To think you still have to pay...

[ThisLittleKitty]

I've come across a lot of people who have the opinion that if you don't see your kids (for whatever reason) then you shouldn't have to pay for them. Aibu in thinking you should still have to pay? Or do you think that if someone "opts out" of seeing their kids then they shouldn't have to?

My now ex boyfriend was furious he had to pay for his son.
He never seen him for 5 years...he was dumped immediately after telling me this.

I could never be in a relationship with someone who refuses to support their child. I could never allow my son to refuse to support his child. It is disgusting. One night stand, long term relationship or marriage - there is an actual human child with needs brought into the world because of your actions. I don't care how fair or unfair the adults feel about it - I care about the needs of the child being met.

Husband pays his CMS on time every month and has for many years.

Ex-W has, for 10 years, refused to allow him to see his kids despite him having shared care awarded.

When he tried to enforce it, she got her kids by her previous H to make accusations of abuse against him. Repeatedly.

His own solicitor advised him to stay away in the end for his own sake.

When his son turned 16 and added him to his facebook, she chucked him out until he agreed to block his dad.

Under the old system, evey year she demanded he be re-assessed as he was "clearly earning more" as she was too dim to realise it was me that was earning more not him.

Do I think he should be able to withhold payment, hell yes.

The only thing we did, which I agree is petty, is send her the latest three months CMS amounts in a series of post dated cheques of daily amounts. Took about two hours to write them all out properly but at least she'll have to go find a bank to bank them.

The whole system is fair too easily manipulated.

In reality the number of men "tricked" into becoming fathers is tiny. Those this happens to need to think about their attitude towards birth control.

The vast majority of those (predominantly men) who fail to pay any child support are those who left (or were asked to leave) relationships where children were planned.

The idea that "contact" and payment are balancing factors is simply a power play.

Decent fathers don't get into arguments about this matter. They pay what they can afford (including over the mandatory amount) often without any intervention from the CSA. They do this because they take parental responsibility seriously and have no interest in making their children suffer as a way of sticking two fingers up to their ex or through the sheer selfishness of wanting to maintain their lifestyle at any price.

It's still far too easy for those who own businesses to manipulate their finances to earn very little whilst enjoying the benefit of a very lavish lifestyle. Equally true were the new partner owns a business and "employs" the ex on a minimum wage to do a senior job whilst then using the company profits in their name to fund an extremely comfortable existence.

Of course this leads to bad feeling and the manipulation is so obvious (for example a friend struggling to pay for a school uniform where the ex lives in a million pound property who when the child visits then offers to pay for trainers worth £££ but won't pay maintenance) that the children themselves see it and understandably feel angry at that parent. They don't want to have their noses rubbed in it when visiting - seeing half siblings in designer gear whilst they arrive in clothes from a charity shop. Contact falters.

There's the fathers who don't really want contact anyway - cramps their style so whilst arguing for it at every opportunity, make it incredibly difficult to facilitate (changing date/times, often at he last minute, placing restrictions on contact and drop off/collection). But hey - they can then say I've only seen my child 3 times this year I'm going to cut payment even though they have deliberately manipulated the situation to be that way.

A child and their needs don't disappear because a father doesn't see them.

However I will also balance this by saying I equally find it abhorrent when resident parents use (withdrawal or manipulation of) contact to increase payments over what has been agreed (for example if you don't pay for a summer holiday for me and child you don't get to see them all summer).

But a woman has the right not to continue with a pregnancy or to have a child adopted I think a man should be allowed to opt out completely of paying for or seeing the child. But it would need to be a permanent thing and give up all rights
Thats a pretty controversial view , even if the pair are not any sort of couple..

It really falls down where they jointly decide to have a child , then the bloke leaves after years/months though and decide he no longer wants to be part of a family, doesn't it? Do you still think he has that right?

Some men say the they are not allowed to see their children when the reality is they could but they can't be arsed. Men who don't pay maintenance are not exactly what anyone would call loving and caring dads are they and they all seem to follow a pattern of behaviour i.e. nothing is their fault etc

These are my Exs tactics;

• Insists I take DC to see him (hours away)
• Refuses to tell DC where they are going (he lives in bedsit/with GF who they hate)
• says he can't afford to come and see them (and then goes on 5* holidays)
• says he will come and see them if they tell him they have plans to go away/on a school trip etc

So if you spoke to my Ex he will say "she doesn't let me see they kids not seen them since August etc" He also actually believes that as well.

