Have read a few threads on here about post-separation contact/maintenance issues, where most posters argue that children are not 'pay per view' and that maintenance and contact are entirely separate issues. The premise behind this is that contact is about the child's right to a relationship with the non-resident parent (NRP) rather than the parent's right to a relationship with a child.
In previous posts, I have almost always taken this view myself (except in cases of abuse). However, I have been thinking and wondering about this and find that I am now questioning it.
There are always going to be exceptions where a NRP genuinely cannot pay, but if he (I am not going to type out 'he or she' every time, and mostly NRP's are male) can pay and doesn't, does his child really benefit from exercising the right to have a relationship with him?
Anecdotally, examine the cases you know of personally. If I do this, I find that the NRPs who pay maintenance without begrudging it are the ones who remain involved in their child's life and put their child's interests before their own.
Many NRPs fall into the category where they feel very hard hit by CSA maintenance payments, especially if they have subsequent children as well, but at the same time they recognise that they have responsibilities to their child. These are also usually decent parents.
Then there are those who are paying maintenance because they cannot dodge the CSA and they take every opportunity to bemoan it. Worse still are those who pay nothing at all despite no good reason not to (I'm thinking particularly of the self-employed who 'fix' the books and a certain group of feckless parents who will deliberately remain unemployed or working cash in hand to avoid having to pay maintenance). These types usually claim they are experiencing hardship, but they often seem to having the money to afford regular outings, new clothes, etc. (often while their kids go without).
In my experience, there is a strong correlation between the non-payers and those NRPs who are very cavalier with contact, often letting down their child at the last moment, and often not doing anything child-centred with their child even when they do turn up. Contact with a parent like this can result in a childhood characterised by disappointment, hurt and insecurity, along with the self-esteem issues that tend to accompany these.
Most of us assume that there will be massive rejection issues as a result of being 'abandoned' by the NRP. However, we also hear stories of children who have never known their other parent but despite curiosity about their heritage, say that it has never affected them negatively. The overriding factor seems to be the quality of the relationship with the resident parent (and money).
So, if we take out genuine cases where there is no ability to pay, is it really true that contact and maintenance should not be linked? Maybe willingness to pay is indeed a good indication of how 'fit' the NRP is to be a figure in a child's life.
On the other hand, of course, we would have to balance this as choosing to absent yourself from your child's life should not be seen as a ticket for non-payment, nor should payment be seen by an abusive NRP as bestowing a automatic right to see the child.
IMO we have it the wrong way round in this country. The courts tend to take the view that contact with NRPs is the default position and can be legally forced, and yet 3 out of 5 NRP's (yes, that's more than half) pay no maintenance with very little consequence. Shouldn't it be the other way round - where payment of maintenance is the default (enforced) position and contact a privilege that has to be earned?
This is a purely philosophical argument by the way. I have no particular case in mind as I write this, just a general musing. Obviously, nothing approaching it would ever come to pass in law as there are just too many variables and assumptions going on and it would be open to an awful lot of abuse, but I am curious what others think.