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

I always find it intersting when they say that if people don't toe the line they will remove their benefits entirely.

But won't the consequence of that be worse, and more expensive, than the benefits in the first place?

Absolutely, Giddy! I never understood these whines that somehow a person has an inaliable right to procreate with someone who has already fathered children and his income shouldn't be compromised to pay for those children. Oh, he's so hard done by, having to pay for children he fathered in the past and now we can't afford one, two, what have you.

Tough!

That's why I never went out with a guy who had kids, and if I found out he had kids I dumped him, because where I come from, a person, male or female, is expected to pay for the upkeep of those children, first and foremost, until they are 18. So he'd need to be pretty rich.

Quite rightly!

Why should the taxpayer be left holding the baby?

You lay, you pay.

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

I told the csa where ds1 and ds2 dad worked the restuarnt he part ownwed at on epoint the new hpus ehe brought for his other dc but when they finally caught up with him they decided as he had 2 more dc by then and with all his outgoings his contributations were nill

Ds3 and dd dad well they just cut matinece to £1,20 a week as he applied for reduction due to new baby yet he has still amnged to buy a new car not bad for a man who reckons to ill to work and to poor to help with his dc seeing them to

About time they focused on the fathers. Single mums didn't actually get pregnant by themselves but at least they are bringing up their children.

It is an absolute disgrace that 2/3 of absent fathers pay no money at all to their children.

Doesn't look like the tories will do anything remotely along these very correct lines, seeing as one of their first 'reforms' was re-emphasise the single mother stereotype and make it obligatory for single mothers to be back to work upon their last child starting school.

Yes, I got that feeling of betrayal about Frank Field. I think one loon went as far as to call him a traitor.

The comments about the article are amazing. Such ignorace and anger, and they all seem to be from men.

It sounds like a great idea to me.

there aren't many women who register the birth alone - according to Gingerbread's fact sheet (taken from proper research/stats) its only 6% of all registered births.

And only a further 9% are registered to parents who live apart.

So 85% of births are registered to parents who are married or who co-habit.

fwiw (and totally off topic) wasn't present at any of my 3 DS's registrations - exH did them all. I've never once stepped inside a registry office !

Christ, a lone voice of reason.
What a guy.
Go Frank!

Yes, you need both parents to be present at the registrar if unmarried. If fathers know that signing on the dotted line makes them liable for payments or whatever then they'll avoid it as they do now. However, the woman I know engineered it deliberately that they were left out (something to do with a time-limit?) even though, ironically, at least one of them would have liked to be involved in their child's life. She was quite smug about how clever she'd been... then moved house about 100 miles away.

Perhaps the rules could be changed that the unmarried father's name can be registered, he is notified and if he wants to contest it he can take a paternity test? They have to 'opt out' of fatherhood rather than 'opt in'?

True, toccatanfudge.

My ex didn't want to go on the birth certificate originally, even though we were still together at the time. He did after I threw a strop but I know women who have been unable to name the father as he has refused to come with them to the registry office.

Totally support this idea, why shouldn't men be responsible for the children they create?

well that could well be down to the fact that if the mother and father aren't married then they either BOTH have to attend to register the birth, or the father has to sign a declaration (witness by a relevant person) form for the mother to take to the registrar.

You can't just waltz in on your own and put your non-married partners (or one night stand) name on the birth certificate

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

Perhaps there's an argument for a national DNA database so no male could escape responsibility, even if the child were the result of a 10-second shag.

Woo yay and fucking hoopla.

I will never understand why single mothers are tarred with the 'irresponsible dole scrounger' brush whilst the men who left them and their children in that situation get largely ignored.

I have spent 5 years telling the CSA exactly where my ex lives, who he works for, that he is committing benefit fraud and working illegally, everything they could need to know really. In those 5 years they have managed to collect 6 months of payments from him, and then it was at the paltry rate of £1.67 a fucking week.

IS is no longer affected by maintenance payments (since April this year) so the "risk" factor of relying on a sum of money from your ex - and not even having the back-up of the benefits is gone.

Most of the people I know who've had no money from their ex have been able to give the CSA just about every detail of where their ex lives/works etc etc they're still shite at it.