to wonder why men are almost always the non-resident parent

[womblesofwestminster]

Yes, I know I could win an award for most clueless person, but please humour me.

Why is it that when parents separate, it's almost always the mother that the children live with and who has to do the bulk of the mundane parts of the childcare? While daddy gets to pay a cash sum each week, pursue his own interests most of the time and then be Disney the rest of the time.

Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

shallol I didn't say NRP maintain contact for control. I specifically said my XH. So I was talking about one individual NRP. I've never lied about him either in fact I was told if I didn't keep quiet about his abuse I'd have my dd taken away because it would make me look irresponsible.

So what is their father doing about that then?

What do you suggest?

He's involved Children's Services, school, family Dr, and is due in court in the New Year.
Anything else?

He could of course kidnap his DCs - but as they don't want contact with him, that could be messy.

Unfortunately, because many men can't hold more than one thought in their head at any one time. Being a parent involves juggling many thoughts and actions in your head whilst actually performing other tasks at the same time.

My DP (who I think is a good dad compared to so many) never takes the DDs out on his own because he finds it so stressful (getting them ready, packing a bag). He also visibly pales when I mention him sorting some food out for them. However, if I ask him do do stuff, he will do it. But I still have to do all the thinking.

What really irritates me is that it seems to be a source of amusement if I am away, that the kids eat anything more more than crisps and chocolate, or didn't end up at A&E. Its not just my job to know that some foods can choke a two year old.

I really think that when you bring them home from hospital, many men never really think they are responsible.

No. You've had children with an idiot.

No I agree, some men don't take responsibility. Call them idiots if you like but it's not particularly idiotic behaviour, in fact some people would find it quite clever, no doubt - let your wife take the responsibility all the time, and you'll never have to do anything!

No, there are many negative terms you could apply to these men, but idiotic I don't think is one of them. Of course if they were really incapable then maybe, but they're not at all.

But it's shit - it's a burden on the women and it ends up that you never get a moment's peace because even if he is there you are still "in charge". Cereal you got it spot on when you said that he might do something if you ask but you have to do all of the thinking. Don't be fooled by the "men can't multitask" thing though, I mean, how much multitasking do you really have to do to look at the clock and notice it's lunchtime and think that the children might just want feeding as well as yourself? And I expect he manages to drive a car perfectly fine (multitasking) and hold down a job, perhaps quite a demanding job.

amber What's interesting to me about those statistics which are often used as evidence of the irresponsibility of NRP is that the number/percentage of NRP who pay nothing includes those NRP who are not economically active and are therefore assessed as zero

They are evidence of the irresponsibility to financially support of some [the majority] NRPs. That is why they are often used.

There are many ways to avoid paying CS, being genuinely unemployed is just one of them.

Assuming for a moment that it becomes socially unacceptable for Dads not to pay for their DCs, there will need to be a change in social policy in order for NR Dads to be positively discriminated against when it comes to employment

I think we all know that will never happen.

Not all Dads, whether or not they are separated from the DCs Mum, are currently in work. So, if the expectation is that all NR Dads will have work (and pay CM) then presumably that will negatively affect the employment chances of Dads who are still living with the DCs mum?

As I said, that will never happen.

So you do now accept that the majority of NRPs pay no child support?

There are 43 reference sources at the end of the Gingerbread article that the doubtful can check.

amber It's a very blunt tool to demonstrate a point, though isn't it?

It places men from opposite ends of the Spectum in the same 'irresponsible' category.
A loving, caring unemployed young man who sees his DCs every day, is on good terms with their Mum, plays an equal role in his DCs lives and was sat applauding them at their school nativity this week.
An uninvolved, self employed Dad who plays DisneyDad when it suits him, winning his DCs attention with expensive gifts before disappearing again for months, who hides his income from HMRC and doesn't even know which school his DCs attend.

I'm offended that you place these two, very different, parents in the same crude "NRP who don't pay" category. And before you ask, yes it's about my experience - I choose to be friends with more of the former than the latter.

Why would dads living with their children be negatively impacted on in the job market if NR's had to pay CM?

Parents who live with their children are already shouldering the financial responsibility of their children.

Mumallthetime. It really isn't a 'very blunt tool' it is just fact.

It places men from opposite ends of the Spectum in the same 'irresponsible' category
A loving, caring unemployed young man who sees his DCs every day, is on good terms with their Mum, plays an equal role in his DCs lives and was sat applauding them at their school nativity this week
An uninvolved, self employed Dad who plays DisneyDad when it suits him, winning his DCs attention with expensive gifts before disappearing again for months, who hides his income from HMRC and doesn't even know which school his DCs attend

I'm offended that you place these two, very different, parents in the same crude "NRP who don't pay" category

I didn't conduct that study. I am simply presenting facts. The facts don't distinguish any difference, so I'm not going to.

The fact is that both of your examples are non payers, yes, one is by far more worthy a parent than the other.

I think if a NRP is out of work/unable to work, but he/she is very involved in day to day parenting, then he is doing his best as a parent as far as his circumstances allow. I certainly wouldn't view him as a 'deadbeat' just because he made no financial contribution, I don't think anyone would.

Most don't come into that category though, has anyone posted the %s on how many NRPs have contact when they reach 2 yrs post split?

Why would dads living with their children be negatively impacted on in the job market if NR's had to pay CM?

Because, there are fewer jobs than Dads, so if NRDads were given priority for those jobs (in order for them to pay CM) there would be fewer jobs and more unemployment amongst Dads who do live with their DCs.

How do you propose NRP pay CM if they don't have an income? Rob a bank? It's a bit short term - prisoners don't have to pay CM either

so are you saying people who don't have children should sit around not looking for work?

or that NRP's should be given priority for a job?

