Hello,

So many caring fathers are being denied time with their children but then made to pay Child Maintenance. For instance, my partner applied to court to increase his 3 nights a week with his daughter, but was denied that 50/50 shared care due to me being pregnant at the time. The courts implied they wanted to "prevent sibling rivalry", yet his ex (who was physically abusive and adulterous) was attempting to get pregnant herself. They don't split up nuclear families to prevent sibling rivalry, so this should be no excuse to deny a child access to both their parents. This seems like a highly superficial reason to deny a father time with his child. Just to clarify, her and her sibling have a superb bond.

Him and his ex used to 50/50 school uniform and essentials required for activities. That all changed when an application to Child Maintenance was made. Now we cannot afford to make memories and treat our children because child maintenance take a % of our wage BEFORE TAX. We are struggling to save and improve. We would rather 50/50 essentials for schooling and education and supply her with food and clothing each end, than pay a chunk of our wages to someone who denied him time over something so superficial. 

Unless the applicant parent is a danger to the child, 50/50 care should be a STANDARD unless mutually agreed by both parties. If denied shared care, for any other reason besides safeguarding, then the applicant should not pay Child Maintenance. If the respondent parent wishes to be aided in funding the care for the child, then they should consider 50/50 access instead of denying the applicant time in place for money. The only case child maintenance should be paid is:

if a parent is uninterested in more time with their child

if a parent is denied time due to unsafe conditions and history of abuse

if mutually agreed.

Child maintenance should not be used as a tool by manipulative people in order to fuel wars between parents. Yet it is being used this way in many more cases besides my partners. Child maintenance should be support for those who do not have access to the support and shared care of the other parent, not for those who refuse to share care out of spite. If a parent has refused to share care and fought against 50/50 care, but find themselves struggling financially, time should be shared first instead of money.

STOP MAKING LOVING PARENTS PAY CHILD MAINTENANCE AND START QUESTIONING WHY THE PARENT IS BEING MADE TO PAY FOR TIME THEY FOUGHT FOR AND LOST.