to think that if men automatically got residence of children they'd leave less often?

[NotANaturalGeordie]

- Yes, I am expecting a bun fight--

I think that if, in the event that a husband wants to end the relationship he was automatically expected by society and law to have majority residence/custody of the children (i.e. he couldn't leave them behind and 'move on') that less men would leave (see the relationships board).

No RL examples or axe to grind on my part - opinions please.....

I think there are two different strands. There are responsible parents and they, men or women, would put their DCs before a career and then there are the feckless and nothing will make them change. Of the feckless then, yes, it is easier for a man. Sadly the many DCs in care means they often have 2feckless parents.

Have to say I don't think that 50/50 shared care is good for children. Had 2 friends who lived like this when I was a kid-teen and both were miserable. Passed back and forth like packages, never knew whether they were coming or going or where x,y or z where. It maybe works for some but I wouldn't want it for my child.

I think rules should be more strict on NRP paying child maintenance. So many non-resident parents shirk their responsibilities to their dcs, usually rather successfully. If parents knew they would be paying maintenance every month, every year until their dc were 16 and that they would be held to account over it they might be a bit more responsible and think things through more. So many fathers walk away from their dcs. Dodge CSA, prat about without contact upsetting the kids, dating again or settling down with the other woman. While mum is stuck juggling bills and kids with little support.

"That is incorrect - my friend has two children, one predominantly resides with her, the other with the EX-H ...... he pays her £800pcm CM, and she pays him £200 PCM CM ..... all through the CSA books"

that isn't a 50/50 spilt. they are two different children who live mainly with a parent each. that's different than two children spending 50% of their time with each parent.

YY to the Government taking maintenance more seriously.

You create life. You become responsible for their upbringing. Even if you are not there. Rather than just meeting someone else and having more children.

I dont think any debate can solely focus on maintenance though, I have seen more children used as pawns in their mothers wars then I have feckless fathers who dont want their children.

The current system fails everyone.

I have a 50-50 split. My Ex lives just down the street so dropping off, picking up, getting things, is easy. He pays me no maintenance, and i didn't ask for any due to split conditions.

My DD seems to like to be able to have a bit (not always) of choice in where she goes, and she has told me she likes having two houses.

I know a couple who haven't split up because neither of them wanted the children. The kids are aged 10, 13 and 18.

They discussed separation. DH wanted the older one (who would be at uni most of time) and didn't mind taking the youngest. DW didn't want any of them but wanted the DCs to stay together. The sticking point was the middle child who no one wanted...

Anyway, the solution is that DW is staying in her long term affair, while DH works part-time till the DCs leave home. The parents have already bought the properties they will move into the second the 10 yr old turns 18.

I know it sounds horrifying (it is) but if this pair were a bit richer, all the kids would have been sent to boarding school, which has always been a dumping ground that avoids custody issues.

My point on the other thread is that the parent who is left with children (mainly women) is left to come up with an individual solution for her individuals problems.

This is not moving on, socially or politically.

It's rubbish for the children, rubbish for the women, and rubbish for the taxpayer.

yourhand i agree about the rules on child maintenance.

i've been thinking this through and i was wondering how to tackle it. would it be possible to make it so that upon application for child benefit both parents had to provide income details (even if in receipt of benefits) and a percentage of both their incomes was automatically garnished (is that the right word?) from source and put into the account the CB was paid into? this would continue for as long as CB was paid for the child. this would be for ALL parents, whether married, together, but unmarried or separated. for parents who registered the birth with one parent 'unknown' they would be unable to claim the other parent's share of the child's money.

there are probably loads of reasons this couldn't work in RL.

" I have seen more children used as pawns in their mothers wars"

who are the mothers warring with?

it's their parents' wars.

50/50 can work perfectly well, but both parents have to want it to work. In reality most women don't want it, especially if the father has a new partner.

nope, its not their parents wars, I used the term mothers wars specifically.

I think if men had to be forced to have their children 50% of the time then the people who would suffer the most would be the children. Then the mothers.

The majority of men I know that have children in a failed relationship would live to have their children more, as would my own ex.

People are either shits, or they're not. Good parents, or not good parents. The good parents will provide for their children and be a good parent whether or not they live with their children and shit parents will be shit parents whether or not they live with their children.

Failure to pay child maintenance is AWFUL and I can't understand why there's not more of an outcry about it. Why is it so tolerated?

Given you don't get away with missing a council tax payment in this country, it's bizarre that you can have as many children as you like and run out on all them.

The social problems, not all of them poverty, it causes are much wider than just abandoned kids too - increasingly, single men are using up SS budgets because their abandoned children won't take care of them in old age. (Tee hee, natch, but that SS budget could be used to help the disabled and sick).

The apathy round this makes me think dark thoughts like 'Hey ho, most of the Government are men' etc.

For about six months I did 50:50 with my ex. The CSA's standpoint is that in such circumstances, whoever receives Child Benefit is automatically regarded as the Resident Parent. That means that the "Non"-Resident Parent has to pay child maintenance to the RP, reduced by 50% for the DCs staying with the NRP half the time.

As she kept the Child Benefit, I paid her over what the CSA said and without the CSA needing to be involved. Shame she wasn't nearly as accommodating when the situation reversed...

I'm undecided on 50:50 now. In some ways it was good; my DCs saw it as fair. In other ways I'm not convinced it would have lasted very long even if other events didn't overtake us. I think it helps if the two parents live very close together; my ex moved about five miles away which made popping round to pick things up harder. I think it is, in principle, a good idea dependent on circumstances.

Referring back to what someone mentioned earlier, I stayed in a bloody horrible relationship for a long time due to my fear of losing contact with my DCs if I left. I know of at least a couple of other blokes who are in that situation right now plus several more who have been.

RPs hold all the cards when it comes to contact santa, decent NRPs (and I know there are NRPs who arent decent) should not have to battle to see their own children, its legalised kidnapping, I dont have a male, divorced/separated friend who wouldnt prefer to habe his children living with him. I have made active choices in who I am friends with though, so would chose not to socialise with someone, male or female, who wasnt prepared to stand by their children.

like i said, who are they warring with if the fathers arent involved? it takes two to have a war.

"In reality most women don't want it, especially if the father has a new partner. "

why do you think this is? could it be that women want what is best for their dcs and that 50/50 isn't?

Santa, the thing is the CSA has a variety of powers at its disposal to enforce child maintenance payments. It rarely uses them. We could go the route the US does of using courts to enforce payments (and maintenance payments being based on need regardless of NRP's income) but we used to do much the same and the CSA was invented to circumvent the huge backlog of court cases. Instead, we've got a huge backlog of arrears with the CSA not being arsed able to deal with them.

I think it's just a lack of will from the government. They could put in the effort to make the system work, but it's not much of a vote-winner because for every RP who would applaud it there's an NRP who wouldn't. The imminent changes to the CSA demonstrate this quite clearly - they simply can't be bothered to take it seriously.

Yes it's a good question. When my ex left me with four children for an ow I was thinking, what makes you think Ill have them all (of course I did)

time i can tell you from personal experience that RP do not hold all the cards.

i was forced by a judge who didn't know my child to hand my child over to his paternal grandparents for 8 hours a week even though the reason for stopping contact in the first place was due to violence while my child had been in their house. i had no choice but to hand him over to a bullying thug who wasn't even his parent!

Santa why is 50-50 not best?

And what would have happened if you hadnt obeyed the court order, he was "ill", "unav" etc, I can tell you, absolutely nothing at all.

I think it because of the amount of upset it causes on MN and it is nothing to do with the DC- the mother doesn't want the step mother putting them to bed etc half the week.