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?

I would rather struggle and have a man out of my life and out of my child's life than fight for years against some waster not prepared to pay towards his child. And said child be let down on numerous occasions with visits and financial help.

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,

They get an option. It's before they have unprotected sex.
If there is a baby, then it needs to be provided for. Children in single parent families have less life chances, are more likely to grow up in poverty, do worse in education etc etc. It's not the child's fault.

If a woman chooses to end the pregnancy there is no baby and no mouth to feed. The situations are completely different.

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

Some people do stop the dads seeing the kids for ridiculous reasons though. I know some-one who split with his partner and she stopped contact because he got a job and couldn't look after their child and her child from a previous relationship.

When they were together he done most of the childcare. He worked nights so he done the school run, slept when they were at school, school run again, dinner, homework and bedtime, she came home after bed-time.

When they split, this routine carried on, he lost his job and after a few weeks he got another job but it was day-time hours. So, when he told her about the new job - she went apeshit, shouting that he'd better pay childcare fees for both kids...he offered to split it with her but she refused. She actually said "How dare you leave me in this predicament" Anyway, she stopped him seeing the kids, shipping them out to whoever would take them, people obviously got fed up with her and then she contacted him and agreed to the deal he offered.

Another thought about linking maintenance and contact. If an NRP loses his job (genuinely) and cannot find another his maintenance will be cut, drastically if his previous job was well paid. Linkage would mean reducing contact - but the one thing that father has is time, and he might well expect more contact, not less.

The idea is preposterous.

Openthe - I can only comment on my own experiences

Your view definitely isn't unusual IRL Vivienne which is why I posted this thread to see how many people had this opinion.

I wonder if my ex could give up his parental rights if he would. I doubt it since he won't even allow me to change my dds surname.

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

So fight fire with fire? You don’t think children need one sane parent who is able to put them first? What happens if you don’t pay? Surely that is just playing into the exs’ hands? Your dad is useless/pathetic/abusive/waste of space....how to counteract that? Either ‘she denied us a relationship but I paid every penny I. The hope you would at least have everything you needed materially’ or ‘she denied us a relationship so I didn’t care whether or not you had food, were warm, went on school trips?’

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

He does have exactly the same right as the mother.

She can only have their child adopted if he agrees with it unless he’s danger to the child if he doesn’t agree with it then he would usually get the child meaning the mother still has PR and as such Cm liability would still exist with her. Unless he found another parent and did a step parent adoption. Which is exactly the same as what he could do

For those saying do I think the kids should go without, no I don't. But I bet you 100% that if Mr Wooly was able to withhold payment, she'd soon let him see the kids.

Son number 1, the one she threw out until he blocked his dad on FB, had a choice between local university or local college. Two different courses except one meant stopping child benefit and student loan and the other didn't. We have it on relatively good authority that son 1 wanted to take the uni course but Ex W gave him the choice - live at home for keep and go to college or if he chose university, he was not welcome in the house ever again.

Funny thing is, we were quite happy to pay his accommodation if he went to university and give him the difference between that and the amount the CSA payment reduces for him going to university. So son would not have lost out but Ex W would - guess where he ended up.

All we can hope is that one day, the kids see what a vindictive *** she is. Sadly, their relationship ended when the boys were 8 and 6 so she's had a lot of time to poison them.

They get an option. It's before they have unprotected sex.

That's true. But if we said the same to women then we'd be denying them the MAP or access to abortion, and that wouldn't be right.

Fair enough that women get to decide whether they carry a pregnancy or not, but they also get to choose to take the emotional and financial responsibility as well, so it seems fair that men get to do the same. No they don't get to choose whether that pregnancy turns into a child or not, but they should get to choose what happens to their own finances. If they don't take that the option to opt out, then the law should be enforcing that they pay.