Frank Field: stop stigmatising single mothers; take away benefits from bad fathers instead

If I remember correctly Frank Field in 2009 suggested putting single mothers in hostels where they would have to obey the rules or be sent to an institution with a 'tougher regime'. Nice. How about uniforms

and/or compulsory unpaid work in say, a laundry?

Frank Field is a cnut though. Really fucking racist, gone a bit national socialist for my liking. Talking shit about immigrants suppressing wages, that's why the right love him so.

First take the benefits from the men - it's popular after all as you rightly point out these men are cntus - then who will be next? Wait for the next recession, then they can take them from the women as well...

well my 3rd son has a blank on his birth cert as his tosser of a father (not married)didnt want anything to do with him,god forbid aknowledging his son by doing such a selfless act (scared once his name was on id be after maintanance)though would be easy to set csa on him as fulltime employed etc but for the last 4yrs only sent one birthday card obviously not a great deal of intrest so rather keep things as they are

so no if your unmarried u can only have your name on cert unless you drag them along,and thats if you can find them.lol

on the breakdown of a relationship, married women fare much better than the unmarrieds.married women can get maintenance ( periodical payments) for themselves, unmarried women can't.
Child support, is separate however.

I do think it's become the norm now, for a father to assume the ex and children will get some state support however much he is earning.
And some women prefer that, wanting to have no ties to someone who may be a complete tosser. But you know, like expat says, it's tough.

But why concentrate on either father or mother? How about both going to work and share the responsibility?

what it is saying is stop blaming the single mother and look to the father to support the child rather than the tax payer footing the bill.

In the 1950 you stayed with your dh for fear of being out on your ear without a pennie - and the stigma of that, hardly 1950's where bastards where hushed up and not spoken of and the babies put up for adoption

Quite.
Responsibility is the key word here.
If yopu aren't paying for your kids, somoene else is.
Me for starters.

I find this all rather sad and 1950ies.

jellybeans that is so true, I have heard that countless times too.

At the moment it is 20% of NRP net income given as maintenance for two kids [15% for one] regardless of age by the CSA [if they can catch them, and it's starightforward I beleive]. And the resident parent-just what percentage of thier income is spent on clothing, housing, feeding the children?!!!

What gets me is that if NRP has more children, his first 'set' then get less as more of the nrp income is protected [10%]. I think that is unfair as the nrp has had new children with new partner so they have 2 incomes while LP who is RP gets even less?
Something not right there.

Not sure about benefits being taken away completely but a spot of community service might be good for those who don't cough up .

As for lp's who don't name fathers-their choice and as for some not wanting maintenance; again there could be loads of reasons for this and again-their choice.

btw, agreed re dating guys with 'previous'.

My BIL convinced my SIL to have a baby with him and then walked out on them when DN was 1, on the grounds that, and I quote almost verbatim, "this wife and kids shite wasn't really how he had thought it would be".

A couple of years and girlfriends later, he turned up at SIL's house with wife 2 and smacked SIL in the face. Wife 2 shouted "It's all you deserve for the way you treated him!". Then they drove off.

Not sure what kind of lovely yarn he'd spun his new wife, but DN used to refuse to visit them because his new step sisters bullied him. He was 5, they were ten years older.

Oh, and BIL refused to pay any maintenance at all because, in his own words, "I have responsibilities to my new family now".

What a catch.

I think Frank talks alot of sense. It always used to irk me that a friend of mine hated the fact that her bf had kids with his ex. She hated them and the fact they had to pay for them, he quit his job to be a stay home dad so that they didn't have to pay for the mum to go to Spain with his meagre CSA payments!! She even said that if they were killed in an accident she wouldn't be bothered at all!! She was really nice to them till they married and then it got to the point where he doesn't see them anymore. I think men should pay for the kids they already have first but it is amazing how many people say 'well lifes not ideal what about the new family, aren't I entitlked to new happiness, they are here now' etc etc

The 7% figure is from the ONS btw.

Yes it's right that you're not allowed to put the man's name down. This is to protect men - believe it or not, there has always been a legal obligation to pay maintenance for your child in this country, even if they were illegitimate. So the way men got out of it, pre blood tests and DNA, was to get all their friends to declare that they too had slept with the woman and therefore the baby could have been anyone's.

The rule about not putting a man's name down was introduced to stop women putting down the name of "innocent" men who could then be sued for maintenance - because we all know what lying bitches women are, it was a huge problem them declaring that Johnny whom they'd been walking out with for 2 years was the father of their child, when poor Johnny was declaring that she's shagged half the men in the village. (I'm sure there were a few women who put down the wrong man's name - usually their husband's - but the number of fathers who successfully denied paternity, was far greater of course.)

Viz 7%, it sounded as if you were saying that it was 7% one year, then the next, making 14% then the next, making 21%, etc. Sorry I was being thick and reading you wrong.

do sorry herb - what you are saying that on average the children that have been born and registered - what since when is 7%? do you mean all the children alive in 2008 that have been registered - so even those that are grown up?

I am really not getting where you get this figure form of 7%? not that it really matter - but I don't understand and tired

but in anycase - I was just stating fact in my other post - you are not allowed to [put down the fathers name if you are not married and the father is not in the room - I quoted form soemone else - or did you take the first sentance to be mine?

Then they come a cropper when a few years down the line they find out what he's really like, when he does the same all over again to them.

True and to be fair the men often lie about the nature of their relationship with the DC's and the ex.

Ex is always a bitter, grasping harpy who won't let him see the kids and he's paying his fair share of maintenance.

And most women are influenced by the mysogynist myths about single mothers and nice Dads and they like the guy, so they give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. They're also influenced by the prevailing attitude that children are basically the responsibility of women, not men, so it doesn't strike them as outrageous that if a man doesn't live with his children, they are only entitled to a few crumbs from his table, not to participate in the feast.

Women do not always know that men have children by previous relationships. Men of this sort are not always entirely honest.

No Ivy, it's not 7% every year, it's 7% on average.

7% versus 3/5 of fathers not paying any maintenance and those who do mainly paying peanuts.

What's the bigger problem, d'you think?

giddy - that is just one year though of biorths registered though - think of every year that births are registered

"And what does it say about a person, to want to procreate with a person who ditched their kids?"

so true Expat. To me this would be a massive red flag. Why would anyone date a man that doesn't pay for his own children?

oh mine is a shit he does not want a retard son his words not mine.so cant see why he should pay for him becuase in his words i get fecking dla that should cover it

As Chil1234 said, there are many, many women now who don't put any man's name on the birth certificate.

You are not allowed to put the father name down unless either -you are married or the father is presnet in the room - that has basicly been the rules since 1837 when civil registration started - a blank back then meant a bastard child, this has changed as society has changed but the rle stayed either the father was presnt or the woamn was married - then the fathers name could be entered in the blank.