Student loan - child maintenance(35 Posts)
Anybody around who understands the Student Finance application form? I need to complete it for my DS.
I believe that child maintenance from my ex-husband doesn't count as "income" for student loan purposes. So I've just put in my income, disregarding the child maintenance he gives me. But when I've started to input the details of my other DCs, it asks about their income including "maintenance payments". Does this mean child maintenance, does anyone know? The money doesn't go to the DCs, it's paid to me....but I couldn't see anything in my section for me to disclose it.
Also, I'm worried now because when DS sent in his form he didn't disclose any maintenance from his father. Was he supposed to? It doesn't go to him, it goes to me.
I'm confused and SFE aren't open today, so if there are any experts around I'd be very glad to know.
Just letting others know that I've spoken to SFE this morning about this. They advised that only money which is paid direct to the dependant needs to be disclosed in the dependant's income section. So because the child maintenance is paid into my bank account, it doesn't need to be disclosed.
That,s useful to know. Im planning to do it all over the Easter holidays and am not looking forward to it!
Here's the thing.
My son in final year at university has been with a regular girlfriend for about a year.
She is currently undergoing therapy for anger management and in the course of the last 12 months has been both verbally and occasionally abusive.
They have split on several occasions but she has always been apologetic afterwards and he has accepted her back.
She recently graduated, and with no student accommodation moved in with my Son in his Student shared Hse. She was on the Pill and had been for some time. She had previously had an Abortion and had but recently been to visit her Sister and their new Baby.
After one last bout of incontrollable anger my Son split up with her once more; at which point she announced she was 9 weeks pregnant and had no intention of terminating the Pregnancy.
She has attempted to use the possibility of a future happy family scenario to coax my Son back into her arms once more and while he has resisted she has sent a torrent of foul and abusive text messages. She has said she will terminate, then she won't then says he is stupid and should have taken her back and then she might hav terminated but now she wont. She is looking to go ahead by all accounts and is already looking forward to being able to apply for a council house.
Now, here's the thing. My Son thought he had an implicit agreement with his ex that family planning was off the table, the fact she was on the Pill which was mutually understood is evidence of this.
Yet her miscalculation, (she claims to have changed Pills which might have lead to the accident) has brought fire and brimstone on my Son. She is on the face of it quite happy with the prospect of Motherhood, has already named her Fetus and obviously chose to keep the matter of her Pregnancy secret, for approx. 4/5 weeks before telling my Son.
Whether it is relevant or not, I have no idea, but she has had an abortion while in a relationship with a previous boyfriend.
The upshot as far as we can tell is she can continue to full term, obviously her prerogative, and then put a financial claim in to the CSA that requires my Son to contribute to the Childs maintenance for up to 20 years. Approximately 12% of his gross income will be payable and to add insult to injusy his student loan which is likely to last equally as long is not taken into account so by the time he has paid both he is likely to be significantly impoverished for some time to come.
I understand the arguments supporting the right to life, but would point out this was not an issue for the Mother to be first time round, but if an individual wants to make this intensely personal decision independently, should not the financial implications be done so likewise.
By virtue of a common accident, more of her making than his given the Pill is 99.9% effective, my Son will be faced with the Horror of a Child he doesn't want, the stigma of absent Fatherhood and a significant drain on his income for potentially the next 20 years!
I think this situation is grossly unfair. I am sure the major element of the Mumsnet membership will argue it takes two to tango, he has to take responsibility etc. But the fact remains early termination was an option and as time progresses termination of any kind becomes less likely.
He is shocked, depressed and feels somewhat duped. For the Law to support the Mother so in questionably is in my opinion wrong.
I'm sure if you have Daughters you will disagree, but if you have a Son and care to imagine the magnitude of the repercussions of what lets face it is not an uncommon occurrence you might like me think the penalty - for in effect that is what it is - beggars belief!
It sounds very difficult for him. I suspect as time goes on you wil love your grandchild and he the child and it will enhance your lives however bleak things look now.
