To not agree to wipe off CSA arrears?

[OhSammyBoy]

DS2 (9) dad has not seen him since 2010. This is his choice (dad not DS). Prior to this he only saw him 5 times in the previous couple of years.

He pays maintenance through the CSA. He left his job last year and failed to notify the CSA. Now as far as the CSA are concerned he has still been building up arrears in this time, as the assessment changes at the point of telling them your circumstances and they wont backdate.

The CSA in a rare show of actually being useful have chased up the case this week, and contacted me to ask if we have set up a private arrangement (No) and if I have received and maintenance directly (No), if I want them to chase the arrears (Yes) and if I still want them to retain the case (Yes).

They have rang DS2s dad, and obviously made him aware of this. He has now text me asking if he can ring me, as "there is a CSA issue that he needs to sort". I know he is going to ask me to wipe the arrears and close the case.

WIBU to tell him no?

In the interests of full disclosure

• DS2 is the result of a 1 night stand.
• His dad did not know about him for the first few years of his life (I couldn't find him - as soon as I did I told him about DS)
• I do not need the CSA money to get by - it goes into a savings account.

Men do have more choices than not have sex or risk paying for 18 years.

They can have overnight contact which reduces the payments or joint custody.
They can offer a reasonable payment which they stick to and so avoid the CSA.

The Op is tempted to persue because the man is being a total tool about the whole situation.

my thinking is the same as yours lessgym [smile) and like you i'm one of those feminists who believe in equality for both sexes as much as is possible

Some people use the MRA phrase/excuse whenever they don't want to admit their own selfishness/responsibility/greed....

somuch...'I don't see how you think women escape financial responsibility?', well i answered that in my first post - being payed by the taxpayer to fund your child is NOT taking personal financial responsibility....even when a woman works (which is when the personal financial responsibility kicks in) in the majority of cases she is still in receipt of either or both taxpayer funded finances.

You don't like women very much do you Sugar?

Two adults decide to have sex. They have a choice in doing so. If a child results from that, then they're both equally responsible for that child. The child, on the other hand, has no choice, no responsibilities.

So, in this scenario, why do some people think that the one person to suffer should be the one who didn't choose? Child support is support for the child - one would have thought the name would have been a big clue, even for the hard of thinking. It doesn't matter if one parent is a billionaire, and the other on benefits. They're both equally responsible, and should both contribute, according to their ability. Or maybe just keep it in their pants, so they're not tricked by those devious, devious wimmin?

FFS.

I'll ask again, how is it equal for women to solely bear all consequences and risks from having sex?

The child isn't suffering for not having a savings account. He is fine.

tarka...she is soley responsible....because the decision/choice to go ahead with the pregnancy was completely HERS ALONE

as for the rest of my post being 'bollocks' and 'in my head' the same goes for those saying HE chose not to use a condom/is responsible for a pregnancy/child he didn't even know about or want

.....and she managed to find him a 'few years later' when she was tight for money though so i'll throw your words 'bollocks' and 'in you head' right back atchya

classic!

Sugar whether a baby was planned or unplanned women still have the pay gap, glass ceilings etc. That's why tax credits were invented.
Planned babies still often get propped up by the taxpayer when couple split. Because poor people are allowed to have babies.

Are you really saying that women can only have children if they can support them independently for 18 years...because that is plain daft. Who can tell what can happen?

I'm not talking about 'devious devious wimmin'. I'm talking about an unintended consequence of something that, these days, men and women indulge in equally, sometimes outside of a relationship. Society has moved on from 'standing by' someone you've had sex with, or being tied to them. I'm talking about behaving as adults, and respecting each other as equals.

This bloke sounds like a div- he decided he was 'in', so he's 'in'. But, I think men should be able to decide they're 'out', like women can. If they wore a condom, etc, and had reason to think it was 'just sex'. I think many people on here subscribe to a view that people can't have 'just sex', that babies always need to be considered. If that's the case, then I would question the morality of ONS at all. I think we're in danger, on this issue, of returning to the 1950's, but with the gender roles swapped, which is not the point of feminism!

somuch awwww! so in YOUR head any woman who doesn't agree with the antics/behaviour/attitude of irresponsible greedy women who contribute towards the mess they want to blame on men MUST hate women?!!!

