Two men from North Staffordshire have been ordered to settle substantial child maintenance arrears or risk imprisonment after courts heard they spent money on non-essential items instead of fulfilling their parental financial obligations.
Under Section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991, magistrates' courts can impose driving bans or custodial sentences of up to 42 days on individuals who wilfully refuse or neglect to pay child maintenance.
Glenn Despres, from Stafford, appeared at North Staffordshire Justice Centre owing £3,298.93 in child maintenance arrears accumulated between 14 June 2023 and 18 February 2025. Evidence presented in court revealed that during this period he spent £974 in pubs and £419 on takeaways, expenses considered non-essential given his outstanding payments.
READ MORE: Andy Burnham issues warning over £500 EV charge point grant changes
READ MORE: Natalie Putt: Father Seeks Answers 23 Years After Dudley Teenager Disappeared
A solicitor representing the Child Maintenance Service emphasised, “He is aware of his liability and responsibility to pay child maintenance; however, he has chosen to prioritise spending on other non-essential expenditure.”
It was further disclosed that Mr Despres was already subject to a driving ban and possessed no property or land assets from which the debt could be recovered. Previous attempts by bailiffs to recoup the money had been unsuccessful.
On 13 August, Mr Despres made a partial payment of £250 and agreed to a weekly payment order of £120, including £25.82 towards clearing the arrears. The magistrates imposed a 42-day custodial sentence suspended for two years, contingent upon adherence to the agreed payment schedule.
In a separate case, Charles Shaw of Biddulph owed £21,491.94 in child maintenance arrears. Court evidence indicated he had spent £138 in pubs and £442 on subscription services during the period of non-payment.
The Child Maintenance Service solicitor stated, “Letters notifying Mr Shaw of the outstanding debt were sent on 3 March and 29 May this year, allowing opportunities to discuss circumstances and arrange payment. None of these letters were returned.” The solicitor added that Mr Shaw appeared fully aware of his obligations but had demonstrated wilful refusal or culpable neglect in meeting them.
Mr Shaw contested the liability orders, claiming the calculation of his maintenance payments did not accurately reflect his earnings. Although he had not formally appealed, he stated in court he had been advised such an option did not exist.
Magistrates at North Staffordshire Justice Centre accepted Mr Shaw’s proposal to repay the debt at £100 per week but warned that failure to keep up payments would lead to a court appearance. He was handed a 42-day custodial sentence suspended for two and a half years, alongside costs of £46.