He could have tried what I did at university - I graduated a teetotal virgin. It does work as a mean of ensuring you don't end up a parent in most cases.
God yeah bitch. Should have handcuffed her and forced her down the abortion clinic.
Maybe your precious son could take some responsibility for his child. Your grandchild. If he didn't want a baby he should have used condoms.
I think you are somewhat missing the point? As Mother to be was on the Pill why would he?
As for responsibility of future Child the implicit agreement, with the Pill, was that parenthood was not on the agenda.
Coming off the Pill or failing to take properly can hardly be described as a fault of the Son.
Insofar as the sentiment you express it is clear where your sympathies lie, but the fact remain mother to be is getting what she wants; whereas father to be is not; and to add insult to injury will be obliged to pay maintenance for the next 20 years.
The maintenance is for the benefit of the child. Are you suggesting that the right of men like your son to ejaculate without consequence should be prioritised over the right of a child to be supported at a basic rate by the adults who created them?
Every single time he has sex a pregnancy is a possible outcome, no matter how unlikely. Don't want fatherhood, don't have sex.
There's an innocent baby here, you seem to have forgotten that in your vitriol for the mother.
And exactly what I did - I had no sex so surprise surprise I had no surprise baby.
wheresthejustice, you sound positively vile. Your ADULT son needs to grow up and take responsibility for his actions. If you stop infantilising him and also see him as an adult responsible for their own sexual relationships that should really help
So what do you suggest OP? He doesn't support his own child? The child he fathered?
You don't sound very pleasant op, it would be interesting to hear the other side of the story.
There is not an innocent baby - there is an embryo. The difference between taking the Pill to avoid pregnancy and taking a morning after Pill is negligible - unless you happen to be a born again life is life campaigner!
The Law does not regard the Fetus as a Child until significantly further than 9 weeks.
So at this point in time there is no baby there is a Fetus the size of a Cherry (would of course been much smaller a few weeks back when the Mother to be knew she was pregnant).
Until the Law recognises the existence of a Child, the Child has no rights. Therefore at this point in time the Mother has 100 % independence as to the decision she chooses to make, but the law requires the Father to be to pay maintenance when not part of that decision.
As to your comments about every Sexual encounter being a risk of parenthood - get real - what do you think contraception is for? The Pill is 99.9% successful; if someone gets pregnant while taking it they have messed up somewhere down the line.
Every time you step out the house you stand the risk of tripping over a faulty paving slab, possibly injuring yourself and were this the case would be entitled to legal redress against the council or some such.
When having Sex with someone on the Pill and this is mismanaged you become liable to 20 years of maintenance payments. This would be like the council telling you your injury is your fault and by the way we're tripling your council tax!
Wake up and smell the Coffee - everyone has Sex, though some avoid pregnancy by sleeping with the same sex - unfortunately my Son was not inclined in this regard.
The fact remains if the woman wants to keep her baby - or more accurately allow the embryo to become one - then why is it considered inappropriate that she should pay for it.
No taxation without representation, in this process the male is taxed but cannot effect the decision.
The point I am making is an argument, yours is simply prejudice!
whereisthejustice The pill might be 99.9 per cent effective but if your son didn't want a baby with the woman he was sleeping with, it is not unreasonable for him to take responsibility as well and use a condom (which protect against STDs by the way, which the pill doesn't). It takes two to make a baby so this is not all his girlfriend's fault, nor is contraception alone a woman's responsibility. Perhaps if you had drummed this into him, he might not be in the situation he is now. We are no longer living in Victorian times where men can impregnate woman and then just walk away. Thank God!
If she continues with the pregnancy, your son has to pay towards HIS child.
If she continues with the pregnancy, your son has to pay towards HIS child
^^ this sums it up. It's a tough lesson but if you have sex there's a risk it'll end with a baby.
The fact that it's a foetus right now is semantics - it WILL be a baby. If it won't be there's no issue for you is there.
