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.

mummysanta there's no support for anyone going through family court for anything. There isn't support for mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers either. I'm not surprised no one has paid attention to your dh or done anything because in the family courts truth only has value when it suits them, anything inconvenient is dismissed and hushed up. I doubt it's because he's a father. More likely just because the system is crap.

In most relationships, the mother takes on the majority of the caring/parental/main parent role from day one with maternity leave. That. pattern then persists, even when the children are older and the mother is working/working more.

Dads do not take on equal hands on parenting roles pre-separation. I wish they did.

The whole parenting set up is sexist, and most men only wake up to the idea that that disadvantages them when they separate from the mother.

Contact orders are very open to abuse, and more so when parents lives in different towns/far away from each other, and contact is in 'blocks' rather than frequent. Think about a dad who sees his children every weekend. One weekend they are too ill to come. The next there is a longstanding family birthday party at the mother's house. The week after, a school play at the school near the mother's house. Suddenly, it's one weekend a month. The more contact is broken, the less important is seems, and the easier it is broken the next time.

Bear in. mind also bedroom tax. I know single dads who lived on their own and whose children came to stay once or twice a week, and had their own rooms. The dads can't afford to live in those flats now - they will have to move to bedsits or one bed flats. The children will have to sleep in the same room as them or in the living room (or dad sleeps on the sofa while they have his bed). That's not conducive to children feeling at home with both parents.

It's a mess. if men's groups campaigned more for the right to do hands on oarenting and stopped leaving mums to negotiate the workplace as a parent while they get to carry on same as a single man, then things post-separation would be different. I wonder why they don't do that.

yetanotheranyfucker I haven't delved into the info sources sorry, so I can't say either way. There are 43 sources, so Im not about to try!

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

Well it does mean 62% don't pay, if 38% do pay, then 62% don't.

Whatever the reasons, that is still 62% who don't pay.

What do you mean by there isn't a 1-1 relationship between a number of RPs and NRPs? Do you mean no contact between the adults whatsoever?

If that is what you mean, I don't see how it makes a difference? it's still part of the non payment category.

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

It could be but I doubt it.

I know there are men that have children with more than one mother, I know that some of them 'pick' which ones they support and which they don't, so a paying NRP could also be in the non paying category. Despite being a payer on one hand, he is still a non payer.

Good point grumpyoldbat.

Well it does mean 62% don't pay, if 38% do pay, then 62% don't.
No, it doesn't because it's not saying 38% of NRPs pay. It's saying 38% of single parents receive payment and 62% of single parents don't receive payment. 62% of single parents not receiving payments could be from 40% NRPs not paying.

What do you mean by there isn't a 1-1 relationship between a number of RPs and NRPs?
I mean that in a sample group of 100 RPs, there won't be 100 NRPs. It's not 1 RP = 1 NRP. Some of the NRPs will account for a multiple RPs. So 10% of RPs not receiving payment could be as a result of 3% of NRPs not paying.

so a paying NRP could also be in the non paying category. Despite being a payer on one hand, he is still a non payer.
I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that if they're not paying, they're probably not paying for any of their children. So one non-paying NRP can account for multiple RPs not being paid.

Firstly let me confess I have not read all 10 pages so if my points have already been covered then I apologise.

I've pretty much raised our kids as the resident parent for the last 11 years. I've also briefly prior to my son being born been the NRP. We've also battled in court over residency so it's a subject close to my heart.

In my opinion the biggest reason why women are typically always the resident parent is quite simple. Society expects them to. The law is very clear. There is absolutely no bias in the wording of the law. Men/women are absolutely equal. Unfortunately the law is applied by judges who are human beings. CAFCASS officers make reports & recommendations who are also human. And everyone from your own friends/family to the judges in this country are indoctrinated by society to expect the woman to be the main carer.

In other countries especially muslim/asian countries, it's typically the other way around. Men pretty much always get custody.

In UK mums are expected to be selfless mum's and there's hushed whispers from all around if the kids don't live with her. However if a guy doesn't live with his kids, that's accepted. Single dad's are so rare we illicit a lot of curiosity. I've lost track of the amount of times people have asked me "So....how come the kids have ended up living with you then?"

Take my example. Ex had no real means of supporting the kids other than giving up work and living on benefits. Whereas I had family support, new partner and a good job with flexibility and supportive management. Add to that, I was the main carer of the kids, had been for the whole two years we'd been apart. Despite all that we went to court for residence and I nearly lost. The only reason I 'won' was because ex realised she was going to win so threw in the towel. With hindsight she never wanted to be the primary carer. She just wanted to lose so she could tell friends that she fought for the kids...but lost. A hard lesson that cost me £5k.