He doesn't pay maintenance and been chasing it for 3 years - i would prefer that he just had to give up his parental responsibility TBh and just fuck off. He loves to interfere and make life difficult.

Sorry I just don't agree with you AHedgehog. A woman has the freedom if she has a one night stand to take the morning after pill. But a man then has to pay for 18 years for an unwanted child. I think there has to be a balance in responsibility and consequences

Well, there is. If a woman gets pregnant, she has to risk her life to carry the child, or go through a medical/surgical procedure to abort (both of which are pretty unpleasant, as is the morning after pill). If a man gets a woman pregnant he's risking nothing physically - he just walks away.

So the imbalance comes that because the woman is the only one taking physical risk, she gets to decide what happens to the baby she grows.

Frankly, the man gets the good end of the deal there. And if he doesn't want to have kids, then he just needs to not have sex with women. Easy, no effort at all in fact.

spiritofadventure

If one parent refuses to allow contact, for no good reason though, maintenance should also be refused imo.

Why? Who do you believe should - in all circumstances if both parents are alive - financially support the offspring created solely by these two parents?

My ex would go round telling anyone who would listen that I "stopped" him. I mean how many men are going to admit they just don't want to see their kids? So I'm always skeptical when someone says they were stopped. I'm not denying it doesn't happen but I think it's very rare.

Imagine a world in which contact and maintenance were legally linked!

HE: I don't want to see the kids, you can whistle for your money.

SHE: Keep your dirty money, I want you out of our lives.

In some American States sworn statements in contact disputes may not include anything about maintenance - and vice versa. That sounds right to me.

Well, there is. If a woman gets pregnant, she has to risk her life to carry the child, or go through a medical/surgical procedure to abort (both of which are pretty unpleasant, as is the morning after pill). If a man gets a woman pregnant he's risking nothing physically - he just walks away.

If she chooses to have the child, that's presumably a risk she is taking for her own benefit, not that of a man she's not intending to be with. So that side of it is irrelevant.

I don't think the burden of taking MAP is anywhere near in scale to the the burden of parental responsibility over 18 years.

The male and female options cannot be equal, due to biology. All we can do is match rights and responsibilities as best we can. A woman who knows she's pregnant is in a very different position from someone of either sex who takes a small gamble on causing a pregnancy. Rather than a few percent chance of an unwanted outcome, that she can brush off, she knows she has to make a decision that will almost certainly lead to the outcome she is choosing. It's reasonable to attach some extra responsibility to a decision that certain and big.

I'm not sure what exactly we could do differently though. Maybe she should be allowed to serve legal notice giving him four weeks to opt in or out. If out, no maintenance and no parental rights.

Or maybe, instead of no maintenance and no parental rights, a reduced amount of both? That way we can calibrate it more. There is no "fair" outcome in this argument, so we just have to get as close as we can.

Missmousemcphee I'm sure before we split my ex-mil would've said the same and my ex himself slated colleagues who didn't pay. My ex-mil has fallen out massively with my ex as a result of the whole mess - his cheating, not seeing dd, not paying maintenance consistently... She has stayed in touch with dd but unfortunately dd can't go and visit as she and ex-fil are both very elderly and have major health issues so can't cope with visitors for more than about an hour. They're the other end of the country dd and I have said we (when dd was younger) or dd alone could go stay in a hotel nearby to visit but they won't hear of it.

Wooly - how unbelievably petty of your dh! That money isn't for his ex it's for his DC to live on. While it is sad and unfair and frustrating that his ex wife has prevented contact that's not the fault of the DC's so they shouldn't be punished for it.

"There's the fathers who don't really want contact anyway - cramps their style so whilst arguing for it at every opportunity, make it incredibly difficult to facilitate" this is what my ex was like - so he tells people that I made it difficult when in fact I bent over backwards to make contact possible inc financially (basically maintenance was going on transport for dd to see her father), since me and dd backed off (at dds insistence) and stopped chasing him to make arrangements for contact, phone calls etc he has spoken with dd less than 5 times in the last 4 years and hasn't seen her either.

I agree op - every situation I've come across in real life where the nrp has claimed the RP has stopped them seeing the DC there's either been a damn good reason (physical danger a real possibility or even has already happened - courts are shockingly bad for allowing violent nrp to still have contact) or they're lying. And in 2 cases that's involved women as nrp.

