If he doesn't want a baby, you shouldn't seek CSA

[NeedACleverNN]

Why the hell is this line still trotted out?

I've even seen it on here. Woman falls pregnant, boyfriend doesn't want it and wants an abortion. She doesn't. People advise her to keep the baby and let him go. Don't bother seeking child maintenance because he didn't want the baby in the first place.

No!! If he didn't want a baby he should take his own precautions to preventing pregnancy. You don't like condoms? You don't have sex!

Jaqueta - what's stopping these measures being implemented?

Does anyone know who is responsible for overseeing the efficacy of the CSA?

perkies the CSA is defunct now the CMS has taken over.

There is an issue due to data protection that CSA records are not being passed over to the CMS so men who have repeatedly failed to pay effectively get a clean slate and the mother trying to get any form of payment has to start over.

I am in this situ myself because my EX has a history of none payment and as they explained to me they cannot access that information due to the data protection rules. My EX therefore has a clean slate and they have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am still in limbo RE the change over from one agency to the next. We cannot do Direct pay - I don't know where he lives nor do I have contact (stipulation of this is if he doesn't pay I have to contact him before I contact the CMS) but I am certain he will insist on this to avoid paying the fees. He will refuse to provide contact details for Direct pay so I will have to prove this to the CMS.

I am currently getting CSA via an attachment to earnings. Come next month I expect to get zero and until they reintroduce the forced payment I will be down approx £140/mth. Doesn't seem like much but I'm a carer and have a small self employed role.

The CSA first launched 5th April 1993 prior to this men could do what they eanted with no consequences. Twat I hope you get your situation sorted out soon does he see his child. Its the child who loses out in the end financialy and emotionaly.

It was pretty daft of you to state "32 pages and all its thrown up is men need not be dicks", then, wasn't it?

I shan't be responding to you again. Tatty bye.

"Jaqueta - what's stopping these measures being implemented?"

That I made them up as discussion points!

I agree with you Jacquetta that the responsibility for having kids should be likened to paying council tax or insuring the car but it should be for BOTH parents. At the moment the State takes on the responsibility without a qualm. A single parent gets quite a lot of money including Housing Benefit so that she or he is not left to starve. (NOT saying this should be taken away but am saying that if the State pays it is not in the man's interests to pay or the woman's to ensure she doesn't get pregnant).

Blaming men for having sex unless they absolutely want kids when we know that male contraceptives are not reliable is hardly fair. Our society abandoned that idea for both sexes in the sixties. I certianly spent twenty -odd years having sex without any intention of having a child!!

Both sexes have to take responsibility and society needs to change too.

"Blaming men for having sex unless they absolutely want kids when we know that male contraceptives are not reliable is hardly fair. "

I have never 'blamed' men.

Simply pointed out that pregnancy is a known risk of sex, which men can avoid (no PIV) or significantly reduce (condoms), but if pregnancy does happen, then both parties are responsible.

" A single parent gets quite a lot of money including Housing Benefit so that she or he is not left to starve"

Not all single parents! And, more to the point, far from all households on housing benefits are single parent households.

"NOT saying this should be taken away but am saying that if the State pays it is not in the man's interests to pay or the woman's to ensure she doesn't get pregnant)."

I think you are wrong there.The state doesn't give enough support to make life as a lone parent without CSA financially better than life without a child (who still needs to be fed and clothed, even if rent is supported). And again: support is for the CHILD.

A PP mentioned before, re: FWB situation, that he was equally responsible for the pregnancy because she'd said she wanted to conceive, yet trusted her to continue on with Contraception.
That "He should have taken more care, he's equally to blame."

Reverse that.

Male FWB suggests a baby to Female. She says no. They carry on having sex with condoms, except he pokes pin holes into them. She falls pregnant.

Is she equally responsible for that accident, too?

Genuine question.

A single parent gets quite a lot of money including Housing Benefit so that she or he is not left to starve

I am a single parent and I was on benefits.

Rent was £80/week and paid direct to landlord so I never saw this. (Maybe one day I will share the story of my ex making me homeless and living in emergency accommodation to the tune of £160/week)
Council tax was £1k/year. 75% in tax benefits. £250/yr was my bill.

income support was £73/week. or £3796/year.
tax credits were £40/week or £2080/year
child benefit was £20/week. £1040/year

Total ignoring rent £6916./yr or £133/week.
take away the yearly fixed bills of council tax £250 and water rates £1000 (I'm in Devon its really expensive here) that leaves £5666/year or £108/week to meet the basic needs of a child. After gas, electricity, contents insurance, food it leaves little else for things like a TV licence. Yes, for the best part of 3 years I didn't have a television because I couldn't afford the £150 licence fee.

That's it. Certainly not rolling in it.

When I returned to work, after rent and yearly bills were paid I actually had less money in my pocket per week than I did on benefits. Had my EX paid a fair and reasonable amount towards the upkeep of our child work would've paid for us. It would've made more sense, I wouldn't have lived in poverty for so long. As it stood I was working for £10 less per week (after childcare costs) but on top of that needed to pay for busfare to work. I would've been able to afford to by DC some new clothes for a change not charity shop items. My feet would've been dry because I wouldn't need to repair the soles with cheap stick on's that leaked.

