Contact and Child maintenance

Think mumstoboys poster names getting mixed up!!

Anyway have to agree in principle with OP. Not sure stopping CM is the answer, but maybe part of the payment should be suspended. Sat in a pot until the dispute is resolved.

If its deemed the PWC has valid reasons, backed with evidence / courts that contact shouldnt happen then the money is paid.

If its deemed that the contact was withheld without reason, then the money is split 50/50.

That way the NRP is still has to contribute and the PWC withholding contact is held to account.

Withholding child support isn''t an effective way to enforce contact. Some mothers, me included, would willingly forgo child maintenance if that means not having to deal with their exes. I remember the days before the CSA when many mothers did just that which meant children lost out on contact and had to be supported financially by the state.

Of course those of us who are adults can see things from different points of view and are able to put our differences and rights on the back boiler to ensure contact and financial support works in the interests of children. In any event there are no plans to link CM and contact and there is no point in wishing the law is different when it isn''t. We all have to work with the system as it exists.

There are already effective contact enforcement measures, contempt of court proceedings or ultimately changing residence if the courts would only choose to use them. I don''t think there is much point in introducing additional measures if the existing ones aren''t utilised.

Contact breaks down for many reasons and very often it isn''t black and white with both parents and children being implicated in the problem. Research indicates that not only are DV, mental health, concerns about child abduction, alcohol and drug abuse raised in a large number of cases that end up in the courts but there is evidence to support the allegations in a substantial number of them.

Carrying out effective checks and balances is time consuming, a huge amount of work and very often both parents and even the children may be implicated in the problem e.g. to evaluate properly a child''s views in light of the all the circumstances takes considerable skill and may take several sessions; parents often lack foresight to contemplate the effects of their actions such as when they are irregular and consistent with contact, pursue the other parent through the courts or take up with a new partner before or very soon after the family breakdown.

DrDaddy,

I was by no means trying to patronize or take the moral high ground. I referred to enforcement of a contact order being a ''headache'', as I imagine it is.

Adeolu has previously written posts saying that she does not want to know her partners child anymore. She is not interested in contact and wants nothing more to do with the arrangements for contact, nor the child. ( see previous posts )

I just asked what her partners view on paying CM were?

Right,put the claws away please..

Fiona,life will stagnate and die without debate and humans continuosly seeking ways to innovate and improve existing everythings:) . It is true there are measures in place already,but they are NOT working.And they are mostly punitive.I am talking deterrent.And it is now glaring they are not working,so much so that the government is looking at additional legislation(taking away recalcitrant RPs'' passports,putting them under house arrest or is it curfew etc)to tackle this problem. So yes,let''s do some wishful thinking and it might actually come to pass.

MathisFun is on point,for those who agree with my original post.This suggestion can always be tweaked to work if put in place.

Jslgb,am afraid i will not be drawn into commenting or passing judgement on individual cases.Every case has its merit et al and if you are 100% happy about stopping contact every so often,by all means go ahead.Posterity always judges all our actions.

Boysmum,deep breath,please.drdaddy is another contributor and he/she has a right to contribute. i actually agreed with drdaddy''s interpretation of your first post,but i let it slide because i didn''t want to turn this into a slanging match.No need to get defensive. And by all means,stop mis-quoting me please. I don''t quite get your last post either,or why you are querying me about my partner''s opinion on this(what''s it got to do with it?)but again,i will let it slide.

Boystomum,maybe i should ask you why you asked your ''one simple question''? or maybe not.

I am sorry if I have offended you, it wasn''t intended.

But as a RP financially struggling, and my ex refusing to pay CM, I feel the hardship. At the end of the day, the children suffer, and I do not understand why a NRP would refuse to help support their child/children.

Contact is a separate entity, whether we feel it''s right or wrong. The fact is the law is in place, it will not be changed anytime soon, so you have to work with what we''ve got. It''s not a perfect system, it''s not fair, but then life isn''t fair.

Can I just remind everyone that Wikivorce is a supportive community

Debate and exchanging of ideas and views is healthy and provides balance - but there is a fine line between healthy debate and that which might be seen as aggressive by other posters.

it''s ok love,i feel you. but i wasn''t referring to RPs like you,i''m talking about the ones that play games with contact un-necessarily.and that''s where a lot of us are missing the point;believe me there are RPs like my partner''s ex who have become experts at thwarting contact for no good reason.and introducing such a law will not affect RPs like you so an innocent man surely has no need to be afraid? only the guilty,as they say,are afraid.

You are right about the way things are,but we need to keep striving until we get the best deals for children of divorced/seperated parents,both financially and emotionally.

Best of luck to you.xx

Thanks,rubytuesday.and you are right.xx