decrease if the non-resident parent has another child or moves in with a partner with resident children.

I don't think it's a case of denying the parental responsibility and neither do I think it should be a case of saying no pay no say. I do think though that, like you've reiterated, there's a lot of unfairness and inequality surrounding the whole financial situation. It's very complex, but definitely needs addressing....

It is completely and utterly unfair and that's without getting into the issue surrounding violent fathers using family courts to control former partners. Anyone who thinks the current system is child centred is a nincompoop.

I think that the kids would agree that it is unfair too.

Completely unfair and very much a gender issue I think. If vast numbers of men were being shafted like that then I think the courts, and society in general would take more notice.

It is unfair, my ex doesn't even have to pay the paltry £7 maintenance (hasn't worked in years) his 3 nights a fortnight count as shared care. He doesn't pay for anything, I even provide toothpaste for the overnight stays.

I agree - I think it's a gender issue too. It's like society has had the threat and pressure of the Dads For Justice leagues for so long the balance has been tipped again. Everyone's frightened to upset the crap dads. There's no middle ground and there appears to be no fairness in the situation.

I don't want to be seen as moaning about dads because yes there are some amazing ones, but there are some really shit ones and mediocre ones too. It does feel that they are now protected more than ever.

Actually, I don't even agree to 50/50.

If family Y live together, then in most cases all money & resources are pooled, and then given out according to needs & wants. Where there's a SAHP, then the most common way of pooling resources is that parent 1 gives vast amounts of time, and parent A gives vast amounts of money. They both benefit from this, and most importantly, the children also benefit hugely.

IMO opinion, it shouldn't really matter if A and 1 are married/living together/on different planets - it's an arrangement that works, and provides a good base for the children. So why wouldn't it continue until the children are grown up?
If A and 1 both work (ft or pt) then generally there's a bit more give and take about who puts in time/effort, and who puts in money, but again, I don't see how the living arrangements of the adults makes that much difference - as long as each person has enough to live on, then the stability & security of the children comes first.

So - if A and 1 are divorced, but A works ft and 1 is a SAHP, then the joint assets get divided according to the total number of people living in each home (pro-rataed for children according to overnight stays). If 1 does 80% of childcare, then A pays 80% of costs.

atm the entire system is based around protecting the main income, on the assumption that the money will be used in the children's best interests. And yet there are BILLIONS of pounds of unpaid child support, being subsidized by govt. benefits to plug the gap. Quite literally, parents NOT supporting their kids is costing the tax payers billions of pounds, but the govt is doing nothing about it.

Everything I've said so far is deliberately gender neutral. Now, we all know that it's Dads who are not paying, and women and children who are going without. It is clearly discrimination.

And yes, it doesn't even begin to cover the issues of abusive exes.

Married parents automatically have PR, irrespective of whether they stay married; as do unmarried couples where both parents are named on the birth certificate; and unmarried fathers who were nit named on the BC can apply to the courts for paternity to be recognised and PR formally recorded.

I think that is correct, because the child has the right to the best efforts of both parents, as both are responsible.

But that doesn't mean that all parents will live up to that responsibility, and I doubt there is any way to legislate that would force them to do so.

They can (up to a point) be forced to pay - depending on the nature of their income. It shouldn't be a 'token amount' - I don't know what the system is in CI, but in England although I think the threasholds are too low, there is a formula which is followed in setting the minimum amount.

It is then up to the parents to decide about things like education. You cannot have a situation where one parent decides on private school forcing the other parent to pay. Massive discretionary bills of this sort (when state education is available) cannot just be foisted on one parent by the other. If the DC is already in private school, then you need a specific agreement about who is paying until the next natural break point. And parents who default on fees will find the problem very short-lived anyhow as the school will ask them to remove their DC if the fees are not paid.

"In my mind, if the other parent doesnt earn enough to contribute equally financially, then they should be made to prove that they have made a reasonable effort to find a job that earn more in order to provide for their child. After all, this is what I would have to do, if I needed to go on benefits if I couldn't finance my child alone"

I agree very much with the idea behind this, but have no idea if it could be made to work.

I agree that the system is totally unfair but I see it differently...

I have a daughter with my ex and a stepson from my husband, my stepson (since before I was with my husband) spend alternate weeks with Mum and Dad, Mum got the Child Benefit, Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits Dad didn't get any assistance.

In my situation, My daughter sees her Dad quite often but genuinely cannot pay the amount the CMS said he should due his own outgoings (rent, bills, food, car - essentials) so we agreed that he would not pay me any child maintenance but he would contribute to clothes etc and pay for days out with her etc and it's worked well since we split. My ex chose to rent a house nearby to be close to our daughter but his rent is just of £1,000 per month! CMS don't take that into account when they calculate how much he should pay me.

