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.

Giving birth is more risky, ohahmissus. Risks include infertility, disability, death. Once pregnant, sadly, the women's choices are rock and hard-place. Just as well the woman gets the most choices over not actually getting there?

And, of course, everyone outside a LTR should use a condom.

Wow this has all gone a bit batshit in my absence. Ive only skim read as im on my phone and its crap so ill return in the morning armed with my laptop.

However I feel I should point out a massive misconception rtft I did not find him because I needed money

He had known about DS for 4.5 years before I contacted the CSA

(Obviously, I'm talking physically- if you want a child, the choice is rock vs baby, and if you know you don't want a child, the choice is quick clinical procedure vs hard-place.)

Well said, Sammy.

Yes, sorry, we appear to have moved away from you OP.

I think (if I may), I can summarise a bit- your DS's dad is a fuckwit (some people are, sadly), and the general opinion is to keep the case open (which I would agree with, given his fuckwit nature, and the fact that a large savings account may help pay for the therapy for DS for when he realises his dad's a fuckwit! )

Once pregnant, sadly, the women's choices are rock and hard-place. Just as well the woman gets the most choices over not actually getting there?

I think you are getting confused, both men and women have equal choices over ensuring the woman not getting pregnant .

Once pregnant sadly the man is between a rock and a hard place. Its the woman's body, she chooses what happens to it. Exactly the same rights as a man has over his. That's equality.

No, no they don't. Only a woman can decide to use a pill, or a coil, or an implant. Only a woman has reliable, long or short, acting methods of contraception at her disposal. Only the woman can take the morning after pill, should she choose (which, while risky for some women, is less risky than a pregnancy.)

A bigger issue is why aren't we fighting for reversible male contraception? That's something we need to fight for! Not fighting for people who have said they don't want to be parents to be forced in to parenthood. Perhaps, to achieve equality, we need to fight for more contraceptive options for men? (Funding research into men's options, that's bound to make you all call me MRA again, isn't it?)

No worries gymbunnies threads often do veer off. [Smile]

Bar the odd "used him for a baby and then cash" post the reasons for and against are nothing I haven't thought of myself.

Honestly I don't how much of keeping the arrears is my general pissed off ness at him which is what im trying to work out. I could obviously argue it as DSs right etc which is also true but then I am attempting to at least try and keep a door open so if he does ever be less jackassy he feels he can approach to see his son. The couple of grand is nothing compared to that is it. Id far rather DS have a father and no money than money and no father. However as things are going it looks like hell have neither.

Of course men and women get equal choices over their bodies. I'm saying they should get equal choices over whether they become parents.

After all, women could carry a baby to term, and then relinquish the baby if they don't want to be a parent, and the baby can be released for adoption. Men are not given the opportunity to relinquish once the baby is born in our society. I think They should be able to say (with no changed minds allowed later on) in pregnancy, or immediately after birth, or whenever they first hear there will be a baby, 'I'm out.'

Sigh.

Research on the male pill is ongoing. It's considerably harder to reversibly repress male fertility as (a) men are fertile all month and (b) there isn't the secondary back up of impeding implantation.

However, condoms are a really great thing for a ONS as they are a visible form of contraception and STI protection. Or, y'know, sticking to oral sex would work.

In adoption, I think SS would be very reluctant to proceed without knowledge of the wishes of the birth father.

Ie the woman couldn't decide alone to relinquish the child.

The problem is the reality isn't black and white.

My very lovely father to DS turned into a tool when faced with this problem. He saw an abortion as an end. To me it was a decision I would have to justify all my life. Easier in my 20's, not so as a childless woman in my 30's.
He could walk away saying he wasn't the father. I had to make the choice knowing I was a ptential mother.

Having the CSA meant I could prove he was. It wasn't about the money. It was all about the unfairness of two people having sex and only one having to deal with the fallout.

Sammy, I think you'd be more sympathetic if he was actually struggling for the money, as you were for a while before he did anything about it.

Mum can still relinquish, though, to birth father. CSA would still be able to go after mum for maintenance, if the birth father took the baby, but I don't think that's right.

The fact is, there are paths where, once a baby is made, a woman can choose not to parent, but there are no paths for men. Being a feminist, I think we should be fighting for equality, on all grounds.

The mother can choose (as many do, usually not in relinquished cases, though, as they are rare) to refuse to disclose who the father is.

Thinking that child maintenance will solve the gender pay gap is a serious (and I suspect deliberately cultivated) mistake.

I said nothing of the sort.

Did you also disapprove of the change to the minimum height rules for police officers, less?

Lessgym seeing as its men that are so bothered about their reproductive choices why aren't you they fighting for better male contraception.

Come on, its time for you lot to take some responsibility for your actions and your reproductive capability. Its not on that you just expect women to do it all for you. Time to take some responsibility boys.

I know nothing about minimum height requirements? What's that to do with this?

I don't think someone's ability to police should be judged by their height, or any other physical characteristic. But I'm very confused?

Yonic thats probably true. Its his whole selfish its all about me attitude that winds me up. Its the way he just orderd what he wants to happen and expects everyone else to fall in line. I have to check myself sometimes as I was in an abusive relationship with DS1s dad and I think sometimes I react badly to what i see as dictating and control because I can whereas i couldnt with XDP iyswim?

QueenBean I'm so sorry you can't grasp this. It does explain your MRA stance.

I agree, men should be fighting for contraceptive choices. However, there are so so many issues I don't understand how people can not care about (main one for me is women in the House of Lords just now- how come people aren't absolutely hopping about this all the time?).

There was a minimum height requirement for the police. Seemed like a sensible measure, need tallish chaps to overpower the criminals, etc.

But whaddya know? Biology means that women are smaller on average, and are less likely to reach the height.

So whilst the measure might be "equal", it wasn't "fair"

Same here. The biology of men and women is different, so the thing you deem equal, ie both get a second chance to opt out before 24 weeks, is not fair, because the decision affects only the woman's body.

Well tough luck lessgym women are now in the house of lords and not only are we staying but there will be more of us. Get used to it.