A child is not a bargaining chip in a dispute over money

A legitimate financial question remains a financial question

Missing maintenance can cause real difficulty with everyday expenses. Simply telling parents to remain calm is not enough. There must be a usable route for checking amounts, the basis of payment and collection. The Dutch government refers people to the LBIO when maintenance is unpaid; the conditions and appropriate steps need individual consideration.

Precisely because the financial issue matters, it deserves its own evidence and assessment. A payment schedule with supporting documents and a suitable legal next step is fairer than a condition that affects the child. Keeping these issues separate does not remove disappointment. It does place responsibility where it belongs: with adults who need their rights and obligations assessed.

The cost of a condition is more than practical

A missed contact visit is more than an empty calendar entry. A child may look forward to seeing a parent, worry about uncertainty or feel responsible for resolving it. We do not need to invent statistics about such effects to defend the principle that adults should not deliberately create that tension as a negotiating tactic.

A child should not be made a messenger about payments either. Asking the child to find out why dad has not paid or why mum will not reimburse an expense does not clarify the financial issue. Children need room for their own experience of both parents. Contact should be assessed through their needs and safety, not through the accounts of the former relationship.

Clear boundaries need workable alternatives

An appeal to keep children out of conflict becomes hollow without a practical alternative. We therefore favour two separate action lists: what is needed for a verifiable financial solution, and what is needed for a workable care or contact arrangement? Each issue should have a responsible person and a suitable route to support.

In a hypothetical situation, a monthly contribution is missing while a Friday handover is scheduled. The missed payment is put to an adviser with supporting documents. The handover is considered under its own arrangement. Any safety issue at that handover receives separate attention. This is an active approach: it identifies exactly which issue requires action.

Professionals should also keep the issues distinct

A lawyer or mediator can help prevent every conversation becoming a negotiation about everything. Different cases need different approaches, but all need clear language about the purpose of a request. A financial concession should not silently become the price of an arrangement that makes appropriate contact possible.

We also believe information platforms must write carefully. A headline promising ways to use contact to force payment starts from the wrong premise. Useful information explains how rights can be protected separately, what documents are needed and when safety requires another route. That is less sensational, but it respects the child’s position.

Our position is clear: take the financial problem seriously, make contact arrangements workable and address safety directly. Adult responsibility does not mean accepting everything. It means taking targeted steps without turning the child into a means of payment. A lasting arrangement should explain why it serves the child, even while the parents remain deeply divided about money.