Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

Men all ways seem to come out smelling of roses on this Issue

21 replies

Catvsworld · 25/03/2016 13:34

Following on from another thread about dead beat dads who won't pay

I was watching a debt collection type show and was wondering why on earth are we mothers allowed to simply get a high court rit and get the debt collectors in for monies owed

The other thing that boiles my piss is now I am married my joint income gets taken into account even got taken into account when having to pay the dick mediator £300 however my exs joint income was not taken into account seeing as he's a jobless wonder but his misses works ffs

I did point out my husband already pays towards my son

If I neglected my child ss and the school would quite rightly be on me like led on a roof absent father usually get rewarded for this behaviour as your not allowed to mention there no payment in court most time and that's cat shit people who won't feed a cloth there children are negelful end of shame judges won't keep that in mind

OP posts:

TheDuchessOfArbroathsHat · 25/03/2016 13:39

Wow. That post is kind of all over the place isn't it!

Whatever you're worked up about I'm sure YANBU.

AyeAmarok · 25/03/2016 13:41

I am struggling to follow your post, but if you mean that fathers get away without paying for their children then YANBU.

Ohfuckaducky · 25/03/2016 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RubbleBubble00 · 25/03/2016 13:47

Sorry u need to clarify your points

Birdsgottafly · 25/03/2016 13:47

I had my first child in 1985 (happily married), but some of my friends went on to be the demonised Single Mums, this debate raged.

There was no reason why absent fathers couldn't be held accountable and prosecuted, since the 70's really, when some LPs were having to put their children into Care because of poverty.

There's been a lack of will to do this, by Governments, it's easier and fits in with Social Conditioning that women are to blame for their own circumstances and Men, are just doing what comes naturally.

Floggingmolly · 25/03/2016 13:48

Your joint income being taken into account (for what??) when his doesn't because he doesn't actually earn anything shouldn't work against you?
And if you neglected your child the responsibility would rest with you, not someone who isn't even on the premises.
What's really bugging you?

Grannyspantry · 25/03/2016 13:49

Translate:

Bailiffs will use force to obtain money for other debts, why not child support and
Op feels her new partners money shouldn't be taken into account when organising maintenance.

YANBU.

Birdsgottafly · 25/03/2016 13:51

The OPs points:

Why can't none paying Fathers (or Mothers) be chased through the Courts and inprisoned etc, like other household debts are?

Why is there a disparagy in how income is calculated, when deciding on maintenance?

Why isn't not paying for a child, being classed as neglect by the Family Courts?

Floggingmolly · 25/03/2016 13:59

Fair enough, she's not wrong there

TheWeeBabySeamus1 · 25/03/2016 14:01

I agree completely... my shitbag ex works cash in hand and pays nothing for our son. Doesn't even buy him anything for birthdays or Christmas but still kicks off in court over wanting more access.

I, as resident parent, don't have the luxury of keeping my money to spend on myself ( not that I would want to - because I love my son and want the best for him ) like he does, yet he berates me because most of DS's clothes ( that I pay for ) are from Asda and Primark

It's neglect, plain and simple, but seeing as it's mainly women it affects the government and courts don't give a shit. So on we struggle. The only comfort I can take from it is that I at least can go to bed every night with a clear consience knowing I'm doing all I can for our child.

Original poster

Catvsworld · 25/03/2016 14:04

The OPs points:

Why can't none paying Fathers (or Mothers) be chased through the Courts and inprisoned etc, like other household debts are?

Why is there a disparagy in how income is calculated, when deciding on maintenance?

Why isn't not paying for a child

this exactly

When my ex showed up after 10 years demanding I attend the mediators I had to pay for the sessions and my joint income was taken into account however his was not he dosent work so he didn't pay anything how is this fair

I can take eveyone who owes me or my family money to court and the court will quite rightly grant me a high court rit that is inforceble by law if you don't pay you go to jail that of course is unless your a child's parent in witch case the law seems fine with you not settling up and I would say a child's welfare is much more important than in paid rent say

Also ss and carpcass reward non paying fathers usually with more contact starving a child is neglect and they rely on the fact the mother usually has enough income to feed her child or go with out herself to make sure her child is cared for

OP posts:

VertigoNun · 25/03/2016 14:07

It suits those not paying child support and their partners. They don't want to be labelled child abusers nor have a drop in lifestyle.

There are two votes against one. so government goes with the mass vote.

Also RP has little resources to lobby. NRP has plenty of resources to lobby. NRP gets what they want.

Guaranteed someone will cry "what about the menz" and another "they are not seeing the child why pay".

splendide · 25/03/2016 14:08

Are you saying that when working out who should pay for the mediator they used your household income but his personal income? That can't be right can it?

NameChanger22 · 25/03/2016 14:09

I have always thought that fathers (or mothers if they are absent) should be made to pay for their children. The money should be deducted from their income like tax is deducted. If they find a way of avoiding paying for their children (i.e. fraud) they should be dealt with harshly (i.e. good jail sentences).

It is neglect, it is very unfair and everyone should be kicking up a huge stink about it. It affects everyone in society (i.e. benefits bill). I also think they should pay a bit bit more than 15% of income. Send in the heavyweights.

splendide · 25/03/2016 14:12

Also no you can't get people who owe you money put in prison. Unless you're not in the uk?

I agree with your general sentiment by the way but there seems to be a misunderstanding about how debt recovery works normally.

Osolea · 25/03/2016 15:37

It can't be called neglect unless we are also prepared to say that resident parents who don't earn their own money are also neglecting their children.

We can't create a situation where two parents are both leaving the financial responsibility for their children to the state, and then claim that one is neglecting their child while the other is treated as a victim.

I realise that in plenty of cases the resident parent will be taking financial responsibility for their children by working and fully paying their way, but that's not the case for plenty of others.

Floggingmolly · 25/03/2016 16:51

Excellent point, Osolea.

AyeAmarok · 25/03/2016 17:44

Yes it's a fair point, however I think the issue is that some RPs are left to do both the sole care of the child (as in looking after it and being responsible for it every day) while the other parent saunters off without a backwards glance. Therefore, neither providing time nor money.

If a parent is doing FT childcare then that is their contribution. You shouldn't be allowed to do neither.

Collaborate · 25/03/2016 18:04

State funded mediation is means tested - so family income is taken in to account, as with any other state benefit.

Only the father can be made to pay, so his partners income is irrelevant.

NameChanger22 · 25/03/2016 18:12

I don't think it's a fair point at all Osolea. Childcare costs make it far more difficult for the resident parent to be able to work full-time hours and earn enough to support a child. Non-resident parents are free to work as many hours as they like and earn a good living.

If non-resident parents accept responsibility for childcare costs in the same way resident parents have to, then there would be no need for anyone to be reliant on state support. Your opinion is obviously based on very little real experience.

Osolea · 25/03/2016 18:29

My opinion (if you can call my post that, it was more an observation than an opinion) is not based on very little real experience, I am a low earning single mum of two and I completely agree with you about the cost of childcare.

The point is that the fundamental, clear cut 'crime' of not financially supporting your children is exactly the same for both parents if those children are financially supported by the state.

There's just too much room for complication whichever way you try and separate the issue of not financially supporting your children and not having day to day care of them. Pushing for it to be called neglect when children are paid for by the state is ultimately going to harm resident parents, mostly mothers.

Flip