So I apply same scepticism when reading on here "dps ex won't let him see his kids" - it's usually a case of the op is a new partner and the dp knows their new partner will know they're an irresponsible shit if they say they can't be arsed so they claim they're being blocked. There's usually a huge back story the new partner is not privy to - they're only getting one side of the story.

I agree that male and female options can't be equal because of biology and roles. But if a woman has the right to give up a newborn baby for adoption and give up all responsibility for that child then I think the man should have the same right. But it would need to be done in the same way as adoption. No going back.

Do I think he should be able to withhold payment, hell yes I can only imagine your husband's pain and frustration. But surely you know that this would only punish his children. Children who are already suffering through having no contact with their father and parents in dispute.

So Viviennemary - who should be responsible for the child? Who should pay for that child's food, clothing, child care, housing? The tax-payer? So en can go out and irresponsibly get as many women pregnant as they like and have a RIGHT to sign away any responsibility for them so that the state has to support the women to raise her child. I don't really think you have thought this through!

No, parents should financially support their children whether they see them or not.

A lot of men do get trapped into pregnancy by trusting a partner contraception wise but they could have protected themselves so are foolish to rely on the other person.

I've seen quotes from NRP saying they won't pay as they don't see them, quotes from RP saying no access as no payment and lots from both sides stating they can't work as they have children so a constant barrage of excuses.

We should have harsh penalties for any parent who doesn't work to provide for their child and the state has to step in and pay.

But the state already supports a lot of children of irresponsible fathers. And that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon. Lots of men are serial fathers and pay nothing. I just don't see why a man having a one night stand should therefore be obliged to support a child financially for eighteen years.

I cannot see why you would discuss exceptions . The law is clear bro should pay a legal minimum . The fact this is not accepted is a real problem not the odd situation where it might seem fair.

I just don't see why a man having a one night stand should therefore be obliged to support a child financially for eighteen years.

Because he made a choice to have sex with a women fully understanding that that action might result in a child being born. Unless he is mentally incapable of making such a decision he should be responsible for any child that is produced.

The fact that there are thousands of parents forcing the state to pay for their children is not an argument in your favour. Would you just like to formalise this arrangement to make it easier for them.

Viviennemary are you thick?

How would your idea work in reality?

So let's just say my sons girlfriend got pregnant, you think that he should be able to 'opt out'. Giving up any financial and parental responsibility and any rights.

So what if for example I as the grandparent wanted to be involved, and the mother was happy for me to be. What should we tell little Freddie? Sorry Freddie your dad chose the 'opt out' system.

What about if dad decided 16 years down the line that he changed his mind and wanted a child after all. Who would legally stop Little Freddie and dad forging a relationship?

Women don't have the ''easy option of abortion or adoption, once a woman is pregnant she has a big responsibility. She either has to have an abortion which is not without risks. As for adoption well there is no way that social services would just put a baby up for adoption if there were other family willing to take the baby on. It just doesn't work like that.

Also as for men who have one night stands getting to opt out. Maybe they should try being responsible and using a condom.

So if your idea became a reality a man could potentially impregnate hundreds of women and legally opt out for each and every one?

How many women these days do you think willingly give their baby up for adoption just because they don't fancy being a parent? Very few I can tell you. Can you imagine the stigma if she wanted to do that too?

No, men should pay their share towards their children, and they should be shamed if they don't make an effort to be part of their lives too, just like a woman would be.

I don't understand the 'Opt Out' system, surely we have that already, it's called a condom.

Why should children have to live in poverty because "daddy" is an irresponsible, selfish dick? Can't understand that argument at all.

I just don't see why a man having a one night stand should therefore be obliged to support a child financially for eighteen years.

Err, because he created said child, obviously. Is it fair that the woman, who also had the one night stand, should be left to do ALL child care and pay for EVERYTHING herself? And do women get to opt out too? Have a baby and then leave it with the father, walking away and never paying a penny?

I will never understand people who think men should never be held accountable for their actions. Meanwhile they're often the type to hold women accountable for anything and everything.

It's fair that men should be able to formally register to opt out, as long as it is done before the legal abortion time limit, it's fully binding, and lasts for the same eighteen years.

Women have far more freedom and choices than men when it comes to preventing or creating and raising children, so I don't think giving them the option of not being involved for a similar amount of time as a woman has to decide she doesn't want to be a parent is that big a deal, aside from the obvious administration difficulties that could easily occur.