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.

She gets to decide about the pregnancy which is happening to her body. He gets to decide whether to support her through the pregnancy or not.

If/when the pregnancy results in a child both the parents have to pay for it. He can choose to walk away emotionally if he wants, but he does, rightfully, have to pay for it.

Never had a penny from XH, not for the want of trying right enough. I wanted to show him that there's more to being a parent than rocking up once a fortnight with a fucking happy meal and bottle of coke don't get me started but he managed to dodge the CSA for so long that it just felt like another aspect of control over me.
Thankfully my family and DP (I met him a few years later) have always provided for DS, so he hasn't gone without. I think any NRP who doesn't voluntarily provide for their child properly should be jailed. It's a responsibility and should be treated as such in law.

Very well done on your degree OP

I think it depends on case to case really

My nephew's (13) Mum left him with my brother at 2 days old and has never seen him again. She wanted an abortion but was too far gone and still didn't want my nephew when he was born.
My brother has never expected maintence and she's never bothered offering it either.

NRP?

YABU

Ayeok, obviously in your situation I absolutely agree with you. If he's just making an appearance every now and again to get all of the pros of having a child without taking responsibility for the cons then should be forced to pay or face jail.

I don't envy your situation at all. My aunt went through something similar years ago with her self employed ex. By self employed I mean tax dodging cash in hand, I don't earn anything so I can't pay for my children scumbag.

She brought up 4 children alone while working full time and doing a degree then a masters in her spare time (how she found spare time I'll never know). That woman is my hero.

I'm sorry if I hit a nerve, I think every situation is different and I could probably word things slightly more tactfully as I'm sure many others are going through what you are and it must be incredibly hard. No offence intended with my comments.

Jazz I wasn't offended by your comments, sorry if it seemed like I was having a go at you, I wasn't.
I do think that the OPs ex here does have a responsibility, whether he wanted a child or not he helped conceive one so should take responsibility.
My XH is a different ball game, he's just a cunt.

NRP = non-resident parent.

Thanks.

My thoughts would be that this guy told you he was unwilling to co-parent at a point when you could still have had an abortion.

You've kept your child and sound happy with your lot. I don't think you are unreasonable, quite the opposite.

Abortion is not contraception, Fame.

Thank you for the unnecessary clarification.

My point is that at the stage he stated his preference, she still had a choice about becoming a parent, and so did he.

She chose yes. He chose no.

OP is happy with her life and the path she chose, I just don't see the problem at all. And I am trying, and it has intrigued me (the powerful flaming she has got), I just don't get it.

I haven't been sponging off the taxpayer btw. I was on income support for a year to finish my degree and at that point I gave the job centre the father's details. Not my fault the CSA didn't bother trying to get anything from him. Never quite understood that!
I've been working full time since then. Met my DH when DS was 14 months old and he has been DS's dad in every way other than genetics. We both work and don't receive benefits.

I haven't had CM from NC NRP for 5 years. As soon as I met my now DH he 'left us to it' (his words). He was violent and emotionally abusive so to be honest if he was paying CM I feel like he'd see it as a form of control over us and that's not worth any amount of money, imo.

IF the OP has done ok without it this long, fine! Sometimes it's not a pleasant thing to have to reopen lines of communication with these types of NRP. Not good for anyone.

And I read that she was only on income support for 1 year whilst completing a degree - that's hardly what I'd call sponging off the state!

In this case the guy was an unofficial sperm donor really (sorry to be indelicate OP, I understand it wasn't planned that way). I just don't see the problem. Child is well provided for. No bs from a half hearted genetic father. Child has a real dad now in OPs DH...

And they all lived happily ever after. Getting worked up about this scenario is nothing more than dogma.

My point is that at the stage he stated his preference, she still had a choice about becoming a parent, and so did he.

She chose yes. He chose no.

So if a man has sex without a condom, because he wants to, and the woman gets pregnant, you think it's completely reasonable for the man to say "I don't want to be a dad. Have an abortion. If you don't and continue with the pregnancy then I'm not paying for the child"?