So in short why are mums almost always the main carer? Because everyone expects them to be. Oh and also too many women believe the bullshit that comes out of men's mouths. Too many women shack up with blokes who have kids from previous relationships. They don't see them, don't pay for them and have never fought for them. They pop out another kid with this 'man' and then later when the relationship has broken down wonder why he's not paying for their child(ren).

In my opinion dad's who don't see their kids or pay maintenance for them should be treated like we treat drunk drivers. Ie. Socially and morally unacceptable. That I believe would have far greater effect than more laws. If their friends are ditching them, women won't touch them and parents are getting on their case, it would be much more effective.

Niceguy I wholeheartedly agree with that. The one thing IMO that might have put a halt on my ex's descent from caring involved dad to can't be arsed most of the time dad would have been a few well placed comments in his ear on his chosen route of little effort when it started. Having family pull him up. Friends express their disgust. Colleagues maybe passing judgement. Tbf his girlfriend actually did say something to him about it, having grown up only seeing her dad once a month under supervision. But that alone wasn't enough to halt that slide into the feckless end of the spectrum. Like you say, if he'd been socially shunned because of the little effort he was making, I'm sure he'd have made different choices. Or at least not made that transition quite so easily.

In my opinion dad's who don't see their kids or pay maintenance for them should be treated like we treat drunk drivers. Ie. Socially and morally unacceptable. That I believe would have far greater effect than more laws.

Some of us are old enough to remember when Drunk Driving wasn't socially unacceptable. It took a30 years of coordination, commitment and investment from charities, government and the public sector for that to change

There have been some very good articles published that describe it; it's a fascinating example of social conditioning on a massive scale.

With regard to Dads commitment to family - that process hasn't even begun, yet.

I couldn't agree more Niceguy. I think that for every nrp who has no involvement/or doesn't pay CM, there is a whole family around him with friends that enable this. It is utterly surreal. It is a societal problem, and it is the children who are affected. How do you answer your child's query a about when dad wants to see them again, when you just don't know and it has been many many months. How do you say, well actually he just doesn't want to, even when it is nearly xmas and he has other plans. It is difficult.

amberleaf Gingerbread say here that "Only two-fifths (38 per cent) of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s other parent" and give their source as Family and Children Survey 2008, Table 15.1. DWP, 2010

So not only does that not tell us what percentage of NRPs aren't paying (because 1 NRP can have multiple RPs to whom they owe money), but if you go look at the source of that 38% figure (page 367), you'll see that it is:

Has an order or agreement for child support and has received maintenance payment 38%
Has an order or agreement for child support but has not received maintenance payment 16%
Does not have an order or agreement for child support 45%

So actually, where there is an order or agreement, almost 70% of RPs receive maintenance.

Also, taken from the same government report:

Over half (56 per cent) of families where there was a non-resident parent had an order or agreement for child support at the time of the study (see Table 15.1). Two-thirds (67 per cent) of these families had received some child maintenance payments. Where an order or agreement was in place, no payment had been received by one-third (33 per cent) of families (see Table 15.2). Over two-fifths (45 per cent) of all families with a child support agreement had a voluntary agreement only and just under two-fifths (36 per cent) of families received a Child Support Agency (CSA) assessment only. Families who received a CSA assessment only were more likely to be social tenants (54 per cent) than private tenants (39 per cent) or living in owned (or mortgaged) accommodation (23 per cent) (see Table 15.3).

Families in receipt of child maintenance via a voluntary agreement were more likely to receive the entire sum due ‘always on time’, compared with those receiving maintenance through a CSA assessment (69 per cent compared with 57 per cent, respectively) (see Tables 15.6c and 15.6d).

So actually, where there is an order or agreement, almost 70% of RPs receive maintenance.

What that also indicates is that many of the RP who are not receiving maintenance are choosing not to seek help/support via an agreement/order.

Interesting!

So actually, where there is an order or agreement, almost 70% of RPs receive maintenance.

I'd be very careful in interpreting that figure. Bear in mind that you are talking about cases where a NRP has been bothered to fight it out via solicitors/court. It may well be simply a case of more of those fathers actually give a shit so of course are also more likely to pay maintenance.

Those who are not paying maintenance are probably also more likely to not care enough to go through courts too.

I'd be very careful in interpreting that figure. Bear in mind that you are talking about cases where a NRP has been bothered to fight it out via solicitors/court

Not sure I understand what you mean - my DDs Dad pays via an 'agreement' but we've never been near a court?

Some interesting points niceguy and some I agree with. A family member of mine got with a bloke who already had 3 kids from 2 relationships, didn't see them and didn't pay for them.

What made her choose to have a child with this man? It was inevitable that history would repeat itself and low and behold it did.....she then spent years complaining about this but an outsider could see that the original decision was a huge contributory factor. Is love really that blind?

