Are We Too Soft Of Deadbeat Parents?

[The_DADDY 3,461]

By we I mean the UK in general. 

Are we too soft on parents who refuse to pay maintenance or who play the system to reduce their payments.? 

I believe in the US its quite different and parents who neglect their obligations are often punished and even jailed some times. 

Should the UK be harder on these types of people? 

[Mister M 1,608]

Good parenting isn't always about having lots of money. There may well be deadbeat parents who are wealthy.

[DUFFEMS 55]

In my opinion we are too lenient.

People who have kids should have to be responsible for them, it' s your choice to have them.

I get fed up with hearing the same sob stories from single parents very often with kids from more than one father, they're your kids, you provide for them.

 

[The_DADDY 3,461]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Good parenting isn't always about having lots of money. There may well be deadbeat parents who are wealthy.

Absolutely agree 100% 👍

3 minutes ago, DUFFEMS said:

In my opinion we are too lenient.

People who have kids should have to be responsible for them, it' s your choice to have them.

I get fed up with hearing the same sob stories from single parents very often with kids from more than one father, they're your kids, you provide for them.

 

I agree. So what do you think should happen to a parent who neglects the responsibility? 

As I understand it in America you can lose your driving licence, have your wages attached and even in some cases go to prison for not paying your dues. 

[DUFFEMS 55]

There was a time when attachment of earnings was in place, what happened to that? Did it take away the father's human rights or some such nonsense?

There are so many who ignore their responsibilities for their children and the rest of us have to provide for them through our too generous no questions asked welfare system.

[Guest makapaka]

Agree with the sentiment - it’s not always straight forward tho is it.

 

two people have a kid - maybe not planned - don’t stay together.

 

both might be struggling for money - let’s say mother doesn’t want to know father afterwards for whatever reason good or bad.

 

you gonna put a fella in nick for being skint?

 

Government can do something but needs to be measured and means tested.

[Longcol 597]

16 minutes ago, DUFFEMS said:

In my opinion we are too lenient.

People who have kids should have to be responsible for them, it' s your choice to have them.

I get fed up with hearing the same sob stories from single parents very often with kids from more than one father, they're your kids, you provide for them.

 

Always the womans fault then?

 

Shouldn't the father contribute?

[Guest makapaka]

5 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Always the womans fault then?

 

Shouldn't the father contribute?

It’s not always the woman’s fault obviously - it’s not always the fathers either and in some respects fathers can be hard done by in matters of custody especially.

[The_DADDY 3,461]

4 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Agree with the sentiment - it’s not always straight forward tho is it.

 

two people have a kid - maybe not planned - don’t stay together.

 

both might be struggling for money - let’s say mother doesn’t want to know father afterwards for whatever reason good or bad.

 

you gonna put a fella in nick for being skint?

 

Government can do something but needs to be measured and means tested.

I agree it's not always straightforward and yeah putting somone in clink for being poor is a no no for me. What I'm really driving at are the parents who can pay but choose not to. 

I'll give you an example. 

2 people marry, have 2 kids then the marriage breaks down after 20 years. 

One parent leaves the family home and refuses to pay anything for around 18 months. Then decides to fiddle the system and claim benefits whilst working self employed earning plenty of money and not declaring it but they start paying a nominal amount because they are classed as being on benefits . 

You know this is going on and report it but because the systems are not in place to investigate it properly it carries on under the radar. The kids go without essential items and whilst one parent carries the load so to speak the other parent is free to live an obligation free life. 

In my opinion there should be a dedicated organisation who investigates these cases and holds them to account. 

Sure it will cost money but I do feel it could ease the burden on the taxpayer if these deadbeat parents are brought before a court and forced to pay. 

Maybe I'm being nieve hoping something like this will ever happen though. 

 

[Guest makapaka]

3 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

I agree it's not always straightforward and yeah putting somone in clink for being poor is a no no for me. What I'm really driving at are the parents who can pay but choose not to. 

I'll give you an example. 

2 people marry, have 2 kids then the marriage breaks down after 20 years. 

One parent leaves the family home and refuses to pay anything for around 18 months. Then decides to fiddle the system and claim benefits whilst working self employed earning plenty of money and not declaring it but they start paying a nominal amount because they are classed as being on benefits . 

You know this is going on and report it but because the systems are not in place to investigate it properly it carries on under the radar. The kids go without essential items and whilst one parent carries the load so to speak the other parent is free to live an obligation free life. 

In my opinion there should be a dedicated organisation who investigates these cases and holds them to account. 

Sure it will cost money but I do feel it could ease the burden on the taxpayer if these deadbeat parents are brought before a court and forced to pay. 

Maybe I'm being nieve hoping something like this will ever happen though. 

 

Isn’t that the CSA you’re describing?

 

if someone’s fiddling then report them to the CSA?

[The_DADDY 3,461]

Just now, makapaka said:

Isn’t that the CSA you’re describing?

 

if someone’s fiddling then report them to the CSA?

It's the Child Maintenance service now. I've been told the CSA are no more and the CMS don't do investigations. Their advice is to contact the benefits agency and or Inland revenue. 

That was done (I believe) 16 months ago and so far not a peep from either of them and this parent is still fraudulently receiving benefits and still working whilst not declaring earnings. The real kick in the teeth is the absent parent earns a minimum of £700 per week and pays just over £30, per month. 

It would be laughable if it wasn't so wrong. 

[Guest makapaka]

The CMS do the same investigations.