Why is there no political impetus to enforce child maintenance?

[the2andahalfmillion]

I have never understood how non-resident parents in the UK are so easily able to evade financial responsibility for their children. There are a wide range of potential sanctions but they are almost never used and anyone who is self-employed and with half a brain seems totally safe from the reaches of the CMS.

This isn't a post about my individual situation, and I am far 'luckier' than most. Mostly I want to know why no-one seems to care about this and what we can do to make them care, and change or at the very least, implement, the law.

I want to know if there are countries where the financial burden of raising kids in separated families is truly equally shared between resident and non-resident parents? Why can't we do what they do?

And why does no political party in the UK ever bother to touch this subject? It's potentially a major vote winner even among those who aren't in single mum parent households.

No idea but you clearly have no idea of the costs of raising a child.

How much was your mortgage vs benefits? Given that there are no benefits available to help with mortgage payments (unlike rent). Mine is almost £2k a month for a tiny two bed terrace. I will finish paying it off when I’m 70 or it would be more each month. I’m assuming your mortgage must be tiny or you would have lost your home if relying on benefits, with or without having to pay for a child.

That will never happen after the farce of how much ended up owed to the government when the system was set up that NRP’s owed the Sec. of State anything over the first £20 a week if the RP was on benefits.

The level of debt from non-payment got so high it was decided that something must be done…

So the government of the day decided that RPs could just keep the money that mostly wasn’t being paid and it wouldn’t affect benefits because it mostly wasn’t being paid

The worst thing about CMS is that they actually have a good amount of powers available to them.

They just don’t use them.

I briefly worked for them and I knew about multiple powers they had (from dealing with my ex) that the people training me had no idea about.

I also got a warning for being “too aggressive” for saying no to a payment extension for a man who hadn’t paid for his children for over two years and had ignored multiple warnings.

There was no complaint about my manners, wording or that I was right in regards of the rules. Just that saying no was too aggressive to the man… He was given another month extension by my boss.

The existing laws should be enforced, but there needs to be a societal shift.
Id compare it to drink driving: years ago, although it was illegal, lots of people did it with little or no censure from society. There was a big campaign to change perceptions, and we need to do similar so that people who don’t support their children are not venerated as great lads by their peers, but rather, as losers who would let their own children go without rather than sacrifice anything themselves. There should be a stigma attached to anyone who doesn’t support their own children, who resorts to allowing the state to subsidise them. I’ve heard too many men explain how the ex manages fine with the kids because she can claim UC. I’ve heard them them brag or threaten to give up work so they don’t have to give any money to their ex, who lie about what they earn, who think that their measly contributions when they do make them will be blown on luxuries by the person who is keeping a roof over their child’s head. I’ve seen people ( men) drinking and smoking while complaining that they can’t afford to contribute to their children’s upkeep. They’re not even embarrassed to say that in public. That needs to change.

It’s utterly disgraceful, I had MP input at one point and did get a resolution but honestly it was so draining. And he used to change the day he paid but always just within the rules, sometimes by just a minute and sometimes by five days. It was his own fault he paid what he did because he never say them, by choice and all recorded in emails.
the money is there for the children and I agree proper enforcement should be used much earlier than it is to deter men from not paying.

i am so pleased mine are told now and its over. He holds zero control now

Because the vast majority of non payers are men, and men are way more important than women or kids. I absolutely guarantee that if the majority of parents that abandoned their kids were women, there would be a massive change.

Disclaimer before all the NAMALTS arrive, I never said all men, and I didn't say women never do it.

They can take the driving license.

Very rare to use it though as it's almost always considered as damaging their chance of work

There's no political will for it because there's no societal will for it.

If people really cared about it then politicians would care about it.

If financially neglecting your kids made you a social pariah then more people would pay for a start. If Steve knew he'd be booted from the five aside team, and Bob knew that no women would be in a relationship with him, and Jim knew his mum, dad and sister would nag him relentlessly and be ashamed of him then they'd pay.
My ex messed around and dodged payment repeatedly until his commanding officers found out and made clear they'd have no interest in promoting him if he didn't sort himself out. Never missed a payment after that.

That doesn't happen though. Usually what happens is people are very much "oh yes people should pay" but then when it comes to their partner, son, brother or mate then that's different because his ex will spend it on hair/nails/nights out so that doesn't count.

