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.

CM is about the child. You might feel guilt at accepting CM but your child needs to eat etc and deserves support from both parents. Accepting CM is not about greed. If it were, the parent receiving it would have money left over.

Of course he should pay maintenance towards his own child

It's not about it being fair or not it's biology it's does not happen this way to punish men and as women will carry the child it is her decision and only hers should she wish to continue with the pregnancy

Once a child is born the child is the responsibility of both parents

Fame where on earth does rape come into it .

I said sex, not rape. Sex without a condom. I'm sure you've heard of lots of men who would rather have sex without a condom because it "feels better".

That's their choice (if the woman agrees, obviously). But they run the risk of fathering a child that, legally, they are responsible for.

But I see you have no answers. Didn't think you would have.

Wow I answered every point. What did you read!?

A woman must consent to unprotected sex. Without consent it is rape. With consent it is a joint responsibility.

But if there is an acting father who is not genetic and the genetic one is NC then surely the child is provided for? I appreciate that many single parents may have to go down the CM route to ensure their DC is fed, clothed etc but not necessarily if there is a step-parent what takes on that role willingly?

I remember when I was a newly single mum I had a friend who didn't want the genetic Dad to pay CM and didn't get it. Since meeting my DH and seeing him be a better Dad to my DD than her genetic Dad ever was/could be I totally got it.

The OP is happy with this set up. Why should she have ask for CM when she doesn't want to?

Step-parent that not what

With consent it is a joint responsibility.

But yet, you think that only the woman is responsible for providing for the child if the man doesn't want it. Why is that, Fame?

Of course fathers should pay maintenance. If an individual woman choses not to pursue a claim that is up to her but men shouldn't just be able to opt out. Those who think they should are saying that a man's right to consequence free sex is more important than a child's right to be supported. What an abhorrent view.

She shouldn't "have to ask". It should be paid automatically by the father. If she doesn't need or want it, it can be saved for the child. It's money the child is legally entitled to.

i hadn't realised that maintenance wasn't taken into account with benefits. this seems wrong to me. If a father is earning then they should be paying for their child, not taxpayers who probably don't even know the child and had no involvement or choice in bringing it into the world.

Many people have enough trouble providing for their own children, they shouldn't have to pay for other people's too (unless of course they are ill/disabled/fallen on bad times through no fault of their own)

That is not the situation.

In this case OP doesn't want to persue it.

Would you ever just read the whole thread please!

Indeed dreaming, but for as long as we have people willing to excuse men not paying for their own children, and a system that seems to tacitly condones it, the alternative will be children living in poverty. So benefits are needed to stop the children being hungry and homeless.

We can't change one without the other.

Fame I have no idea what posts you're reading.

OP doesn't want to pursue it. She shouldn't have to "pursue it". It should have been automatically paid by the father because it's his responsibility.

I'm not a big fan of 'should'. It's very personal to the person saying it, so largely irrelevant.

You obviously feel strongly about this, and that's ok, but it doesn't mean that you're absolutely right on this occasion.

Anyway I've got a happy life so I'm going to remove myself from all this negativity and go live it.

I wish the OP all the best. I personally think you are admirable that you have designed a lovely life for yourself and didn't let this experience with this guy taint your whole future. I think you should do exactly what you feel you should do which is what you have done so, well done! I hazard a guess you've had a much happier 10 years then you would've done chasing a man for money you don't need to pay for a child that he didn't want.

Good luck for the future.

BUT if that person isn't responsible (in every sense) and a step-father takes on that responsibility... that family may make the decision not to pursue it.

It could be problematic that in not being an automatic payment there could be a knock-on effect of absolving some fathers of this duty... but I do think the mother has a right to choose not to pursue CM. Not pursuing CM doesn't necessarily mean a child is going without!

If the genetic father is "getting away with it"... well OK. A score doesn't always have to be kept. We get to be the parent that our in our child's life and watch our DC grow and thrive - fair pay-off IMHO.

This is my experience anyway, and I think it chimes with the OP's.

And everything fame said, more succinctly then me

Are not our, than not then. Doh!

Op if you don't want or need maintenance then that's up to you.

I think it would be lovely if DH officially adopted your dd.

However men should pay towards children they create, I always thought it wasn't fair that women holds all the cards. However the child never asked to be born and he/she needs to be taken care of.

We get to be the parent that our in our child's life and watch our DC grow and thrive - fair pay-off IMHO

I think this is a problematic view - I don't think you are wrong but it's easy to say this when you're not the one finding childcare for 3 children to work your poorly paid job, or struggling to find the school trip money or finding yourself sobbing at 10pm knowing you can't afford to replace the too-small school shoes. Can't be much fun being the child with mum stressed like that all the time. It is also very hard to keep the bitterness at bay when your ex gets off Scott-free.

i hadn't realised that maintenance wasn't taken into account with benefits. this seems wrong to me. If a father is earning then they should be paying for their child, not taxpayers who probably don't even know the child and had no involvement or choice in bringing it into the world

It is more wrong that single mums were left without money for weeks on end whilst the benefit system caught up with changes in maintenance payments.

And please remember that the majority of single parents work and are therefore tax payers themselves.

In a general sense, the extent to which absent farthers in our society fail to help pay for or support children they create is a massive transfer of wealth from women to men. This has all sorts of knock on effects for society, but it's a pretty abstract chain of reason.

On a more personal level I think you are letting your child down not fighting, at least a bit, for the resources he is legally entitled to. Even if you can manage without the maintenance day-to-day, saved up it would provide capital that likely would significantly improve his life after college.

You got income support whilst doing your degree?! I wasn't entitled to it apparently totally misses the point

That was years ago so I'm sure things have changed!