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.

"believe this idea harks back to a stereotype of 1950's women who need a man's support, "

Nope. The support is for the child. You don't get the support just for being a woman, or for being a woman who fucked a guy, or who got pregnant but had an abortion or miscarriage. It's for the child.

And OP has already stated she supported herself AND the child for more than 4.5 years before seeking support for the child via CSA.

By the way, in your opt out model, what happens if, as in OP's case, there's no contact between sex and discovery of pregnancy? If the man didn't leave a method of contact, is he assumed to be "in"? Seems fair - if you are going to have sex, leave a number in case a child results...

I think it's also about the longer term impact on men and their responsibilities. The expectation that men will have consequences for their sexual behaviour is not unreasonable surely?
There isn't any need to get anyone pregnant long term or one night stand.

My family brought me up to be careful because it was "women that have babies". I don't see it as being different to telling my DS that he needs to be careful because " men will have to be responsible for their babies".

See, I can just about see the logic in saying that women have the right to end a pregnancy, and so the relationship between the potential mother and the potential father is unequal, because the decision is hers. And I can follow the logic that because she has the right to "opt out" before the birth, then he should also have the right to "opt out".

But here's the thing; the right to have a termination isn't without cost. Because, y'know, a woman having a termination faces the consequences of having a termination; could be fairly serious consequences for her, could just be that she feels vaguely icky about it all, could be nothing other than a minor inconvenience and a bit of relief. She might not know how she'll react, or what complications there are, until after the event.

So, let's make things absolutely equal. Let's allow men to have the option to say they're not prepared to be a father, and let's have some consequences if they take that option. Just like the woman. They decide to opt out, they have to pick a card, a bit like the community chest in Monopoly, and whatever consequences are written on that card, that's what happens. Could be they get off completely scot-free, could be that they're committed to paying a 20% surtax on all their earnings for the rest of their life, could be that they lose a limb, could be that they have the words "I'm a bit of a twat, so whatever you do, don't fuck me" tattooed prominently on their forehead. I'm sure that many contributors to this thread could think of suitable consequences that the "opting out" father could take his chances with.

Or they could just man up, and support their children, like the mother should, not because they're men, but because they're parents, and parents in any sane society support their children.

His disorganisation has caused the error. Keep the money for your dc.

I'm a bit of a twat, so whatever you do, don't fuck me" tattooed prominently on their forehead.

I heart you, Tartina.

Personally I wouldn't have gone to csa in first place if you chose to have DS without any input from father.

The father inputted his penis into her vagina and his sperm into her womb.

He chose" not to see his son, you're choosing to not take that money from your son.

He owes that money to your son, not you, and as an adult you make the decision - which is that if he can't have his father physically in his life, he will continue to REMEMBER that choice and remember he has a son that he's ignoring. He will continue to support his son. That money could do good things for him in the future (interest and all that) which is better than what his sperm donor is doing for him right now... so my response would be simply...

"No"

YANBU to keep the case open and csa should keep chasing him.
(a) as a pp said: You are both parents. if you lost your job would you be entitled to stop financially looking after you child like he has? No. So he keeps paying no matter what.
(b) did everyone miss the point that this dickwad's parents are bankrolling him with the same income he used to have from his job. So he's not poverty-stricken. He has been better off during his unemployment than he was with a job. Damn straight he still owes the arrears. If csa reduce his obligation because his income is a gift rather than paid employment I think that's not quite fair or right but that's a separate issue, but for the arrear the money is there and you have every right to it. Do not close the case.
c) pp saying that single mothers should bear full financial cost for children because they could have had an abortion are being atrocious and disgusting and should be ignored not engaged with.

Bloody excellent post JenniferGovernment

jenniferGov

I don't much like people but for you I would make an exception, Will you marry me? wouldn't even seethe in my head or otherwise if you moved stuff around in my house

Ha ha,.. You WOULD seethe if you had my company for more than a few hours, ..moving stuff or not.

Crikey ..my fella is not very sociable either. He finds fault with everyone...him being perfect an'alll...Ha ha