To not have expected any maintenance

[JC23]

DS(10)'s biological father never wanted a baby. We were students when I got pregnant and not on particularly good terms. He told me he would not support me if I kept the baby and he was true to his word!
I never asked him for anything. Although I relied on income support for a year to complete my degree and therefore the CSA wrote to him asking for maintenance. He replied that he didn't have any income and that was the end of that.

There seems to always be such a hardline on mumsnet regarding NRPs paying maintenance. Just wondering if it applies in a case like this one or not.

Should say, I haven't heard from him since he texted me on the day DS was born to tell me he hated me.

He was happy enough to have sex with you, so unless you deliberately tricked him into getting you pregnant, he should have accepted that he has a duty to provide for the child he helped make.

It applies to every case. NRPs should always pay maintenence imo. It's disgusting that so many get away with the absolute bare minimum of their legal obligation, don't get me started on their moral obligation.

Of course he should pay maintenance. He was a student, but didn't realise you might get pregnant if he had unprotected sex with you? He's paying for the child, not you. He sounds a real prince, btw.

YABU.

So you are happy to take money from the taxpayer but not the father? How is that fair? I should pay for your baby but not it's Dad?

Single parents should always be supported by the state to ensure that the child doesn't miss out (e.g. Tax credits to allow parent to work etc) but not to absolve the nonresident parent of their responsibility.

No, he should pay.
All fathers should pay towards their children.

Yabu

He had sex with you, you haven't said whether it was unprotected or if contraception failed but either way, a baby is a known consequence of P in V sex.

Are you saying the CSA took his word for it that he had no income? Surely there's a minimum contribution of a fiver a week or something for non-working NRPs?

YABU, btw. Of course he should pay. Why should only the woman face the consequences of an accidental pregnancy?

i agree he should pay maintenance. Its his child, so why should i (as a taxpayer) be expected to pay for it instead of him?

phone cm and putting it bluntly stop sponging off the tax payer for your dc, no matter how dc was concieved, it is the bio fathers money that should be helping to raise your child not the tax payer.
sorry to be harsh but you need to hoik up the girl knickers and make more of an effort for cm.
hard hat on ready for flaming, but the truth does hurt sometimes, and pp have said as much already.

fuzzy how would she trick him ? why didn't he put something on the end of it ? these poor men getting overwhelmed with passion and forgetting such a basic thing like a condom !

To all those saying why should the tax payer pay and not him, the tax payer still pays the same regardless of any cm paid so it makes no difference really. Any cm received is extra and won't alter the amount a lone parent receives in top ups or income support etc. I do absolutely think he should pay though . I would chase him for every penny you can even more so because of his disgusting attitude.

After ten years he's likely got an income so yes, he should be made to pay.

If he didn't want children there were condoms or abstinence.

He's a scum bag. You're clearly fantastic

Of course he should pay for the child he created.

Aw I think a few people are being a little harsh, I'm guessing that because you're doing a degree you plan on putting back into the 'pot' so I most definately don't begrudge you being on benefits to keep your head above water while doing this. I do think he should help (it's not fair that it takes two to make a baby but if an 'accidental' baby comes along the woman's two options should be termination or suffer it alone) but I find it very good of you to hold your head high and do it on your own seeing as he's a nasty piece of work texting you that - I probably wouldn't want anything from him either, financial or not!

I do think he should help

"Help"? You think a father of a child should "help"...

but I find it very good of you to hold your head high and do it on your own seeing as he's a nasty piece of work texting you that - I probably wouldn't want anything from him either, financial or not!

A child has a legal right to be financially supported by BOTH its parents. It's not OP who will be going without what they are due, it's the child.

There is no moral high ground to letting a child be deprived of what it is legally entitled to.

Even if the extra money isn't needed, stick the maintenance in a savings account for the child and they can use it when they're older, might go some way towards cushioning the blow of the fact their father didn't care enough to be emotionally involved.

There seems to always be such a hardline on mumsnet regarding NRPs paying maintenance. Just wondering if it applies in a case like this one or not.

DM was telling me proudly recently that DSis (mid 30s) "Doesn't want to make herself financially reliant on him". 'Him' being the the cockwomble who got her pregnant before revealing his alcohol problem.

Possibly a viable stance if DSis wasn't now homeless, living back with the olds and on maternity leave from a low pay job. (They'll probably bail her out further but how is that NOT 'financial dependence'?)

Another acquaintance often says she has 'too much pride' to pursue CM'. I find those rationales a bit odd. CM is for the DC not the PWC.

Different if you happen to be wealthy, maybe.

Children deserve support.

Why should he pay?

Why is it ok for a woman to decide they don't want a child but if a man does the same he is the devil incarnate.

I'm sorry but no, he should be totally within his rights to opt out of the child's life provided he surrenders all other rights too. If a woman can legally have an abortion or have their child adopted without the agreement of the father then a man should be able to say he doesn't want a child.

Why should he pay?

Because he was 50% responsible for the child being conceived.

Bore off, Jazz.

So a woman can have an abortion but a man can do nothing? Wahay for equality right?

jazzy - if he didn't want a child he should have used a condom. its too late to decide he wants to opt out now.

a man should be able to say he doesn't want a child.

Of course can say he doesn't want a child - before one is conceived.

He can't do anything after the fact, because it's too late then for him to exercise his choice.

So a woman can have an abortion but a man can do nothing?

A man can choose not to have sex. Or have sex and use a condom, there is still a small risk there though, but it's up to him whether he wants to take the risk. He could also pull out before ejaculating to minimise the risk. Entirely his call, his body, his choice.

After that stage, he's had his time to make his choice. The outcome is then out of his hands, as it's no longer his body.

jazzy - if he didn't want a child he should have used a condom. its too late to decide he wants to opt out now.

I'll assume that means you are anti abortion,

I'm with Jazz . OP knew he didn't want a child, she wasn't tricked into it. She chose to keep the child knowing she would be in it alone. Well done on your degree OP