Do you think that?

How many times do you think that situation should happen before the man needs to take responsibility? How many abortions should the woman have?

What about in Ireland or Northern Ireland where women can't get abortions, should the man still be able to not pay for his child?

What if benefits are cut and the state no longer steps in, the child should starve rather than the dad should have to pay for the child he happily participated in the activity of creating?

I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

Sounds like you have done an amazing job despite being left to bring up DS on your own. You needed to claimed benefits for a year to enable you to finish your degree and to be fair any maintenance would have been taken into account. You now work and no longer need benefits in fact you pay tax and so support those who do need the support of the DWP. That said, personally, I do think your ex has an obligation to financially contribute but because you are self sufficient the CSA/CSM won't be interested.

My Dad refused to have his name on my birth certificate so he wouldn't have to pay CM. He never paid for anything apart from a few bits when I visited very rarely. We aren't close though we do stay in touch, I resent him for this 31 years later even though my Mum was never bothered about it.

Yes he is still responsible..

He created a baby and quite rightly as baby is growing inside woman she does get the choice ( I do have a Ds so have thought about the other side)

You cannot make him see or be involved in his son's life be he is still legally financially responsible.

I would though unless you need the money be worried about opening up a can of worms 10 years later.

but because you are self sufficient the CSA/CSM won't be interested.

why won't they be interested? RP income has nothing to do with maintenance.

Pen that's not how the system works in the UK.

Aye it isn't? I honestly thought child maintenance wasn't included in benefits calculations. Sorry.

Yes, he should be supporting his child.

And men do have a choice, it just comes earlier in the process: they can choose to take the chance they'll become a father when they don't want to be one by engaging in sex. (Why you should only sleep with people you truly like.)

The final decision, should a baby be conceived after engaging in sex, must belong to the woman. Why? Because the potential baby is in her body. Her body. Not his. His choice was already made, i.e., the choice to take the chance. Her choice has him following through with the chance he took, or deciding that she herself isn't ready and terminating.

OP my DH is also my DD's dad in every way other than genetics and I do think this makes a difference to the status quo. We are not by any means wealthy but in a similar financial situation to other families I know. We don't want the CM even if it would 'help' financially as our DD is well provided for by us both.

So if a man has sex without a condom, because he wants to, and the woman gets pregnant, you think it's completely reasonable for the man to say "I don't want to be a dad. Have an abortion. If you don't and continue with the pregnancy then I'm not paying for the child"?

You make this sound like rape not consensual sex. If a man and woman have sex without discussion about potential pregnancy as an option you've entered into a big old grey area there.

Do you think that?

No. You made up a random horrible sounding rape like scenario to back up your agenda.

How many times do you think that situation should happen before the man needs to take responsibility? How many abortions should the woman have?

Did you take a class in being obnoxious or is it a genetic skill? Is contraception all of a sudden a one way street?

What about in Ireland or Northern Ireland where women can't get abortions, should the man still be able to not pay for his child?

Not applicable to this scenario. That women in 2016 in these countries still don't have the right to choose is abhorrent.

What if benefits are cut and the state no longer steps in, the child should starve rather than the dad should have to pay for the child he happily participated in the activity of creating?

This child is being provided for. Haven't you read the full thread? This child has a dad.

I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

Interested or ready to pounce and tell me how I'm so wrong and anti feminist because I have different opinions that clash with your dogmas?

Pen Maintenance isn't taken into account when calculating benefits, because it's not reliable enough and so many men don't bother to pay. It used to be, but it caused so many children to live in poverty because the NRP didn't pay it. Until the CMS starts properly enforcing payment of CM, on time, every month, at a level that is enough to sustain a child (or 50%) then it can't be included in benefits assessments.

Obviously there is very little appetite to do this, as policy makers are mostly men, and men, as a class, benefit from this arrangement as the NRPs (who are 95% men) can keep their money for themselves. It's easier to give single mothers benefits, and then bash them for being feckless scroungers.