Work places choose employees on the basis of best fit for the job.
Applicants apply for a job based on their desire to work/have that particular job.

NRP's should most certainly pay for their children. There should be a big social stigma for not contributing financially for the upkeep of your child.

As it is currently NRP's who do not work and claim benefits pay the princely sum of £5.00 a week for their children anyway.

I didn't conduct that study. I am simply presenting facts. The facts don't distinguish any difference, so I'm not going to.

But you are presenting the facts to support your argument that the majority of NRP are irresponsible because they don't pay CM when in fact the 'facts' don't distinguish between 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' - they just identify those NRP who don't pay - whether or not they have the means to do so.

Yes, the % of uninvolved fathers after two years has been mentioned up thread - but again, does not distinguish between those dads that are willingly absent, and those who are fighting tooth and nail to secure wherever scraps of contact time their DCs RP will permit. So those statistics could be used to support both your position (that some dads turn their backs) and mine (that some mums cut dads out).
The end result for the DCs is sadly, exactly the same.

fuzzy So how should unemployed NRP pay for CM?

Unless they are all given jobs, at the expense of other people, where will they get the money to pay for their DCs?

Dunno Frog what would you do with your kids if you weren't in work? Make sacrifices and ensure your child had the basics?

How do these not working NRP's pay for themselves?

So she's physically abusive and everybody who is so far involved has left them there?

Its bad enough to warrant you referring to her the way you do,but she still has the children?

How long has this been going on for?

sock As far as we are aware, several years.

No one is happy with the situation (except DHs ex, presumably) but neither DC is prepared to 'leave' their Mum voluntarily, and the abuse that the DCs have disclosed and their Mum has admitted to is not significant enough for SS to intervene long term - the SW we saw last time said that there just wasn't enough butter for all the bits of toast.

The best that DH can hope for is securing some psychological support for his DS via Court - the family GP won't refer him to CAMHS unless his primary carer (his Mum) is supportive because without her support, therapy will be less effective - there are limited resources and he refers the DCs who are most likely to benefit.

fuzzy When I was unemployed, I received benefits that acknowledged the fact that I am financially responsible for a child and which provided me with enough (just) to keep a roof over their head.

When my DDs Dad was made redundant (6 m, he'd receive nothing. Not a penny. He'd live off the goodwill and charity of his family and friends. Maybe they should pay his CM for him?

*6 months later

But you are presenting the facts to support your argument that the majority of NRP are irresponsible because they don't pay CM when in fact the 'facts' don't distinguish between 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' - they just identify those NRP who don't pay - whether or not they have the means to do so

Firstly, it wasn't my 'argument' it was a statement of fact that the majority of NRPs don't pay child support. That was what I said.

This is not about opinion.

Most NRP don't pay, however you choose to twist that factual information.

That some don't pay because they simply can't, does not make that true for all, or even a majority.

Why is this such an important distinction for you? Does your DH/DP not financially support his children because he can't as opposed to won't?

Yes, the % of uninvolved fathers after two years has been mentioned up thread - but again, does not distinguish between those dads that are willingly absent, and those who are fighting tooth and nail to secure wherever scraps of contact time their DCs RP will permit. So those statistics could be used to support both your position (that some dads turn their backs) and mine (that some mums cut dads out
The end result for the DCs is sadly, exactly the same

40% of children lose contact with their fathers within 2 years.

10% go to court to resolve contact issues. 5% use mediation.

I think there is something in those stats.

My position isn't that some dads turn their backs, excluding the Mums that cut dads out. Some dads do turn their backs, that isn't disputable, it isn't my 'position'. Similarly, I am not disputing that some mums cut dads out, I am able to see that their are many facets to this issue. What I am saying is that I don't believe that all of the RPs who are the EXs of the 62% of non paying NRPs, are contact blockers. I don't believe they are even anything close to the majority.

What I am saying is that I don't believe that all of the RPs who are the EXs of the 62% of non paying NRPs, are contact blockers

On that point, I agree 100% - in my experience, contact blockers are usually receiving significant CM payments.

amber Do you know if the figures include families where it is mutual agreed for there not to be maintenance payments? (On phone and don't have time to go through all the sources). How did they get details of private arrangements? Also, one father not paying could account for 4 single mothers not receiving any payments. Is that adjusted for or taken into account?

*Only two-fifths (38 per cent) of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s other parent

Which indicates that the majority don't pay.*
That doesn't mean that 62% of NRPs don't pay though because there isn't a 1 to 1 relationship between number of RPs and NRPs. Also it doesn't tell is how many are choosing not to get maintenance or the reasons. Not disputing there are many non paying NRPs, but it concerns me that I could, for example be included in that figure, when I have never asked for and don't expect maintenance payments.

My husband contacted numerous agencies about his ex wife emotional abuse of their children - no one gave a flying fuck, it was compounded by them lying to protect their mother.

Even when given emails and shown a text where one of them threatened to kill themselves if the school disclosed something to the mother - the school belittled my husband and suggested he was making it up.

I love to see them suggest to a women she was inventing domestic violence.

No one cares because these things are written off as disputes between parents.

Unless you have been the party to watching a man fightand fight for his children and witnessed how little support there is for him and his children - and how easily court orders can be diregarded then it is impossible to know how badly children are being let down by the people and systems supposed to protect them.

If you have 100 single mothers, that could be 50 fathers. If only 38 mothers are receiving maintence, it could be that 33 out of the 50 fathers are paying i.e. the majority of them. It stands to reason that fathers with 3, 4, 5, 6 children who they have fathered without a backward glance are going to be less likely to pay and will therefore account for more single mothers not receiving maintenance.

I don't think it 'always' is anymore. I've thought about this, I think if we split me and partner would split residency 50/50 as neither of us would cope with any more or any less.