Tuesday, December 12, 2006


The Government has announced that one of the new aspects of the replacement agency for the Child Support Agency will be that non-paying dads ( NPD's) (it is normally fathers but there are some non paying mothers out there) will now be named and shamed on a website.

Already people are bleating that this will be ineffective and is a wasts of time. Why not come up with some alternatives? My suggestions:

1. All dating agencies must have a link to the NPD's website and all members must be labelled NPD's if they are not supporting their children.

2. All NPD's who purchase or lease a car must have a registration plate with NPD at the start.

3. All football stadiums must have separate stands reserved for NPD's and those with ASBO's

4. All Estate Agent's to include in their details if an NPD is selling his house and to inform the new Child Support Agency .

I think that might work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


doozy said...

See the article "Why should abused fathers pay Child Support?"


Not all non-paying dads are the evil feckless scum bags we all dislike, some have more reasons than others, and many are still good fathers, but unable to fall for the financial demands before the welfare and relationship demands they prioritise.

Anonymous said...

I have read the article you refer to and it is as I expected - a rant that is self absorbed and ignores the child's needs. Refusing to support your child financially because the parent with care won't allow Contact is self defeating and damaging to the child. There is no separate State, you are placing the burden on other taxpayers. I have had many letters from teenage children who refuse to see their dad because he won't pay towards their upkeep. I have even had emails from adults asking me to sue their dad for compensation because he never supported them. I would give my last dime to support my children and I am not unusual, I am normal. There is no excuse for not paying to support your child. Fullstop.

DadDestroyedByUKCourt said...

But what about not paying Spousal Maintenance. I fall in to a category or NRPs who would gladly pay child support but am now asked to pay a total of 60% of my salary in spousal maintenance as well as having lost 100% of the FMH and 30% of my pension. Although i earn 40k a year i am left with very very little after 60% SM and paying my rent - just 200 per month to cover all food, bills etc.

All because ex refuses to work (and court decided depression is a good enough reason for her to not work) even though only child is 15.

Also SM order is for life so i have been stripped of all my assets and have no hope at all of ever owning property again. Or of ever having net income much above someone on social security.

The courts have gone way too far in re-distributing wealth from higher earner to lower earner. Forget Miller, McFarlane etc (they kept most of their assets) - the ordinary dads are being ruined (losing 70, 80, 90% of assets) and at the same time I am denied any contact at all by ex so son has to live 100% of time in smoke and alchohol fueled atmosphere with just 1 bitter, angry mother who is totally unable to support his emotional or educational needs.

How about Mothers Denying Contact being made to wear MDC hats when they pick kids up from school?

Anonymous said...

Your case sounds unfair in the extreme. Normally the maximum a Court would order in spousal maintenance is 50% of the net salary and that is regarded as being on the high side. In terms of capital, the awards now are slipping in the other direction, with the lower earner achieving only 55%, whereas 70% used to be the norm. This has changed since "equality" was introduced in the case of White.

In respect of your son, a 15 year old's decision is decisive. If your ex is preventing contact his wishes and feelings would be compelling. Normally older children refuse to see their dad because he has withheld child support.

If you cannot afford to pay the spousal maintenance ordered you can go back to Court to seek a variation. It sounds as though your ex would qualify for benefits.

As regards mothers who deny contact for no good reason (often the abusive treatment they suffer from their ex causes the breakdown in contact) the Courts already have the most suitable weapon which is to transfer the residence to the father as the mother is causing the children emotional abuse.

I am sorry your case appears to have been poorly represented and I hope you can sort it out.

Jon Page said...

How about Mothers who Refuse Contact being treated similarly?

And dating sites could have a special label for wives who were unfaithful.

And another for wives who demanded huge shares of their former husband's assets, even if it was a short marriage and he built them up and paid for them himself without them making any contribution.

And the plus side, we could have a label for people of either gender who split amicably and just took what was theirs. Of course, they might not want others to know that, in case some of the prior category spots that they still have their assets!

Anonymous said...

hi Jon Page

Mothers who refuse contact without justification should be given a curfew preventing them going out after dark and be made to take their children with them on all dates.

The Courts can now remove the children from their care and transfer residence to the father given the emotional damage such a denial of contact causes the children.

However, refusing contact without good reason is the key, and many cases do illustrate that there are cogent reasons for denying contact with the absent parent.