Alimony and the New Registry: Public Policy or Just Populism?
The debate over alimony has surged in public discourse. Recently the State Duma approved an open registry for permanent defaulters, and starting June 1 child benefits will be calculated with a tighter connection to alimony obligations. It seems a serious approach has been promised. Yet the impression remains that the move is more about appearing decisive than delivering real reform.
Consider the registry as it stands: what value does it have without reconsidering the core idea of bad faith? In today’s framework, a truly malicious debtor to their children is someone who evades parental duties to the extent of facing administrative or criminal liability or even a search warrant. If a parent fails to pay alimony for several months, illegally underreports income, or conceals their residence and work, they can face administrative or criminal charges. Meanwhile, a person who provides a modest amount to their children every quarter due to poverty, who does not work, who does not prepare, and who does not actively avoid responsibility might not be labeled a criminal at all. The so‑called “board of shame” would thus miss that individual entirely.
Without revisiting the criteria for bad faith, the blacklist may snare roughly 140 thousand Russians. These would be individuals who blend into the margins of society so completely that public shaming would not threaten them in any substantive way.
Today, information about questionable debts of such individuals can already be found through the services of the Federal Bailiffs Service. That means meaningful details about them are accessible without a special registration. Often their true character is evident from their lifestyle. Ordinary lenders risk little by engaging with such borrowers, and many banks will hesitate to extend credit. Yet this is not a catastrophe; these individuals often have no special demands. It’s almost like closing borders: if someone lacks funds to cross to a nearby region, what difference does it make if they are denied entry?
Here lies the problem. In addition to the 140 thousand completely hopeless debtors, a larger group in Russia is irregular in their payments, contributing only pennies toward alimony. Even then, a great many will avoid moral condemnation, restrictions on loans, or vows to seek greater personal happiness. Their supposed duties, according to the lawmakers, would be performed by the “board of shame.” That means they could mislead new victims who fall under their influence, pushing newborn children toward poverty while tossing a few kopecks as a veneer of care.
On the topic of pennies, there is no official minimum alimony amount in the country. A proposal to set one was tabled and rejected earlier this year. The figure never rose above half the minimum subsistence amount, which remains a mystery to many MPs who seem unsettled by a threshold of eight thousand rubles. Paradoxically, it is now easier to obtain these eight thousand from a typical working person because a fixed payment, rather than a percentage of income, can be claimed. Yet the same system cannot charge more than five thousand from a gray‑zone employee earning the officially contracted minimum wage. It feels like a mirror image of itself—ridiculous yet revealing.
Unsurprisingly, many recipients choose not to pursue alimony. Pride mingles with shame, and some feel reluctant to take action against an ex‑spouse who has to be tracked down by authorities.
In some cases, the injured party is so hesitant to press for support that they end up sacrificing their ex‑spouse’s financial interests, particularly when the ex‑spouse is hard to locate and the enforcement officers must repeatedly knock on doors. Even in cases of severe poverty, state support remains available through unified child support rather than alimony. At least the state does not abandon those in need while accusing the applicant of opportunism.
But the news grows tiring—and so does the state. Beginning this year, alimony will be taken into account when assessing a family’s needs and eligibility for universal benefits. A new rule specifies that alimony income is considered only when there is a court decision. From summer onward, the process will follow a different logic. Those who have not officially applied for child support will automatically be treated as recipients of support from the other parent, based on verbal agreements. It will be almost impossible to verify whether any income exists: the system will take into account at least a quarter of the minimum wage for each child. If that is enough to suggest a single‑parent family is too wealthy to receive benefits, that becomes a family matter rather than a policy defect.
These changes are likely to increase cases involving alimony determinations. That part can be seen as positive. When a person applies for state assistance, it implies a redistribution of taxpayers’ funds in their favor, and therefore all financial receipts should be transparent. A firm stance against alimony avoidance should be expected as part of this process.
The troubling aspect is that the state offers little beyond nudging citizens toward greater personal responsibility. There is no assurance that court decisions will be carried out. Some officials openly admit that there is little faith in state guarantees. For example, the speaker of the State Duma once advised Russian women to choose fathers for their children more carefully so their representatives would not have to worry about legally collecting alimony after a divorce.
Yet if one looks closely, there may be positive takeaways. The ongoing debate on alimony could reflect a broader reassessment of family roles and future reproductive planning. It invites a more thoughtful approach to family finances and the responsibilities that come with parenthood. It is a topic that touches many households and raises questions about fairness, transparency, and the role of the state in supporting families.
The content presented here reflects a stance that may not align with every editorial line. It is written to offer a perspective on a complex social issue and to encourage readers to form their own conclusions about the current state of family policy.