Is this true? WARNING DM link "Fathers to be hit by rise in maintenance..."
If it is, we are going to be in the sh!t AGAIN. Merry Christmas to all those Fathers who actually pay through the nose and can't afford to look after the family they have living with them AND we have our Child Tax credits taken off us to give to his ex who never let him see his DD in the first place.
I know there will be Mums out there who are shafted by their exes but it is ones like my DP and my kids who are being destroyed by the CSA. Bankruptcy looms.
Sorry - It just never ends. Money, money, money. They will take our house and our kids will be on the street and they DON'T CARE!
But Rosa you said that the RP is looking after the children for the NRP for free. Surely by the same logic when the NRP has the kids, he/she is also looking after the kids for RP for free?
And what's this obsession with halving responsibility and therefore costs? The RP is clearly the person with the most responsibility. If RP doesn't like it, don't be the RP then because that's the way it is. The NRP is more free to move on and less responsibility. At the same time they get less time with their kids and miss out on a lot more. Life has a way of balancing out.
I wouldn't have gone as far as 50/50 (it would have been great for me for work and stuff but not right for the kids) but I would have loved to have had a decent co-parenting arrangement with my XP (one where he actually did his share of the all of the work involved with children rather than just "looking after them" as he saw it). Sadly it was not to be. I never wanted to be a totally lone parent as I am now.
DH's ex (who very much wanted 50:50 but got a lot less) would rather he just curled up and die rather than co-parent. She thinks hes unneccessary and would much rather there was just her new little family to consider. Her view is very much that she is the parent and DH's only part is to pay. I've found on this forum that this really isn't unusual
But the balancing act should be enforced on men who won't play their part whether they like it or not so they have children half the time, do half the washing, half the day to day stuff rather than just play at weekend parenting when it suits them. We need to move to less sexist models as many single mothers work full time.
allnew, that is not my view. I would be perfectly happy with 50/50 but you cannot even get a court to force a father to have children one day a year. The father has the right to apply for contact but you cannot make anyone play any sort of part at all.
Xenia if you read my post I see the 'mother caring role' as being most actively endorsed by women themselves, even when in relationships where they have the most financial clout. It's not just a sexism problem.
Her view is very much that she is the parent and DH's only part is to pay. I've found on this forum that this really isn't unusual
Your remarks about RPs make sweeping generalisations and are quite offensive. It doesn't matter what "you have found" to be the norm or what you think of your partner's ex, we are debating about what is fair and what should be happening across the board.
And what's this obsession with halving responsibility and therefore costs?^
I'm not obsessed with halving the costs, at all. Others have pointed out that costs of children should be halved between RPs and NRPs but I have disagreed because the financial outgoings are not "halved" - in particular the cost of childcare. "Well, don't be the RP then" is not a solution, as then, of course, the other party would become the RP and have the same problem! The point is, that the problem exists, that the cost of children is unfairly met by the RP (unless there is complete 50/50 sharing of children - which is not the norm as it can be impractical and often not what either the mother/father or the children want) under the present system. Of course, families are complex, modern life is complex, but that does not mean we should just look at unfair situations subjectively (ie, well it might be fair to that person, but not that person) and conclude, "oh well, it's swings and roundabouts."
Rosabud this thread had certainly not centred on what should be happening across the board, it's literally full of people giving their own personal examples of what can happen in practice.
My ex has to be reminded that being a parent is a 24/7 responsibility and not just something he can pick and choose as he pleases. He does pay maintenance and takes her two nights. But when I was working childcare was my responsibility and if DD was sick it was my duty to take the time off (in his eyes.)
The way he treats me now very much suggests that he sees me as his free childcare. But he is the decision maker and very often undermines my parenting. If he disagrees with me he threatens calling SS. When I called his bluff one day his reply was "she is better with you." Ofcourse she is because the maintenance he pays me is a fraction of what childcare would cost him. His job opportunities would drastically reduce when he couldnt be as flexible.
I dont think nrps like him are uncommon.
I'm a father who does 50/50 and at times more.
Most mothers I know are horrified at the thought of doing this, the title of main-carer seems to be very important.
