To think that men who evade paying for their children are a burden on society?

They get others pregnant but only if they make a choice to have sex with them. This is their point of choice. Don’t have sex until you can afford to face the consequences of raising a child. It’s not difficult to understand. You don’t have to stick your appendage into every nearby woman.

Mostly the issue is not about random one-night stands. It’s about people in long term relationships, often married, pushing off and then not paying towards their children. In 98% of cases it’s men doing that.

Men who are not allowed to be in their children's lives (not the violent or abusive ones but the normal men who want to see their children but are not allowed) shouldn't have to pay!

Same as those who are not allowed to be on the birth certificate should not be forced to pay.

If you want money from the absent parent, then you need to acknowledge their 'status' on a birth certificate and you need to let that parent see its child!

And I know I'll be flamed... as I said... not the abusive or violent ones!!

oh god the BuTWomEnDoITtoo is tedious.

What are the numbers? The OP is talking about the men who don't pay for their children. You are free to start a conversation about women who don't pay for theirs.

In Scotland 92% of one parent families are headed by a woman and I would gamble that of the 8% headed by a man the woman does pay maintenance or is genuinely unable to (as in my Dad’s case he was a one parent family due to the death of my Mum)

This is absolutely based on sex and sex stereotypes.

I would welcome something done about this matter as it would genuinely bring children out of poverty.

So women have no agency and are helpless victims who are easily duped?

I can't find the post, but CMS staff are employed by the DWP

I agree with you, OP.

I also think the £7 minimum is farcical.

The Australian system sounds great.

I would have thought that you would have seen the first 'what about the womenz?' posts being responded to and not write the same tripe but, there it is.

This is about feckless men who don't pay for their children. They are legion. Feckless women who don't pay can be tackled AFTER the feckless men have been brought to book. Sort of akin to comparing a burst water main to the final water drips. Men being the burst main, just in case that wasn't obvious.

Why do men bounce onto threads like this to present their own - irrelevant - agenda? So tedious.

If a system designed to make people pay for their children isn't doing that and isnt making it clear it can do that then it's either complete incompetence on the part of everyone employed within an entire organisation or it's orders from above enforced by management to benefit who? Politicians with secret children? Very rich and powerful people with secret children? A system that benefits more from single parents being left holding the baby for some unfathomable (to me) reason than from parents being prevented from avoiding supporting their children? Something else?

It's not properly funded. There aren't enough staff, and many of the ones there are aren't well trained (hence the person training me not knowing two options CMS have). My experience was that the harder cases are often left aside to allow focus on the easy ones. Why bother going after the wealthy self employed guy that will take ages to get through when your stats will look better if you chase a couple of people new to the system who are fully cooperative? That attitude was pretty prevalent.

It does very much feel to me that the fact RP's may have the safety net of benefits means that it's not that important (as in the attitude toward maintenance, not my opinion).

I do think the "well she'll just use it on hair and nails anyway" attitude is everywhere in society.

Especially in part because people have lost sight of what it costs to look after children. I always remember one woman ranting to me that her husband paid "over two HUNDRED pounds" for his four children. That likely didn't even cover their school dinners, but she was blinded by the 'hundreds' part.

There's also an attitude everywhere, including on here, that you should be grateful if you get maintenance. The fact that Mary doesn't get anything doesn't make Pauline greedy if she points out her ex should be paying £450 not £300. Nor should she be grateful to be getting anything.

Whole societal mindset change toward the issue is needed.

Oh I see the men have joined to pull the discussion into the pits of "this is all the fault single mothers" rather than men who run away from families and hide assets (majority).

I've never seen one of these threads fill up so fast!
This has been an ongoing discussion for decades on here.
Gingerbread is a good source for figures.
Agree DWP should handle it - we should be looking at freelancers and self employed for hidden earnings and refusing passports (which the CMS actually already has the power to do but never uses).

Men can't get pregnant

I don’t consider it something “enforced” upon me. I appreciate, am grateful for and enjoy having 100 percent total control over my reproductive capacity for my entire lifetime.

It shocks me that any woman would want to cede that control to a man.

I'm pretty sure that, at least some, probably most women, do insist on condoms.

The fact is that men's choice stops at ejaculation, women are able to choose abortion.

Men and women know this, they know what choices each party has, so if a man goes ahead and has sex then he knows the potential consequences.

As does the woman, either an abortion or a baby.

Men don’t have to shag every woman they get a chance with. They are not animals either.

Exactly

Totally agree.

It’s not that difficult to avoid pregnancy if one is determined to do so. We don’t have to breed with every man who gives us five minutes attention. That’s what animals do.

@TheHerboriste there is another thread I’ve read today also on the subject of one night stands. Is all of this coming from a troll factory somewhere?

Women (who also should be on an additional form of birth control) can always say “no condom, no sex.” But they don’t. That’s entirely on them.

But all the bloke has to do is pay a small amount of his earnings, right? If he is really feckless with low income it might be only £10 a month. It’s not like he faces all the sleepless nights and nappy changes and the rest - including difficult teenage years. A lifetime of work!

Any parent who cannot raise their child without relying on the financial support of another person or the state is a burden on society. Obviously absent fathers who don't pay appropriate maintenance are guilty, but so are lots of mothers and indeed lots of couples who remain together. The entire cost of raising a child should fall to the parents. I've long found it bizarre that there are strict criteria, licences and tests required for things like driving a car or owning a shotgun, yet anyone who can find a willing sexual partner can have a child with no prior check as to their suitability.

I’d go even further and say that no one needs to produce offspring with more than one bio partner. Male or female.

Producing “one of our own” with every subsequent partner is unnecessary and self-indulgent.

Because the poor men can't stop themselves having sex if they are adamant they don't want a child?

So in a system (patriarchy) designed to always benefit men, women STILL have to be more accountable? Talk about reinforcing systems of power.

The man had an option too. A condom. And to not just shag random women!