I think you should only be entitled to the money he was due to pay from his unemployment benefits or whatever his income was after losing his job. He shouldn't be expected to pay his old rate, because he didn't have the income to do that.

Buy govt agencies are very black and white and it's probably an all or nothing situation in their eyes so you might be better off not letting the arrears drop in favour of keeping your claim open,for when he is employed again.

Why do people think abortion is an easy choice? I am pro choice generally and if I got pregnant now it would not be an ideal situation yet I couldn't face abortion. For me there would be no choice - have a procedure with risks, which you don't want or have the baby.

Women don't get loads of easy choices.

Instead they get all the bloody hard ones and all the bloody consequences.

Keep the claim open.

because he didn't have the income to do that

did you miss the bit where he is being supported by his own parents? He is using a technicality to avoid his obligations because his allowance from his parents is not treated as income. So he ends up financially the same as if he was working and his son gets shafted. Nice.

ps MRAs disgust me.

not at all reveal, the difference with that is we go into that situation with our eyes wide open and we CHOOSE to risk the pay gap/glass ceilings etc, and like you say there is financial support in place for that. We don't blame the male responsible for our offspring for those scenarios

however, in THIS case...the woman went into this whole situation with her eyes wide open but she wants to blame the man/hold him responsible for what was essentially HER OWN decision ONLY when it suits HER

ohahmisses unfortunately, we can't (yet) change biology, so a woman has more (reversible) contraceptive options, and once a pregnancy has occurred, her only choices are to deliver a baby, or to terminate. (Delivery being the more risky to her body, in terms of mortality and long term complications). What we can do to equalise things is change society, so a woman should be able to have a pregnancy or a termination with our detriment to their pay, career progression, finances etc. This is what feminists should be fighting for, this is what needs to change, not harping that men aren't doing their bit to support us.

Pah, how pathetic do we want to be? "I chose a baby (because I wanted one/because I couldn't bring myself to abort/because it appeared like the best thing at the time/whatever), but I still need a man to help me." No. We should be out there saying "I have a baby, I still expect equal pay for equal work. I still expect to progress in my career. I respect myself, and women are amazing."

The OP doesn't need the money. The bloke is a waster. Kick him in to touch, I say. His loss. Well done OP for being financially independent.

We need to fight for the tax credits and child benefit etc that would allow parents of either sex to be equal. We don't want to make women dependent on men, or we'll undo all the progress we've made.

Ach, poor little fragile pretend feminists. Bottom line is that if you bring a kid into this world, you support it - whether you're the mother or the father. Though funny how it's generally only the father that objects to that sort of thing, isn't it.

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise

I said up thread that I completely agreed with your post, just read another post and thought "yes! Exactly!" And it's yours again.

Thanks for putting my exact thoughts more eloquently than I will be able to!

Good post Hamster.

The only posts on the CSA from men are those moaning about paying it. Never seen one where a man is worried about the moral implications of paying or not.

YANBU. Can't believe that some posters are saying otherwise. The money if for your child's future not for you.

even when a woman works..

Most women work sugar.

in the majority of cases she is still in receipt of either or both taxpayer funded finances.

Do you mean in families where both parents are making a meaningful financial contribution or just the mother?

Totally agree with you lessgym.....i can only guess there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with a lot of them on here

Choosing to parent a child is a hard choice, choosing not to is an equally hard choice. Are you saying men find it easier to walk away from their children? I actually think normal, non-abusive, non-wanker, men wouldn't. Not all men are bastards.

The number of women that have sex with idiots, and then act all surprised when they are, in fact, idiots, never ceases to amaze me.

If you look in any tabloid/celebrity mag, there are no shortages of female idiots either. In fact, there is not shortage of idiots full stop. I don't think we should allow the existence of idiots to dictate our society's moral framework.

The bloke in the OP sounds like an idiot. Dealing with idiots is always tricky. But, generally, I prefer to deal with people on an adult-adult level, and treat people equally, regardless of gender.

lessgym but that is the case now!

Maintenance isn't included in benefits, so women don't have to rely on men. The Op is financially independent of the father as she had a good job.

The problem being that this doesn't encourage men to be responsible in their behaviour or choices afterwards. And you for the most part you still need men to get pregnant and that man will be a father.

Lessgym thought that would be the case. When biology has consequences for men its a heinous injustice which must be rectified. When it disadvantages women its just tough luck.

Feminist my arse.