I have been very lucky to get out of that trap. I am comfortable now but I am not flush. I think my income is roughly £40-50/week more than on benefits. It really doesn't seem like much but that is the difference between being able to save for new washing machine when before I just couldn't and washed laundry in the bath.

VioletVaccine that isn't an accidental contraceptive failure. That is malicious, intentional and controlling. An entirely different set of circumstances to those suggested where any contraceptive fails.

in fact this article suggests it is in fact sexual assault. It is a US case but still... www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257162/Man-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-looses-appeal-assault-charge.html

as the article points out 'getting consent in a deceitful way is rape'

Jacquetta - sorry - only the first part of that post was addressed to you - the " I agree" bit - I know that you weren't blaming men.

I also know that benefits are not only for single parents - I didn't imply that they were - just that there is a safety net for single parents in the way that there didn't used to be 100 years ago.

I also know that it isn't mega-bucks - no suggestion that anyone would have a child in order to get benefits. That is not what I said.

What I am saying is that if you want a child it is possible to do it without a man - and many people choose to do it that way. Society has made it possible - ie Society condones it.

True the benefits are for the child but in reality the parent is not going to put it all in a bank account for the child to enjoy later. The benefits enable a single parent to feed and clothe a child that without them he/she otherwise wouldn't be able to. There is no real incentive, if you want a child , not to have one outside of a two-person realtionship.

This has to change, along with the means to force men to pay their share, before we will get a change in the situation. At the moment men know they won't have to pay if they don't want to and women know that if he doesn't pay they can get some state support for being a single parent.

Not saying peopel exploit that but I think it influences decisions - including my own.

The trouble is with avoiding unwanted pregnancies is that male contraceptives are still not very effective and both parties want PIV sex. I am sure there are men who would be happy with oral or anal instead but v few women I know would be happy with that 100% of the time.

Maybe take all this talk of blame out of the equation. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is or who is "to blame". A child needs financial support and is entitled to expect it from both parents, regardless of who did what to who wearing whatever (or not).

Thanks for clarifying, Chikara.

I think the alternative i.e. the child ends up not fed and clothed is too horrifying to contemplate.

However, I'd be happy for the state to look to recoup its 'safety net' payments from non paying parents using some of the levers I suggested above.

"- and many people choose to do it that way"

What do you mean by choose, in this instance? Get pregnant in the expectation of being a lone parent, or go through relationship breakdown?

"The trouble is with avoiding unwanted pregnancies is that male contraceptives are still not very effective and both parties want PIV sex. I am sure there are men who would be happy with oral or anal instead but v few women I know would be happy with that 100% of the time."

In a relationship or in a one night stand?

If you think about how benefits for single parents developed, it was almost an admission that expecting men to support their children wasn't going to happen. There was a situation where a woman alone with a baby had some really horrific choices to face, and both of them starving to death was one possible outcome. Instead of tackling that problem by making men step up and support the kid, the govt decided to use tax money instead. In the last few decades there have been some attempts to make men financially responsible, but they are still half hearted and wishy-washy.

Considering that there are a number of countries that have taken a different approach- that of having some real consequences in place to make sure that NRP don't just walk away, and that these approaches appear to work, or at least are more effective than the British system. WHY won't the British govt start adopting those policies?

If Australia, America, New Zealand, and several European countries are more successful at this than Britain, why is the British govt so slack about this?

Voyage, I find sex way better without a condom too. I also don't like hormonal contraceptives. But, more than anything, I don't want to get pregnant. So my choices are "no sex" or "sex with condom". I don't see why it isn't that simple for men too.

What do you mean by choose, in this instance? Get pregnant in the expectation of being a lone parent, or go through relationship breakdown?

I don't think it is as black and white as that.
---It is being careless with contraception because it wouldn't be a disaster if there was a preganancy, (both parties) - whatever the circumstances,

--it is knowing it is not going to be an insurmaountable problem so not considering MAP or abortion, (no reason you should OF COURSE - I am not suggesting women should have abortion - but we have fought for that option for good reasons)

• it is getting into relationships with men/women that you know to be flakey/still married to someone else/uncommitted but still taking a chance on a pregnancy in a way that you wouldn't have done when the consequences were terrible.

No judgement here - just observation.

And -HerOtherHalf - I agree absolutely with your point about the child. Absolutely.

Agree with your points too Voyage

I think that the fact that we are discussing it and the government are addressing it however indirectly means that we are, as a society, acknowledging that it is problematic. It will take a co-ordinated approach, as many others have said, to change attitudes.

Men need to take more care to avoid becoming accidental fathers, to be made to face the full consequences if they do have a child, to play a full role in the raising of that child.

Women need to take responsibility with the men they sleep with and avoid being accidental mothers. If he won't/can't pay maybe we shouldn't be having sex??

• the State has to change the way it rewards/ penalises the type of family set-up that it wants. (I am talking sociologically here)

Anyway - I have been trying to do some work and spend time with my (unplanned), children!! Ha! Ha! Interesting discussion though and good to hear other views.

The fact is that contraception and access to abortion has changed the dynamic between the sexes, with women taking more responsibility for any pregnancy outcomes, and also being far more disposable I would say. Sex now has no implied responsibility - social, economic or emotional - for either party - hence the rise of FWB. Not a value judgment, just a fact I would say. In many ways I think its been disadvantageous to women...