My husband and I are high earners so money isn't really an issue but I still feel the system is unfair..

Same here! Its rubbish. Exactly the same... ex (on birth cert) got with someone else who had a child from previous relationship. They have had 2 more children together and got married. Both on benefits. Supposed to pay me £7 a week, I have had less than £100 in last 5.5 years. He hasnt physically seen my child for nearly 4 years and have had nil contact for last year (was writing letters). But I cant move country or change his name (even though he doesnt want dads name but is "too young" to state for himself) and if I wanted to move across UK he could still put in prohibitive steps order to stop me. His mother writes to my son from time to time and messages me... not sure if anything gets back to him as I wont have direct contact with him due to DV. As for child tax credit I get £8/week. My childcare costs for my son (bearing in mind he is 7 and at school) range between £250 (term time) to £800 (summer hols).

No the laws are not right nor are they fair.
I'm only talking from my experience and there are good dads whom the system works well for and has given deserved justice to however in my experience it is a rubbish system that protects abusive men and gives them full control and doesn't put the children's interests firsts. Even my solicitor said it's a law from the dark ages.

A man (or women I know) can be abusive, then dictate he wants 50/50 contact even when it most certainly isn't in the children's best interests and a mother is forced to watch the damage this causes.
The abusive person can then dictate where the other person lives I.e refuse to allow the person to move back to family and friends that they isolated them from but is free to move around and the other person is then expected to travel halfway as a minimum to handover these poor children even if they do not wish to go and have spent many nights crying about the contact.
As a mother I am forced to force my children to spend a huge amount of time with a man they do not wish to see and am expected to go to extremes to ensure this contact happens even if it goes against every maternal instinct in my body as I am seeing the damage it is doing but am powerless to stop it without great proof and these men are too clever for that.
Sorry to rant but something needs to be done to the current system as abuse continues even after the relationship has finished and the children are in the middle of all of this and slugger the most, it's a horrible system and one that I personally wouldn't risk testing through fear from stories I've read of the likes of cafcass that don't protect the children like they are meant to.

I see both sides of this. It can be genuinely hard for both parties.

I totally sympathise with RPs who have to bear the brunt of the costs of day to day childcare, like food, extra housing space, childcare so they can work etc. It must be incredibly difficult, especially if the kids are so young it's hard to work FT.

But at the same time, I sympathise with the NrP too (if they're paying properly of course) as it's also incredibly hard to afford a separate home for yourself (with room for your kids) when a large chunk of your income goes towards supporting the resident household, especially taking into account repayments for any debts, loans, car payments etc that may have existed before the split.

I don't think it's anyone's fault, it's exactly as KickAssAngel says above, in an intact family it's possible have one parent taking care of the majority of finances, and the other taking care of childcare. However, unless the NrP is a high earner, this is impossible to maintain after separation as they'd never be able to afford to live themselves and provide a place where they can have their children to stay.

Sometimes both sides are doing their best, but without a high wage both parties can really struggle.

Exactly the same situation as a previous poster. Down to CMS being reduced because the OW has two children who are more than adequately supported by her ex, enough that she only works two days. Whilst mug here works full time and spends 100% of my disposable income on my children. Haven't had new clothes in three bloody years. It's patently unfair that I shoulder all costs whilst he pays bare minimum and has a nice life but as you say, seeks to have an input into everything. Current laughable situation is him insisting we apply to a secondary school that I can't physically get DC to whilst keeping my job (opposite direction) when I do all drop offs. He also threatens me with court every 5 bloody minutes if I happen to have a different view which I of course can't afford so have ended up compromising on all sorts of things I shouldn't have. If I loved my children less I'd be insisting he take them. I'd be minted paying such a paltry CMS sum without them to pay for and house. Not to mention the strides I'd take in my career if I wasn't racing out of the office every day to beat the traffic to get them from childcare. And god, the holidays I'd have! Only actually I wouldn't want any of those things at the expense of my childrens welfare, even if they weren't living me with me because I realise I have a responsibility to them regardless and would want the best for them whoever they lived with. As do some NR dads. Sadly though my children haven't got one of those dads. A CMS system that specifies only the 'minimum' contribution, gives reductions that aren't needed, e.g. For someone else's children and doesn't at least encourage NR parents to pay for extras like uniforms and trips allows them to think that they beyond reproach. My ex thinks he's fantastically generous because I took £10k more than him from house sale and has the cheek to be bitter about it. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the money I am spending raising them.

Sorry, so busy ranting there I forgot paragraphs!