I spent 16 years mulling over this question as I raised my daughter with a generous contribution of £10 a week from her father.
I asked the CMS for an adjustment several times due to his income from rental properties he owned and was told every time that he was paying what he should be.
Over my 16 years of mulling why my DD and I had to have less so that her father could have more money, the only answer I could come up with is misogyny. This issue far and away negatively affects women and we just don't bloody count.

If the government imposed legal consequence on NRP and enforced CMS payments then they should take CMS into account when calculating universal credit that goes to the resident parent.

I know of a few cases where the single mum wouldn’t be happy as it would mean loosing over £1.5k of government support every month while also receiving regular high CMS payments.

the argument has always been that CMS isn’t included in UC calculations because it’s not reliable payment but if the government managed to sort it out than fair enough non resident parents are now paying therefore UC should be reduced accordingly.

I think there would be some single parents not very enthusiastic about it

See the only reason I can see for the NRP not being very enthusiastic about it is because up until now, there's absolutely no enforcement, so it's not reliable and probably still wouldn't be reliable even with enforcement because if a man loses his job, changes his job or just doesn't pay despite enforcement then there's no money to live on. It just stops and then you're left with claiming benefits until he pays up again, which is going to tie the benefits system in knots.
But instead of benefits effectively being the other financial parent, and the father paying nothing, it's still paid by the government but then the father pays the government. And the enforcement is akin to not paying your council tax, aggressive, bailiffs, cars levied, relentless letters and calls, attachment of earnings or benefits, fees for non payments, threats of prison.
That way the child gets supported and the government can at least to attempt to recoup.

But I agree that the biggest change would come from societal shift and peer judgement, companies not wanting to employ people who don't pay for their children, being ostracised by society, but I honestly don't think it'll ever happen.

Sanctions should be enforced. It should not be the taxpayers who take the burden, whilst errant parent shirks responsibility.

The cases of people actually getting high maintenance payments while also getting high benefits would be so few in number that their complaints wouldn't impact decisions.

I would never support benefits taking maintenance into account until there was a radical overhaul of both CMS themselves and political will. When I started working at CMS I knew of at least three powers they had (due to having to look into it with my ex) that the guy training me had no clue about. Far from being a one off incompetent guy, it turned out that none of the trainers in that office knew about them.

As a child my grandparents (who had to take us in because of neglect) were awarded £64 a week from my father. The benefits folks counted that as income and deducted it from them. It left a huge hole in their finances to be housing, feeding and clothing 4 children with that deficit every week. By the time my Grandad died he was owed thousands, and despite the fact my Nana still had care of me (I was by then 12) it was written off as it was in grandads name. A new claim was opened for Nana and once again nothing effective was done. In all the years they took less than £200 from him.

But instead of benefits effectively being the other financial parent, and the father paying nothing, it's still paid by the government but then the father pays the government. And the enforcement is akin to not paying your council tax, aggressive, bailiffs, cars levied, relentless letters and calls, attachment of earnings or benefits, fees for non payments, threats of prison.
That way the child gets supported and the government can at least to attempt to recoup.

That's what should have happened when the last big change was made.

At one point it was the case that people on benefits were allowed to keep £20 a week in maintenance, but the rest was owed to the Sec of State to go toward the welfare bill.

Then the amount owed to the Sec of State ballooned so much it was decided that something must be done.

With all of the options open to them - sanctions, taking it from source like a tax, higher penalties for non payment - what did they decide to do? Oh they decided that people should just keep all of the maintenance... keep all that money we know doesn't get paid 🙄

In my area if your unemployed and getting child support they can reduce your council tax support because it's classed as income (which annoys me because it's for the children not the adult but anyway) this is hardly ever enforced because it's not regularly paid

My ex for example ended up on enforcement they took ti from his wages for five months then he would pay them for five months then back to paying me direct AS SOON as he had to pay them he stopped paying two months and counting they are doing NOTHING but letting him add to arrears

He tried getting a reduction due to ds turning 16 and "no longer in education except now he is going to college so he will be told no

I am 100% behind child support being enforced as a debt through the courts like any other form of benefit, civil debt or tax arrears. This would be my flagship policy if I was in government. Massive potential to address child poverty, sex equality and intergenerational disadvantage.

The difficulty is that no-one can campaign on this platform because Luddite men and their handmaidens (delusional new partners, NRPs’ mums, a flank of the Conservative Party, Reform sympathisers, the Daily Fail and GB News) still think that wimmin are on the make in expecting men to pay for the kids they’ve brought into the world.