I assume this is a societal pressure.
Xenia "5 sets of school fees" ...you could pop them in your local state school :-)
I can see why people want children with a new partner but parents need to be responsible for the children they create.
My sil has a baby she can not really finacial support. Constantly moans about short mat leave, lack of cash, etc etc. dumps baby on granny full time as she can't afford childcare. Did she not work out that she didn't have enough cash before? Just a matter of time before the state bails her out. ( she actually moans about how little she is entitled to)
Youre right violet, people up and down the country have children they can't financially support, it's certainly not limited to NRPs. But perhaps 'society' sees that women are entitled to have children they can't afford when in a couple.
Dad, yes it's societal pressure. Real women like I am have no problems with 50/50 and we tend to earn a lot too and work full time. We don't need to have our mere existence justified by being a " mother" as if it were some kind of job. We have a life too.
(violent - definitely not - no child of mine will ever set foot in a state school).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Smudging. I was sitting on my hands at the real woman comment.
i personally don't believe you should even get a discount for having a second family. why should your first children get less because you've chosen to go and breed more with someone else?
if you can't afford a second family don't have one. if you don't want to have children with someone who has prior financial commitments don't have children with them.
i'd be in favour of an increase in maintenance and measures that make men think twice before going around having kids all over the place that they don't intend to take responsibility for.
your husband has responsibilities to all his children Inc first family
if money so tight limit family size,rather than bemoan 1st family
What would be the reaction if I said parents shouldn't get child benefit or any benefits for having children.
If they can't afford it they shouldn't have them.
I don't think it'd be very popular.
most people do limit family size due finances
and men should accumulate wife and kids they can't afford
bet the 1st wife doesn't think she's rolling in it with maintenance payments
men shouldnt accumulate wife and kids they cant afford
pragmatically most people do the maths,figure finances when planning a family
as should the man from the op
it's parental responsibility basically. i have a son. if i have another child my son will need just as much support financially, emotionally, etc etc as he did before the second child. so i have to weigh up if i have enough (financially, emotionally, energetically etc) before having a second child because the existing child comes first. i was desperate to have a second child for ages but every time i made those mental calculations i could not convince myself that the truth was i did have enough. so tough on my 'i want a baby' voice because i already have a child and he comes first.
none of this is rocket science is it? it should be obvious to men too and to the women who get involved with them when they already have kids.
women with men on their second family should be glad of it too really because if he goes onto family number three it will be in your interest that maintenance is decent and prioritises prior children.
Does the reason for the first family splitting play a role here?
If a Dad loses day to day family life with his DCs due to choices made by his ex, should his opportunities to move on with his life and have further DCs with another partner be restricted unless he can provide for his first DCs at the same level as he did when they were a family?
Should any DCs he has with a second partner miss out because their Dads exW chooses to financially rely on him despite excluding him from their shared DCs lives?
why should your first children get less......
Because that's simply life. Let's say my partner today tells me she's pregnant. It's unplanned and we're not exactly flush at the moment. Our income would drastically go down and what money we do have coming in now must be split amongst all the kids. My own kids, my step son and my new child.
By the above logic, I am being unfair towards my existing kids by not having as much money to go around for a decision they've had no choice in making.
It's simply life. More children, same income = less to go around. In the context of an ex, I can see why they would see it as unfair but fair is in the eye of the beholder.
you're missing point,it's not about how adults enact gripes
it's the welfare of the children
a child shouldn't financially suffer because parents have fractious relationship
scottish. But what does financially suffer actually mean?
Why should a DC be protected from a change in their standard of living? Why is it assumed that a NRP doesn't consider the impact of their decisions on their DCs lives?
My DP battled for months with the decision (due to work restructuring) whether to significantly reduce the DCs contact with him, or to reduce the financial support he could provide. He based his decision on the standard of living his DCs had at the time - they had far more luxury in their life than many DCs do - so he decided that they would suffer less if their standard of living reduced than if their weekly regular contact with him was removed.
Their Mum was also benefiting from the DCs standard of living, so could be considered an innocent victim in that decision - she was no longer sharing in the luxuries her DCs had benefited from.
Join the discussion
Please login first.