And if I trip over when I leave my house, I wouldn't expect the council to compensate me if I was negligent - drunk for example. How odd you think otherwise. Though you don't sound too good on responsibility generally so perhaps not surprising.
As you yourself have pointed out the pill is 99.9% successful. That means every year, 1 women in every thousand who takes the pill CORRECTLY will still end up pregnant. It is no guarantee.
Obviously not preaching to the converted on this site but let's try one more time.
Women have been fighting for the right to Abortion for nigh on 100 years, and if I am right I believe it is still illegal in Ireland?
The fact I keep trying to emphasise is at this time - is that an Abortion is still feasible - no baby needs to be had by anyone. One would assume being on the Pill implies a Baby is not wanted, so why should that decision change due to an 'accident'.
Reference to Babies and Financial responsibility would be irrelevant if the most sensible decision ie to terminate was taken. If every possible Baby was to proceed to term there would be no contraception. Termination is in effect delayed contraception and in my opinion no less responsible a course of action than the original contraception. Clearly as the term of the Pregnancy lengthens this becomes harder to argue,
Of course the 'life is life brigaders' will argue otherwise, but their opinion is of little value to me or indeed the Feminist movement in general?
The right to abortion is an odd thing. Having won it there are clearly some that think it is only a right to be exercised by Women? This seems fair enough, and no one would suggest a Woman should not have rights to her own body. However in choosing to exercise this right I think it only fair and proper that having been given exclusive rights to the decision making the women should accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision.
It appears the responders to this message thus far believe the women should have the right to choose whether to abort or not with no reference to the male but once any decision has been made the male should be liable to 20 years of financial compensation to support a child he didn't want.
Yes they has Sex and yes in theory Sex is an action that increases the risk of Pregnancy. But the issue which no one so far seems to want to address is the 'decision' as to whether to abort or not?
There will also be manhaters out there who will assume anything that has a Penis is by default at fault for the Worlds ills. But the issue at hand is where the male has any rights in all of this?
The Mother will have no Husband, has no private address and will in all probability be limited to whatever benefits she is entitled to plus 12% of my Son's income. I believe I have already mentioned she is undergoing therapy for anger management and has a tendency to violence - which of course were this a man we would no doubt be labelling, probably quite rightly, the individual as a violent abusing scumbag?
For reasons that are unclear to me the nature and personality of this woman does not appear to have attracted much attention - almost as if this part of the original post has been ignored.
Where's the consistency Ladies. I'd like to hear the other side of the story - someone asks; is this simply because you don't like the side presented? Does it in someway grate with your overall sense of equanimity?
Do none of you have Sons?
Continue to pen your troll like bile and as you do so think what example you are setting for the sons and daughters abusing each other daily on social media.
This is hardly the best start in life for any child. I would say it would be more responsible to delay having a Child until there is a loving and financially solvent family environment in which to bring him or her into the world.
What say you!
* But the issue which no one so far seems to want to address is the 'decision' as to whether to abort or not?*
Not our decision. Or yours. Or his. Hers. He knew that when he had sex. We fought for the right to choose an abortion if we wanted. Not for the right for the bloke to make that decision for us.
If you think her issues are such that her parenting abilities could be affected then either your son steps up or you contact social services.
And yes I have a son. And he knows if he has sex he could become a father.
Yep. Women fought for the right for abortion. They fought to be able to have control over their own bodies, not for the mother of their child's father to tell them they must have one just because it's an option
This has nothing to do with who has sons and who does not. The fact of life is it's the woman who gets pregnant, and therefore only the woman has the right to make that decision. Therefore every time your son has sex, he is risking paying maintenance for a baby for 20 years. If you and your son don't like that, the alternative is he doesn't have sex. It is not pressuring the girlfriend into an abortion for his convenience because he doesn't want to part with his money.
You were shocked that someone suggested your son could have worn a condom but having an unwanted abortion is no problem? Why didn't you teach your son about contraception?
So you'd sooner your grandchild grew up in poverty (with all the impacts that has on health and education outcomes) than that your son is made to provide for the child he has created?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.