Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not agree to wipe off CSA arrears?

215 replies

OhSammyBoy · 28/01/2015 12:49

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.
OP posts:
lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 28/01/2015 23:35

But we disagree on what needs to happen to make it fair. I believe it's fair and equal for men to be able to walk away from unplanned parenthood, but I think that wider issues around family in the workplace, support for parents, and female career issues are the underlying problem, and need to be solved. I believe chasing unwilling fathers (who have been clear from the get go they're unwilling) for financial support is a sticking plaster that the patriarchy tell women will solve their problems.

I see that some think having sex is an entry in to a contract that if a pregnancy arises, the woman then makes all decisions, and the man is financially responsible. I believe this idea harks back to a stereotype of 1950's women who need a man's support, with a bit of inadequate updating. I believe we can move on from this, and view men and women as equals- yes, women can make choices about their bodies, but that women are perfectly capable without unwilling men. The problem is, that requires all the real, underlying issues to be faced up to, and it's easier to stick with 'men should support women!" sticky plaster.

I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by allowing the sticking plaster to be offered by the patriarchy.

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 28/01/2015 23:36

There are very few women, compared to men. Very few. That is the scandal.

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 28/01/2015 23:36

(In the House of Lords, sorry. I am shocked there are so few women in the House of Lords.)

Glastokitty · 28/01/2015 23:38

Am I the only person who wonders how MRAs ever manage to get laid?

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 28/01/2015 23:42

ohahmissus I genuinely cannot think why you would think I would have a problem with women in the House of Lords. I have said I'm a feminist, believing in equality, and you choose to assume I would need to 'get used to it'? Bizarre.

Almost as bizarre as the police height thing. Obviously, I believe we need to avoid indirect discrimination in the workplace.

Just because I don't believe men are a subspecies, doesn't mean I'm some sort of crazy misogynist.

OhAhhMissus · 28/01/2015 23:55

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OhAhhMissus · 29/01/2015 00:05

I have said I'm a feminist, believing in equality

And I see a lovely man most days who insists he is a member of the royal family but was kidnapped as a child and hidden. The difference is he is kind and friendly and genuinely believes what he is saying due to his illness. You're just a liar.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/01/2015 00:09

If a live child actually gets born both parents are financially responsible for that child the child has rights the parents have responsibilities.

If I child does not get born it does not exist as a human person with actual legal rights.

Exactly the same does not always mean equal

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/01/2015 00:13

op

Yanbu to carry on chasing it, his income has not changed due to his allowance. He is a grown up who should not need hand holding to give information in a timely fashion.

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 29/01/2015 00:24

There is no need to be rude.

I am only talking about chasing maintenance from fathers who "opted out" in pregnancy, or when first informed. If they're "in" at all, they pay up. So, ideally the decision should be made before birth, like it is for women.

I live my life believing we're all equal, you live yours being rude to people with a different opinion to you. I'd rather be me.

OhAhhMissus · 29/01/2015 00:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

sandgrown · 29/01/2015 00:28

Anybody thinking about the child here? Even if money not needed he has a right to a relationship with his father and by paying maintenance there is a tiny link open. In time the father may realise what an idiot he is being

WooltonPie · 29/01/2015 00:29

I am only talking about chasing maintenance from fathers who "opted out" in pregnancy, or when first informed. If they're "in" at all, they pay up. So, ideally the decision should be made before birth, like it is for women.

So your proposed system would work via some court procedure for men to disavow responsibility during pregnancy?

With what time limit? 12 weeks gestation? 14?

It couldn't be a fully binding, two-way system in any case. What court would remove forever a child's right to seek a relationship with their father at some later date?

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/01/2015 00:31

I am only talking about chasing maintenance from fathers who "opted out" in pregnancy, or when first informed. If they're "in" at all, they pay up. So, ideally the decision should be made before birth, like it is for women

A woman opting out before birth results in no child existing.

If a birth happens a child exists.

See the difference?

lessgymbunnymoregymtortoise · 29/01/2015 00:38

No, I don't feel I've lost anything, thanks. I think you are unnecessarily rude, and clearly have nothing to say except insults. I'm finding this increasingly bizarre, and wondering if I'm the only one sober.

I don't know how it would work in a legal setting, as I said, it's what I felt was right to offer: if you want to walk away, do it now, or be a proper father. I didn't want "just" money. If he was in, I wanted him in, as a dad.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/01/2015 00:45

Sober but unable to tell the difference between an actual living child and one that does not exist.

Interesting

OhAhhMissus · 29/01/2015 01:01

If you think I am being ridiculous and insulting then refute my arguments lessgym. Oh you can't, can you?

RosyAuroch · 29/01/2015 01:15

You're not being selfish. You're being responsible.

Keep the CSA case open, and let him be chased for the arrears.

  1. You don't need the money now, but you might in the future due to changes in circumstances.
  2. Your child might need those savings in the future
  3. The child's father has proven unreliable before, you have no reason to believe he will be reliable again in the future.
  4. As his parents have been giving him the same amount of money as he was earning, he can afford it.
  5. If you drop the CSA case, you won;t be bale to open it again, and your circumstances might change, then you, and more importantly your child, will suffer
  6. Your child is already suffering from the consequences of his father's unreliable- don't leave him exposed to the possibility of more suffering
  7. Don't give in to emotional blackmail.

Protect yourself and your child, that's all you need to consider.

SugarOnTop · 29/01/2015 01:43

wool 'Yes, that's certainly closer to the truth than your first misogynistic sound bite'

it was not a misogynistic soundbite...that is just YOUR personal interpretation...and all i have done is explain my original statement in more detail to cater to your pedantary- my point was very clear the first time i wrote it.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 29/01/2015 02:00

Yellow. Is he not the twat for trying to get out of paying for the child he helped to create because last time I checked it takes 2 to make a baby.
Why is it the absent parent is always perceived as the hero yet the the parent who nurtures and brings up the child is villified. I've never understood that.

sandgrown · 29/01/2015 06:54

Well said Rosy!

QueenBean · 29/01/2015 07:36

FloraFox don't fucking patronise me or put a label on me based upon one sentence

You clearly can't get the point so drop it now

PtolemysNeedle · 29/01/2015 08:09

Missus, you are coming across quite badly here, as if you want to punish today's men for the inequality women suffered years ago. It's things like you are saying that puts a lot of women off feminism.

Men are not some terrible other species, they are our brothers, friends, husbands, sons.

We can't change biology, but we can still make things beyond that as equal as possible.

There are benefits to being a woman and being the gender that gets to carry and deliver the babies. It's certainly worked in my favour. These debates seem to work on the basis that women are always hard done by because of men and I just don't see that as being the case.

OhAhhMissus · 29/01/2015 08:30

So expecting men to take responsibility for their fertility is punishing them Hmm.

Davsmum · 29/01/2015 09:00

Because of being a little bit disorganised on his part, it's like he's now being punished for it

A Little disorganised?? Seriously?

He is a grown man who didn't bother to tell the CSA his changed circumstances,..That is not disorganised - its downright deceitful and irresponsible.
Both people were irresponsible in producing a child they did plan or want but BOTH are responsible for that child whether the OP had abortion choices or not.
The child exists and needs support. It is NOT the responsibility of one any more than the other.
No one is being 'punished' They are being asked to do what is right and what is their duty to that child.
The bloke had a say in whether he had sex, just as she did. It resulted in a child neither planned.
Its not about THEM - it is about the child!

Swipe left for the next trending thread