What made her choose to have a child with this man? It was inevitable that history would repeat itself and low and behold it did.....she then spent years complaining about this but an outsider could see that the original decision was a huge contributory factor. Is love really that blind?

I got a proper lynching when I made exactly the same point on the SParenting board a few weeks ago - funnily enough, I was accused of being a man - Presumably because other women can't possibly have that pov!

@MumallTheTime. I read that sentence to mean either a court order was ordered by a judge where no agreement was reached or issued by agreement of both parties. A court order (like mine) can be issued on the basis that both parties agree.

The courts don't get involved in child maintenance unless the NRP repeatedly refuses/avoids paying though, does it? And then it's criminal, not family court?

I thought the days of the RP having to take action against the NRP to enforce maintenance were long gone - isn't that the CSA (or equivalent) role?

The law is out of date and equal weight should be given to both parents when deciding resident custody.

If I were to split from Dh, I would have to concede, head over heart, that residency should be given to him. It would hurt like hell, but practically would make sense.

no courts don't get involved in maintenance anymore unless it's the CSA dragging the NRP's arse there. I thought the point that was being made was that 70% of those with a court order pay maintenance vs 30% otherwise. And my point was the stat could be swayed by the fact more caring parents would go to court since those who can't be bothered, won't. And of course those who can't be bothered are also less likely to pay maintenance.

@Tubemole. I actually think the law is about right. Right now the law only considers what is in the best interests of the child(ren). Not the parents. By giving weight to the parents rights, you end up with parents slugging it out for their 'rights' and judges having to consider that.

The issue is that the law is applied by judges who more often than not think mum's know best. And it takes a LOT for a judge to grant residency to a dad. A dad will have to prove he is a fit parent whereas a mum is assumed to be so.

What we need is for courts to be bolder and start breaking the mould. Like I said earlier, I was the main carer in every sense of the word. I had a better support network and better ability to provide for the needs of our kids. I'd never withheld contact and my ex was even paying me maintenance each month! Yet when we went to court i nearly lost residency based on no other reason than CAFCASS saying "The kids need their mum". The fact that the current arrangements were because mum wanted it that way,i offered her more contact and she refused fell on deaf ears. Oh and the fact that I can't come to any agreement with the ex because she wouldn't tell me what she wanted.

I thought the point that was being made was that 70% of those with a court order pay maintenance vs 30% otherwise

It does say "an Order or Agreement for maintenance " so I don't think it's referring to Court ordered contact arrangements, it's referring to any parents who have an "order or agreement for maintenance" be that through the CSA, or in another way (no mention of court).
What that implies is that there are a significant proportion of RP who have not entered into a CM agreement with the NRP and one wonders how many of them complain that they are not receiving CM?

That's a very odd way of putting that Mumallthetime. A significant number of RPs haven't entered into an agreement with the NRP? Not 'the NRP isn't paying maintenance'?

It would be an odd way of putting it if that is what I had meant, but it's not!

The statistics relating to those RP who do not have an order or agreement for CM include those RP who choose (for whatever reason) not to engage with their DCs other parent at all.
From MN posts, reasons for this include fear of DV, a mistrust of 'the system' keeping their details confidential, a desire not to rock the boat, a belief that its not worth it or just not being interested.

Like it or not, receiving CM is not a passive process. Gone are the days where an envelope of cash is shoved through the letterbox weekly. There is a requirement for the RP to engage either with the NRP directly, or with agencies (CSA) to agree and receive CM in a documented way. The reason for the red-tape lies not only with non-paying NRP but also with RP who lie about receiving CM and fleeced NRP for their own gain.

Despite the advice of MN, there are frequent posts from RP who refuse to engage with their ex, even about CM.

I still find your view of this process odd. Receiving CM via the CSA is a very passive process. I can't think of a more passive process for an RP when it comes to obtaining maintenance - not having to engage with an ex on any level and leave it to the the CSA to deal with. You seem to be framing the whole issue of establishing the transition of paying/receiving maintenance as one where an RP has to be persuaded to engage. That's not my experience and it wasn't me who had to be persuaded forced to engage in the concept of regular, consistent financial support for our DD. I'm also of the view that the whole process of setting up the CSA in the 1st place had little to do with persuading RPs to engage in the process of how to accept maintenance.

You seem to be framing the whole issue of establishing the transition of paying/receiving maintenance as one where an RP has to be persuaded to engage

In many cases it is - there are lots of threads on MN every day that prove just that!

RP who don't want to accept maintenance because they want their family to be left alone by their ex and fear accepting money will open the door to contact.
Others who know what their ex is like and will avoid placing themselves in a position where the NRP has negotiating power through the provision of more/less CM.
Others, like myself at one point, who would prefer to see their DC miss out than deal with the manipulation/expectations that came with maintenance payments - rebuffing the NRP requests (often via the DCs) that the CM is spent on x,y or z this month.